Issue-specific jury instructions in eyewitness cases: Are they more effective than traditional safeguards?

DNA免责证明目击证人的错误是错误定罪的主要来源。问题自然出现了——我们能否找到更好的方法来指导陪审员评估目击者的证据？2012年，美国最高法院在佩里诉新罕布什尔州案（Perry v. New Hampshire）中，以8:1的结果作出了自1977年以来法院审理的第一起涉及目击证人鉴定的案件。法院裁定“通过……来检验[目击证人]的可靠性就足够了。”律师出席起诉后的列队，有力的交叉询问，证据保护规则，陪审团的指示……目击证人指认的不可靠性。”这一判决被州法院和联邦法院引用，这些法院为陪审团提供有关目击证人鉴定具体方面的指导。在这个方向上迈出的最大一步是2011年新泽西州最高法院在州立诉亨德森案（State v. Henderson）中一致作出的裁决。亨德森法院：1；接受有关影响目击证人可靠性因素的科学发现；2. 对这些因素作出了一系列明确的调查结果；3. 授权起草关于这些因素的明确陪审团指示的任务；和4。表示一般倾向于使用这些指示，而不是使用目击证人的专家证词。针对具体问题的指示，如亨德森案中提出的指示，其可行性尚未得到检验——尽管对证人对陪审员的广泛指示进行的有限研究表明，一般指示并不能使陪审员对亨德森案中所包含的因素敏感。由于特定问题的指示可能会提醒陪审员注意目击者的准确性因素，而不是外行知识，因此，与更一般的指示相比，加强基于研究的特定问题指示可能会更有效地提高陪审员对目击者证据的评估。私家侦探将审查特定问题的目击证人陪审团指示是否能使陪审员对目击证人证据敏感。在计划中的模拟陪审团研究中，PI将比较目击证人证据和陪审员收到的目击证人指示类型，以测试特定问题的目击证人陪审团指示是否使陪审员对目击证人证据的变化敏感。

DNA exonerations demonstrate that eyewitness error is a primary source of erroneous convictions. The question naturally arises - can we find better ways to guide jurors in their assessments of eyewitness evidence? In 2012, the US Supreme Court, in Perry v. New Hampshire, decided (8-1) the first case involving eyewitness identification considered by the Court since 1977. The Court ruled that "it suffices to test [eyewitness] reliability through ... the presence of counsel at postindictment lineups, vigorous cross-examination, protective rules of evidence, and jury instructions on ... the fallibility of eyewitness identification." The decision is cited in state and federal courts that provide juries with instructions addressing specific aspects of eyewitness identifications. The largest step in this direction was taken by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 2011 in a unanimous decision in State v. Henderson. The Henderson court: 1. embraced scientific findings concerning factors affecting eyewitness reliability; 2. made a series of explicit findings concerning those factors; 3. delegated the task of drafting explicit jury instructions concerning those factors; and 4. expressed a general preference for those instructions over the use of eyewitness expert testimony.The viability of issue-specific instructions such as those advanced in Henderson has not been tested - though limited research on broad-based eyewitness instructions to jurors has demonstrated that general instructions do not sensitize jurors to the factors embraced in Henderson. Because issue-specific instructions may alert jurors to eyewitness accuracy factors beyond lay knowledge, it is possible that enhanced research-based issue-specific instructions will more effectively improve jurors' evaluations of eyewitness evidence as compared to more general instructions. The PI will examine whether issue-specific eyewitness jury instructions can sensitize jurors to eyewitness evidence. In the planned mock-jury study the PI will compare eyewitness evidence and the type of eyewitness instruction jurors receive to test whether issue-specific eyewitness jury instructions sensitize jurors to variations in eyewitness evidence.