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

目击者案件中针对具体问题的陪审团指示：它们比传统保障措施更有效吗？

• 批准号: 1228497
• 负责人: Steven Penrod
• 金额: $ 19.43万
• 依托单位: CUNY John Jay College of Criminal Justice
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2012
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2012-09-01 至 2015-08-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1228497&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Issue; specific; jury; instructions; eyewitness

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.

DNA证明无罪证明，目击者的错误是错误定罪的主要来源。问题自然出现了--我们能找到更好的方法来指导陪审员评估目击证人的证据吗？2012年，美国最高法院在佩里诉新罕布什尔州一案中，以8比1的结果判决了自1977年以来最高法院审议的首起涉及目击者身份确认的案件。法院裁定，“通过.足以检验[目击证人]的可靠性。律师在起诉后列队时的在场，有力的交叉询问，证据保护规则，以及陪审团关于......的指示。目击者指认的不可靠性“州法院和联邦法院援引了这一决定，这些法院为陪审团提供了关于目击证人指认具体方面的指示。2011年，新泽西最高法院在州诉亨德森一案中作出了一致决定，朝着这个方向迈出了最大的一步。亨德森法院：1。接受有关影响目击者可靠性因素的科学发现; 2.对这些因素进行了一系列明确的发现; 3.授权起草关于这些因素的明确的陪审团指示的任务;和4.对于亨德森案中提出的针对具体问题的指示的可行性尚未得到检验--尽管对广泛的目击者对陪审员的指示进行的有限研究表明，一般性指示并不能使陪审员对亨德森案中所包含的因素敏感。由于针对具体问题的指示可能会提醒陪审员注意超出外行知识的目击者准确性因素，因此与更一般的指示相比，增强的基于研究的针对具体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。主要研究者将研究针对具体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保持敏感。在计划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示类型，以测试特定问题的目击者陪审团指示是否使陪审员对目击者证据的变化敏感。