Get access

Juror Decision Making When a Witness Makes Multiple Identification Decisions

Authors

  • JOANNA D. POZZULO,

    Corresponding author
    1. Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
      Joanna D. Pozzulo, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6. E-mail: joanna_pozzulo@carleton.ca
    Search for more papers by this author
  • MONICA C. O'NEILL

    1. Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Search for more papers by this author

  • This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to the first author.

Joanna D. Pozzulo, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6. E-mail: joanna_pozzulo@carleton.ca

Abstract

Mock jurors (N = 224) read a trial summary varying the consistency of the eyewitness's initial lineup identification (ID) decision and confidence. In all conditions, a second positive lineup ID of the suspect/defendant was made. Jurors perceived the witness's description of the criminal, IDs, and testimony overall as more reliable when the witness initially made a positive ID of the suspect who also was the defendant vs. a positive ID of a different suspect or a non-ID. Ratings were also higher when the witness initially made a foil vs. non-ID. Additionally, the witness's first lineup ID was perceived as more reliable when made with higher vs. lower confidence. Verdicts did not vary as a function of ID consistency.

Get access to the full text of this article

Ancillary