1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Law and Social Science
  4. Volume 15, 2019
  5. Article

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volume 15, 2019

On Juror Decision Making: An Empathic Inquiry

Abstract

This review examines the workings of jurors deciding criminal cases. It seeks not to commend or condemn jury decision making but rather to offer an empathic exploration of the task that jurors face in exercising their fact-finding duty. Reconstructing criminal events in the courtroom amounts to a difficult feat under the best of circumstances. The task becomes especially complicated under the taxing conditions of criminal adjudication: the often substandard evidence presented in court; the paucity of the investigative record; types of evidence that are difficult to decipher; the unruly decision-making environment of the courtroom; and mental gymnastics required to meet the normative demands of criminal adjudication. The critical spotlight is directed not at the jurors but at the conditions under which we expect them to fulfill their duty and at the unverified reverence in which their verdicts are held. The article concludes with a set of recommendations designed to assist our fact-finders in meeting the societal expectations of this solemn task.

Keyword(s): coherence-based reasoning, criminal adjudication, juries, juror decision making, law, psychology
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042658
2019-10-13
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/15/1/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042658.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042658&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abramson JB. 2000. We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  2. Abshire J, Bornstein BH. 2003. Juror sensitivity to the cross-race effect. Law Hum. Behav. 27:471–80
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson CA, Lepper MR, Ross L 1980. Perseverance of social theories: the role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 39:1037–49
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Appleby SC, Hasel LE, Kassin SM 2013. Police-induced confessions: an empirical analysis of their content and impact. Psychol. Crime Law 19:2111–28
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Applegate JS. 1989. Witness preparation. Tex. Law Rev. 68:277–352
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Ball D. 2003. Theater Tips and Strategies for Jury Trials Boulder, CO: Natl. Inst. Trial Advocacy. , 3rd ed..
  7. Bartlett FC. 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  8. Bell BE, Loftus EF. 1988. Degree of detail of eyewitness testimony and mock juror judgments. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 18:141171–92
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bennett WL, Feldman MS. 1981. Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom: Justice and Judgment in American Culture New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
  10. Berman GL, Cutler BL. 1996. Effects of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony on mock-juror decision making. J. Appl. Psychol. 81:170–77
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Blackstone W. 1791. Commentaries on the Laws of England 3 Oxford, UK: Clarendon
  12. Bodenhausen GV, Sheppard LA, Kramer GP 1994. Negative affect and social judgment: the differential impact of anger and sadness. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 24:45–62
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bond CF, DePaulo BM. 2006. Accuracy of deception judgments. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 10:214–34
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bornstein BH, Greene E. 2017. The Jury Under Fire: Myth, Controversy, and Reform Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  15. Bower GH, Black JB, Turner TJ 1979. Scripts in memory for text. Cogn. Psychol. 11:2177–220
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83 1963.
  17. Brainerd CJ, Reyna VF. 2002. Fuzzy-trace theory and false memory. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 11:164–69
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Brewer N, Burke A. 2002. Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law Hum. Behav. 26:353–64
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Brewer N, Hupfeld RM. 2004. Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and witness group identity on mock-juror judgments. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34:493–513
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Bright DA, Goodman-Delahunty J. 2004. The influence of gruesome verbal evidence on mock juror verdicts. Psychiatry Psychol. Law 11:154–66
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Burns RP. 2015. Some limitations of experimental psychologists’ criticisms of the American trial. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 90:899–925
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Charman SD, Carol RN, Schwartz SL 2018. The effect of biased lineup instructions on eyewitness identification confidence. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 32:3287–97
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Chen S, Chaiken S. 1999. The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology S Chaiken, Y Trope 73–96 New York: Guilford
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Costanzo M, Shaked-Schroer N, Vinson K 2010. Juror beliefs about police interrogations, false confessions, and expert testimony. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 7:231–47
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Crano WD, Prislin R. 2006. Attitudes and persuasion. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57:345–74
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Cush RK, Goodman-Delahunty JG. 2006. The influence of limiting instructions on processing and judgments of emotionally evocative evidence. Psychiatry Psychol. Law 13:110–23
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Cutler BL, Penrod SD, Dexter HR 1990. Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law Hum. Behav. 14:185–91
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Cutler BL, Penrod SD, Martens TK 1987. The reliability of eyewitness identification: the role of system and estimator variables. Law Hum. Behav. 11:233–58
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Damasio AR. 1994. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain New York: Putnam
  30. Devine DJ. 2012. Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science New York: NYU Press
  31. Devine DJ, Buddenbaum J, Houp S, Stolle DP, Studebaker N 2007. Deliberation quality: a preliminary examination in criminal juries. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 4:273–303
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Devine DJ, Kelly CE. 2015. Life or death: an examination of jury sentencing with the Capital Jury Project database. Psychol. Public Policy Law 21:4393–406
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Diamond SS, Rose MR. 2018. The contemporary American jury. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 14:239–58
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Douglas KS, Lyon DR, Ogloff JRP 1997. The impact of graphic photographic evidence on mock jurors’ decisions in a murder trial: Probative or prejudicial?. Law Hum. Behav. 21:485–501
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Douglass AB, Neuschatz JS, Imrich J, Wilkinson M 2010. Does post-identification feedback affect evaluations of eyewitness testimony and identification procedures?. Law Hum. Behav. 34:282–94
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Drivdahl SB, Zaragoza MS. 2001. The role of perceptual elaboration and individual differences in the creation of false memories for suggested events. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 15:265–81
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Drizin SA, Leo RA. 2004. The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. N.C. Law Rev. 82:891–1007
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Eberhardt JL. 2019. Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See, Think, and Do New York: Viking
  39. Edwards JR. 1991. Person-Job Fit: A Conceptual Integration, Literature Review, and Methodological Critique New York: John Wiley & Sons
  40. Engel C, Glöckner A. 2013. Role‐induced bias in court: an experimental analysis. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 26:272–84
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Evans JStBT 1984. Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning. Br. J. Psychol. 75:451–68
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Evans K. 2010. The Common Sense Rule of Trial Advocacy St. Paul: West
  43. Feigenson N. 2016. Jurors’ emotions and judgments of legal responsibility and blame: What does the experimental research tell us?. Emot. Rev. 8:126–31
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Ferguson TJ, Rule BG. 1983. An attributional perspective on anger and aggression. Aggression: Theoretical and Empirical Reviews 1 RG Geen, EI Donnerstein 41–74 New York: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Fischhoff B. 1975. Hindsight is not equal to foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 1:288–99
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Fisher G. 1997. The jury's rise as lie detector. Yale Law J 107:575–713
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Fisher RP, Schreiber N. 2007. Interview protocols for improving eyewitness memory. See Toglia et al 2007.53–80
  48. Fletcher GP. 1990. A Crime of Self-Defense: Bernhard Goetz and the Law on Trial Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  49. Frank J. 1949. Courts on Trial Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  50. Fuller LL. 1961. The adversary system. Talks on American Law H Berman 34–47 New York: Vintage Books
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Fuller L. 1978. The forms and limits of adjudication. Harvard Law Rev 92:353–409
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Garrett BL. 2010. The substance of false confessions. Stanford Law Rev 62:1051–118
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Garrett BL. 2011. Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  54. Garvey SP, Hannaford-Agor PL, Hans VP, Mott NL, Munsterman GT, Wells MT 2004. Juror first votes in criminal trials. J. Empir. Stud. 1:371–98
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Gibbs RW, Izett CD. 2005. Irony as persuasive communication. Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences HL Colston, AN Katz 131–51 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Gilbert JAE, Fisher RP. 2006. The effects of varied retrieval cues on reminiscence in eyewitness memory. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 20:723–39
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Goldberg JH, Lerner JS, Tetlock PE 1999. Rage and reason: the psychology of the intuitive prosecutor. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 29:781–95
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Grady RH, Reiser L, Garcia RJ, Koeu C, Scurich N 2018. Impact of gruesome photographic evidence on legal decisions: a meta-analysis. Psychiatry Psychol. Law 25:4503–21
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Granhag PA, Strömwall LA. 2002. Repeated interrogations: verbal and non‐verbal cues to deception. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 16:3243–57
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Green MC, Brock TC. 2002. In the mind's eye: transportation-imagery model of narrative persuasion. Narrative Impact: Social and Cognitive Foundations MC Green, JJ Strange, TC Brock 315–42 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Greenspan R, Scurich N. 2016. The interdependence of perceived confession voluntariness and case evidence. Law Hum. Behav. 40:6650–59
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Greer v. Miller 483 U.S. 756, 767 1987.
  63. Hanba JM, Zaragoza MS. 2007. Interviewer feedback in repeated interviews involving forced confabulation. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 21:433–55
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Hartwig M, Bond CF. 2011. Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychol. Bull. 137:4643–59
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Hartwig M, Bond CF. 2014. Lie detection from multiple cues: a meta‐analysis. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 28:5661–76
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Hastie R, Landsman R, Loftus EF 1978. Eyewitness testimony: the dangers of guessing. Jurimetrics 19:1–8
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Haydock R, Sonsteng J. 2015. Trial Advocacy Before Judges, Jurors, and Arbitrators St. Paul: West Acad. , 5th ed..
  68. Herrera v. Collins 506 U.S. 390 1993.
  69. Hobbs P. 2007. Lawyers’ use of humor as persuasion. Humor 20:123–56
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Hoffman MB. 2007. The myth of factual innocence. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 82:663–90
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Holyoak KJ, Simon D. 1999. Bidirectional reasoning in decision making by constraint satisfaction. J. Exp. Psychol. 128:3–31
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Holyoak KJ, Thagard P. 1989. Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cogn. Sci. 13:295–355
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Hosch HM, Culhane SE, Jolly KW, Chavez RM, Shaw LH 2011. Effects of an alibi witness's relationship to the defendant on mock jurors’ judgments. Law Hum. Behav. 35:2127–42
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Inbau F, Reid J, Buckley J, Jayne B 2011. Criminal Interrogation and Confessions Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett
  75. Judic. Counc. Calif 2018. Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) Miamisburg, OH: LexisNexis Matthew Bender
  76. Kahneman D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow 1 New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux
  77. Kalven H, Zeisel H. 1966. The American Jury Boston: Little, Brown
  78. Kaplan MF, Miller LE. 1978. Reducing the effects of juror bias. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 36:1443–55
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Kassin SM. 2012. Why confessions trump innocence. Am. Psychol. 67:6431–45
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Kassin SM, Drizin SA, Grisso T, Gudjonsson GH, Leo RA, Redlich AD 2010. Police-induced confessions: risk factors and recommendations. Law Hum. Behav. 34:13–38
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Kassin SM, Dror IE, Kukucka J 2013. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2:142–52
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Kassin SM, Sommers SR. 1997. Inadmissible testimony, instructions to disregard, and the jury: substantive versus procedural considerations. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23:1046–54
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Keltner D, Ellsworth PC, Edwards K 1993. Beyond simple pessimism: effects of sadness and anger on social perception. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 64:740–52
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Keogh L, Markham R. 1998. Judgements of other people's memory reports: differences in reports as a function of imagery vividness. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 12:159–71
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Kim IK, Kwon ES, Ceci SJ 2017. Developmental reversals in report conformity: psycho‐legal implications. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 31:2128–38
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Knutsson J, Allwood CM. 2015. Swedish legal professionals’ opinions on child and adult witness memory‐reporting capabilities: using the method of indirect comparisons. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 29:3392–406
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Koehler JJ. 2012. Linguistic confusion in court: evidence from the forensic sciences. J. Law Policy 21:515–24
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Koehler JJ. 2014. Forensic fallacies and a famous judge. Jurimetrics 54:211–19
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Koriat A, Goldsmith M. 1996. Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Psychol. Rev. 103:490–517
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Kristof‐Brown AL, Zimmerman RD, Johnson EC 2005. Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group and person-supervisor fit. Pers. Psychol. 58:2281–342
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Krulewitch v. United States 336 U.S. 440 453 1949.
  92. Kukucka J, Kassin SM. 2014. Do confessions taint perceptions of handwriting evidence? An empirical test of the forensic confirmation bias. Law Hum. Behav. 38:3256–70
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Landsman S. 1988. Readings on Adversarial Justice: The American Approach to Adjudication St. Paul: West
  94. Larrick RP. 2016. The social context of decisions. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 3:441–67
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Lavis T, Brewer N. 2017. Effects of a proven error on evaluations of witness testimony. Law Hum. Behav. 41:3314–23
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Lego v. Twomey 404 U.S. 477 1972.
  97. Leippe MR, Manion AP, Romanczyk A 1992. Eyewitness persuasion: How and how well do fact finders judge the accuracy of adults’ and children's memory reports?. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 63:2181–97
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Lempert R. 1998. Why do juries get a bum rap? Reflections on the work of Valerie Hans. DePaul Law Rev 48:453–62
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Leo RA. 2001. Questioning the relevance of Miranda in the twenty-first century. Mich. Law Rev. 99:1000–29
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Leo RA. 2008. Police Interrogation and American Justice Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  101. Lerner JS, Li Y, Valdesolo P, Kassam KS 2015. Emotion and decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66:799–823
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Lieberman JD, Arndt J. 2000. Understanding the limits of limiting instructions: social psychological explanations for the failures of instructions to disregard pretrial publicity and other inadmissible evidence. Psychol. Public Policy Law 6:677–711
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Lindsay RCL, Lim R, Marando L, Cully D 1986. Mock-juror evaluations of eyewitness testimony: a test of metamemory hypotheses. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 16:447–59
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Lindsay RCL, Ross DF, Read JD, Toglia MP 2007. The Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology, Vol. 2: Memory for People Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  105. Loftus EF. 1975. Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cogn. Psychol. 7:560–72
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Loftus EF. 2017. Eavesdropping on memory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 68:1–18
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Loftus EF, Greene E. 1980. Warning: Even memory for faces may be contagious. Law Hum. Behav. 4:323–34
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Loftus EF, Palmer JC. 1974. Reconstruction of automobile destruction: an example of the interaction between language and memory. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 13:585–89
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Lonergan M, Leclerc MÈ, Descamps M, Pigeon S, Brunet A 2016. Prevalence and severity of trauma- and stressor-related symptoms among jurors: a review. J. Crim. Justice 47:51–61
     [Google Scholar]
  110. MacCoun RJ. 2015. The epistemic contract: fostering an appropriate level of public trust in experts. Motivating Cooperation and Compliance with Authority BH Bornstein, AJ Tomkins 191–214 Neb. Sympos. Motiv. 62 Cham, Switz: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Mackie DM, Devos T, Smith ER 2000. Intergroup emotions: explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 79:602–16
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Manson v. Brathwaite 432 U.S. 98 1977.
  113. Martin AW, Schum DA. 1987. Quantifying burdens of proof: a likelihood ratio approach. Jurimetr. J. 27:383–402
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Mathis L. 2012. Acting Skills for Lawyers Chicago: Am. Bar Assoc.
  115. McAuliff BD, Kovera MB. 2007. Estimating the effects of misleading information on witness accuracy: Can experts tell jurors something they don't already know?. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 21:7849–70
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Medwed DS. 2010. Brady's bunch of flaws. Wash. Lee Law Rev. 67:1533–67
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Meissner CA, Kassin SM. 2002. He's guilty! Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law Hum. Behav. 26:5469–80
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Meissner CA, Kelly CE, Woestehoff SA 2015. Improving the effectiveness of suspect interrogations. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 11:211–33
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Milgram S. 1974. Obedience to Authority New York: Harper & Row
  120. Narchet FM, Meissner CA, Russano MB 2011. Modeling the influence of investigator bias on the elicitation of true and false confessions. Law Hum. Behav. 35:452–65
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Nash RA, Wade KA. 2009. Innocent but proven guilty: eliciting internalized false confessions using doctored‐video evidence. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 23:5624–37
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Natl. Acad. Sci 2009. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  123. Olson EA, Wells GL. 2004. What makes a good alibi? A proposed taxonomy. Law Hum. Behav. 28:157–76
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Pennington N, Hastie R. 1993. The story model for juror decision making. Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making R Hastie 192–221 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  125. People v. Schader 62 Cal 2d 716 1965.
  126. Petty RE, Cacioppo J. 1986. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change New York: Springer-Verlag
  127. Piaget J. 1926. Language and Thought of the Child: Selected Works 5 London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
  128. Pickel KL. 1995. Inducing jurors to disregard inadmissible evidence: A legal explanation does not help. Law Hum. Behav. 19:407–24
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Quigley BM, Tedeschi JT. 1996. Mediating effects of blame attributions on feelings of anger. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 22:1280–88
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Rachlinski JJ, Wistrich AJ. 2017. Judging the judiciary by the numbers: empirical research on judges. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 13:203–29
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Read SJ. 1987. Constructing causal scenarios: a knowledge structure approach to causal reasoning. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 52:288–302
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Read SJ, Simon D. 2012. Parallel constraint satisfaction as a mechanism for cognitive consistency. Cognitive Consistency: A Fundamental Principle in Social Cognition B Gawronski, F Strack 66–86 New York: Guilford
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Reardon MC, Fisher RP. 2011. Effect of viewing the interview and identification process on juror perceptions of eyewitness accuracy. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 25:68–77
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Roskos-Ewoldsen DR. 2003. What is the role of rhetorical questions in persuasion?. Communication and Emotion: Essays in Honor of Dolf Zillmann J Bryant, D Roskos-Ewoldsen, J Cantor 297–321 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Ross L, Nisbett RE. 1991. The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology New York: McGraw-Hill
  136. Rumelhart DE. 1980. Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension RJ Spiro, BC Bruce, WF Brewer 33–58 Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Saks MJ, Spellman BA. 2016. The Psychological Foundations of Evidence Law New York: NYU Press
  138. Sauerland M, Sporer SL. 2009. Fast and confident: postdicting eyewitness identification accuracy in a field study. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 15:46–62
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Schank RC, Abelson RP. 1995. Knowledge and memory: the real story. Knowledge and Memory: The Real Story RS Wyer 1–85 Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Schmechel RS, O'Toole TP, Easterly C, Loftus EF 2006. Beyond the ken? Testing jurors’ understanding of eyewitness reliability evidence. Jurimetrics 46:177–214
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Scurich N, John RS. 2017. Jurors’ presumption of innocence. J. Leg. Stud. 46:1187–206
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Scurich N, Nguyen KD, John RS 2016. Quantifying the presumption of innocence. Law Probab. Risk 15:171–86
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Semmler C, Brewer N. 2002. Effects of mood and emotion on juror processing and judgments. Behav. Sci. Law 20:4423–36
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Sevier J. 2014. The truth-justice tradeoff: perceptions of decisional accuracy and procedural justice in adversarial and inquisitorial legal systems. Psychol. Public Policy Law 20:2212–24
     [Google Scholar]
  145. Shaw JS, McClure KA. 1996. Repeated postevent questioning can lead to elevated levels of eyewitness confidence. Law Hum. Behav. 20:629–53
     [Google Scholar]
  146. Shaw JS, Zerr TK. 2003. Extra effort during memory retrieval may be associated with increases in eyewitness confidence. Law Hum. Behav. 27:315–29
     [Google Scholar]
  147. Simon D. 2004. A third view of the black box: cognitive coherence in legal decision making. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 71:511–86
     [Google Scholar]
  148. Simon D. 2012. In Doubt: The Psychology of the Criminal Justice Process Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  149. Simon D. 2014. Criminal law at the crossroads: turn to accuracy. South. Calif. Law Rev. 87:421–58
     [Google Scholar]
  150. Simon D. 2019. Thin empirics. Int. J. Evid. Proof 23:82–89
     [Google Scholar]
  151. Simon D, Holyoak KJ. 2002. Structural dynamics of cognition: from consistency theories to constraint satisfaction. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 6:4283–94
     [Google Scholar]
  152. Simon D, Snow CJ, Read SJ 2004. The redux of cognitive consistency theories: evidence judgments by constraint satisfaction. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 86:814–37
     [Google Scholar]
  153. Simon D, Spiller SA. 2016. The elasticity of preferences. Psychol. Sci. 27:1588–99
     [Google Scholar]
  154. Simon D, Stenstrom DM, Read SJ 2015. The coherence effect: blending cold and hot cognitions. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 109:369–94
     [Google Scholar]
  155. Sklansky DA, Yeazell S. 2006. Comparative law without leaving home: what civil procedure can teach criminal procedure, and vice versa. Georgetown Law Rev 94:683–738
     [Google Scholar]
  156. Slobogin C. 1996. Testilying: police perjury and what to do about it. Univ. Colo. Law Rev. 67:1037–60
     [Google Scholar]
  157. Smalarz L, Wells GL. 2014. Post-identification feedback to eyewitnesses impairs evaluators’ abilities to discriminate between accurate and mistaken testimony. Law Hum. Behav. 38:2194–202
     [Google Scholar]
  158. Smalarz L, Wells GL. 2015. Contamination of eyewitness self-reports and the mistaken-identification problem. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24:2120–24
     [Google Scholar]
  159. Smith BC, Penrod SD, Otto AL, Park RC 1996. Jurors’ use of probabilistic evidence. Law Hum. Behav. 20:149–82
     [Google Scholar]
  160. Sopory P, Dillard JP. 2002. The persuasive effects of metaphor: a meta-analysis. Hum. Commun. Res. 28:382–419
     [Google Scholar]
  161. Steblay N, Hosch HM, Culhane SE, McWethy A 2006. The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: a meta-analysis. Law Hum. Behav. 30:469–92
     [Google Scholar]
  162. Steblay NK, Wells GL, Douglass AB 2014. The eyewitness post identification feedback effect 15 years later: theoretical and policy implications. Psychol. Public Policy Law 20:11–18
     [Google Scholar]
  163. Sullivan TP. 2008. Recording federal custodial interviews. Am. Crim. Law Rev. 45:1297–345
     [Google Scholar]
  164. Thibaut JW, Walker L. 1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Perspective Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  165. Thompson WC, Grady RH, Lai E, Stern HS 2018. Perceived strength of forensic scientists’ reporting statements about source conclusions. Law Probab. Risk 17:2133–55
     [Google Scholar]
  166. Thompson WC, Newman EJ. 2015. Lay understanding of forensic statistics: evaluation of random match probabilities, likelihood ratios, and verbal equivalents. Law Hum. Behav. 39:4332–49
     [Google Scholar]
  167. Thompson WC, Schumann EL. 1987. Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials. Law Hum. Behav. 11:3167–87
     [Google Scholar]
  168. Tiedens L, Linton S. 2001. Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: the effects of specific emotions on information processing. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 81:973–88
     [Google Scholar]
  169. Toglia MP, Read JD, Ross DF, Lindsay RCL, eds 2007. The Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology, Vol. 1: Memory for Events Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  170. Twining W. 1990. Rethinking Evidence Chicago: Northwest. Univ. Press
  171. United States v. Grunewald 233 F.2d 556574 1956.
  172. Univ. Calif. Irvine Netw. Cent. Sci. Soc., Univ. Mich. Law School, Mich. State Univ. Coll. Law 2019. National Registry of Exonerations Accessed April 14 2019. http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx
  173. van Koppen PJ, Penrod DS 2003. Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Justice: Psychological Perspectives on Criminal Justice Systems New York: Kluwer Acad.
  174. Vidmar N, Hans VP. 2007. American Juries: The Verdict Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books
  175. Visher CA. 1987. Juror decision making: the importance of evidence. Law Hum. Behav. 11:1–17
     [Google Scholar]
  176. Vrij A, Hartwig M, Granhag PA 2019. Reading lies: nonverbal communication and deception. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 70:295–317
     [Google Scholar]
  177. Wagenaar WA, van Koppen PJ, Crombag HFM 1993. Anchored Narratives: The Psychology of Criminal Evidence New York: St. Martin's
  178. Watkins v. Sowders 449 U.S. 341 1981.
  179. Wells GL. 1984. The adequacy of human intuition for judging testimony. Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological Perspectives GL Wells, EF Loftus 256–72 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  180. Wells GL, Ferguson TJ, Lindsay RCL 1981. The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implications for triers of fact. J. Appl. Psychol. 66:688–96
     [Google Scholar]
  181. Wells GL, Leippe MR. 1981. How do triers of fact infer the accuracy of eyewitness identifications? Using memory for peripheral detail can be misleading. J. Appl. Psychol. 66:682–87
     [Google Scholar]
  182. Wells GL, Quinlivan DS. 2009. Suggestive eyewitness identification procedures and the Supreme Court's reliability test in light of eyewitness science: 30 years later. Law Hum. Behav. 33:1–24
     [Google Scholar]
  183. Wenzlaff RM, Wegner DM. 2000. Thought suppression. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51:59–91
     [Google Scholar]
  184. Wilson TD, Brekke N. 1994. Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychol. Bull. 116:1117–42
     [Google Scholar]
  185. Wixted JT, Mickes L, Clark SE, Gronlund SD, Roediger HL 2015. Initial eyewitness confidence reliably predicts eyewitness identification accuracy. Am. Psychol. 70:6515–26
     [Google Scholar]
  186. Wixted JT, Mickes L, Fisher RP 2018. Rethinking the reliability of eyewitness memory. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13:3324–35
     [Google Scholar]
  187. Wixted JT, Wells GL. 2017. The relationship between eyewitness confidence and identification accuracy: a new synthesis. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 18:110–65
     [Google Scholar]
  188. Wright DB, Carlucci ME, Evans JR, Compo NS 2010. Turning a blind eye to double blind line‐ups. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 24:6849–67
     [Google Scholar]
  189. Wright RA, Greenberg J, Brehm SS, eds 2004. Motivational Analyses of Social Behavior: Building on Jack Brehm's Contributions to Psychology Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  190. Wyer RS, Radvansky GA. 1999. The comprehension and validation of social information. Psychol. Rev. 106:89–118
     [Google Scholar]
  191. Zajonc RB. 1980. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. Am. Psychol. 35:2151–75
     [Google Scholar]
  192. Zaragoza MS, Payment KE, Ackil JK, Drivdahl SB, Beck M 2001. Interviewing witnesses: Forced confabulation and confirmatory feedback increase false memories. Psychol. Sci. 12:473–77
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042658
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error