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

DNA无罪证明，目击者的错误是错误定罪的主要来源。问题自然产生了--我们能否找到更好的方法来指导陪审员对目击者证据的评估？2012年，美国最高法院在佩里诉新罕布夏州一案中(8比1)裁决了自1977年以来最高法院审理的第一起涉及目击者识别的案件。最高法院裁定，“只要通过……律师在起诉后的阵容中在场、严格的盘问、保护性的证据规则，以及陪审团对……目击者身份识别的错误的指示来测试[目击者]的可靠性就足够了。”州法院和联邦法院援引了这一决定，为陪审团提供了处理目击证人身份的具体方面的指示。朝着这个方向迈出的最大一步是新泽西州最高法院在2011年对State诉亨德森案的一致裁决。亨德森法院：1.接受了关于影响目击者可靠性的因素的科学发现；2.就这些因素作出了一系列明确的发现；3.委派了起草关于这些因素的明确陪审团指示的任务；以及4.表示普遍倾向于这些指示而不是使用目击者专家证词。诸如亨德森案中提出的那些针对特定问题的指示的可行性尚未得到测试--尽管对陪审员的基础广泛的目击者指示的有限研究表明，一般性指示不会使陪审员对亨德森所包含的因素敏感。由于针对特定问题的指示可能会提醒陪审员注意非专业知识之外的目击证人准确性因素，因此，与更一般的指示相比，强化的基于研究的针对特定问题的指示可能会更有效地改善陪审员对目击者证据的评估。PI将审查针对特定问题的目击者陪审团指令是否可以使陪审员对目击者证据敏感。在计划中的模拟陪审团研究中，PI将比较目击者证据和陪审员收到的目击者指令类型，以测试针对特定问题的目击者陪审团指令是否使陪审员对目击者证据的变化敏感。

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.