Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
It has been argued that psychologists should provide expert evidence to help jurors discriminate between accurate and inaccurate eyewitness identifications. In this article we compare the effects of judicial instruction with expert evidence that is either congruent or incongruent with the ground truth, focusing on juror ability to evaluate "real" eyewitness evidence. In contrast to studies which have employed "fictional" eyewitness designs, we found no appreciable effect of either congruent or incongruent expert evidence on participant-juror sensitivity to eyewitness accuracy. We discuss the role of methodology on the inferences and conclusions that can be made regarding the impact of eyewitness expert evidence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martire et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: