An Examination of Mock Jurors’ Judgments in Familiar Identification Cases

The present studies examined jurors’ perceptions of “familiar” identifications—that is, identifications where an eyewitness espouses prior exposure to the perpetrator. In two studies, undergraduate mock jurors (total N = 760) read a criminal case vignette that manipulated whether the eyewitness claimed to have prior exposure to the perpetrator (and how much). Study 1 additionally manipulated the eyewitness’ subsequent lineup identification confidence level, finding that confidence (but not familiarity) increased participants’ beliefs in guilt and identification accuracy. Study 2 employed a stronger familiarity manipulation while additionally manipulating how long before the crime the prior exposure occurred and the viewing conditions during the crime. Results indicated that this stronger familiar identification was perceived as more accurate and indicative of guilt than the stranger identification, but only in cases of minimal prior exposure. And while viewing conditions independently affected legal judgments, it rarely moderated these familiarity effects. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed

A survey of potential jurors\u27 perceptions of interrogations and confessions

© 2018 American Psychological Association. Confessions represent one of the most influential types of evidence, and research has shown that mock jurors often fail to dismiss unreliable confession evidence. However, recent studies suggest that jurors might believe in the false confession phenomenon more than they once did. One possible reason for this could be increased publicity regarding false confession cases. To assess this possibility, we administered an extensive online survey to a sample of potential jurors in the United States from 11 universities and Amazon Mechanical Turk. Perceptions of confession behaviors (as related to others and oneself), Miranda waivers, interrogation methods, dispositional risk factors, and confession admissibility and evidentiary weight were assessed, in addition to respondents\u27 self-reported crime-media activity and familiarity with disputed confession cases. Respondents\u27 perceptions were generally consistent with empirical research findings. Respondents believed suspects do not understand their Miranda rights; gauged interrogation tactics usage relatively accurately; viewed psychologically coercive tactics as coercive and more likely to result in false, rather than true, confessions; and recognized that confessions elicited via coercive measures should be inadmissible as evidence in court. However, respondents\u27 perceptions did not align with research on interrogation length, and respondents did not fully appreciate the risk youth poses in interrogations. Moreover, being familiar with disputed confession cases resulted in more negative views of interrogations and confessions. Overall, potential jurors are seemingly more cognizant of false confessions and the tactics that elicit them than in the past, and evidence suggests that media outlets can be used to promote interrogation and confession knowledge

Juror Perceptions of Intoxicated Suspects’ Interrogation-Related Behaviors

© 2019 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology. Alcohol-intoxicated suspects’ confessions are admissible in U.S. courts; however, it is unknown how jurors evaluate such confessions. Study 1 assessed potential jurors’ perceptions of intoxication in interrogative contexts. Many respondents were unaware that questioning intoxicated suspects and presenting subsequent confessions in court are legal, and respondents generally reported they would rely less on intoxicated than sober confessions. In Study 2, potential jurors read a case about a defendant who had confessed or not while sober or intoxicated. Participants who read about an intoxicated defendant perceived the interrogation as more inappropriate and the defendant as more cognitively impaired than did participants who read about a sober defendant, and as a result, they were less likely to convict. Furthermore, intoxicated confessions influenced conviction decisions to a lesser extent than did sober confessions. Findings suggest that investigators might consider abstaining from interrogating intoxicated suspects or else risk jurors finding confessions unconvincing in court