Wilfrid Laurier University Scholars Commons @ Laurier Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive) 2014 Juror Perceptions of Eyewitness Identification videnceE Timothy G. Wykes Wilfrid Laurier University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd Part of the Criminology Commons, Evidence Commons, and the Social Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Wykes, Timothy G., "Juror Perceptions of Eyewitness Identification videnceE " (2014). Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive). 1679. https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd/1679 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive) by an authorized administrator of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JUROR PERCEPTIONS 1 JUROR PERCEPTIONS OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE by Timothy G. Wykes B.A. (Honours), Criminology & Justice, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2010 THESIS Submitted to the Faculty of Human & Social Sciences in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Master of Arts Wilfrid Laurier University © Timothy Graham Wykes 2014 JUROR PERCEPTIONS 2 Abstract Jurors rely on eyewitness testimony in deciding a defendant’s guilt or innocence. Archival analyses of hundreds of post-conviction DNA exonerations have identified eyewitness misidentification as the highest individual factor contributing to wrongful convictions (Innocence Project, 2014). Internationally, criminal justice systems have employed procedural safeguards (PSs) to educate juries on factors affecting eyewitness identification accuracy. Two such safeguards include the introduction of eyewitness expert testimony during trial proceedings and the reading of cautionary instructions by a presiding judge. In an independent factorial design, this research sought to examine the effects of a model judicial caution drafted by the Ontario Judicial Council (2012) and eyewitness expert testimony on jurors. Viewing court transcripts surrounding a fictional robbery case, jurors were presented with independently varied evidence of eyewitness testimony (low confidence vs. high confidence) and photoarray lineups (no lineup vs. unbiased lineup vs. biased lineup). Numerous juror perceptions were measured, including verdicts, eyewitness credibility, defence case strength, and understanding of the trial. Results indicated that jurors were not unduly influenced by eyewitness confidence or expert testimony. Jurors were more likely to convict the defendant when the eyewitness made an identification from an unbiased lineup compared to a biased lineup. While jurors were able to detect foil bias, evidence of juror confusion was found with respect to lineup fairness ratings from jurors exposed to the judicial caution. Results are summarized and discussed in view of current Canadian trial proceedings. JUROR PERCEPTIONS 3 Acknowledgements To Dr. Jennifer Lavoie: Thank you for your guidance, determination, and steadfast commitment. You have selflessly imparted your wisdom to me and I am privileged and forever grateful to have written under your mentorship. Continue to inspire scholars in the future. Ancora imparo. To Dr. Judy Eaton, Dr. Dan Antonowicz, and Dr. Chris Alksnis: I am honoured to have had each of you as members of my thesis examination committee. Thank you for your genuine interest, enthusiasm, and constructive assessments towards this project. To the Wilfrid Laurier University Department of Criminology: Remnants of shared conversations, lectures, seminars, conferences, and assignments are bestrewn throughout this thesis, my academic endeavors, and my personal character. Thank you for providing me with a fulfilling academic experience. Thank you to department members Dr. Thomas Fleming, Dr. Stacy Hannem, and Marg Harris, for providing advice and unwavering support. To Dr. Brian Cutler, Mr. Dan Walters, and Mrs. Gail Haynes: Your early encouragement to pursue graduate studies will never be forgotten and always appreciated. To my family and loved ones: Thank you for your love and patience. JUROR PERCEPTIONS 4 Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................2 Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................................3 List of Tables ..............................................................................................................................6 List of Figures .............................................................................................................................7 Introduction ................................................................................................................................8 Eyewitness Expert Testimony ................................................................................................... 12 Tests of Admissibility ............................................................................................................ 12 ‘Limited Provisions’: The Scope of Eyewitness Expert Testimony ........................................ 15 A Taxonomy of Eyewitness Expert Studies ........................................................................... 16 Usurping the Jury? ................................................................................................................. 20 Judicial Cautions of Eyewitness Identification Evidence ........................................................... 21 The Caution as Standard Practice ........................................................................................... 21 Research on Judicial Cautions ............................................................................................... 23 A Standardized Canadian Model ............................................................................................ 25 Juror Decision-Making: Putting Confidence into Context .......................................................... 28 Confidence Malleability ........................................................................................................ 30 Eyewitness Confidence and Jurors ......................................................................................... 32 Eyewitness Lineups in Practice and Research ............................................................................ 35 Lineup Parameter Indices ...................................................................................................... 39 Lineup Bias ........................................................................................................................ 39 Effective Size ..................................................................................................................... 40 Lineup Construction Procedures ............................................................................................ 42 Eyewitness Lineups and the Juror .......................................................................................... 44 Study 1: Assessing the Fairness of Eyewitness Lineups ............................................................. 47 Method .................................................................................................................................. 47 Participants ............................................................................................................................ 47 Materials ............................................................................................................................... 48 JUROR PERCEPTIONS 5 Procedure .............................................................................................................................. 51 Results ...................................................................................................................................... 52 Unbiased Lineup.................................................................................................................... 52 Biased Lineup ........................................................................................................................ 53 Test of Proportions ................................................................................................................ 53 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 53 Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 55 Study 2: Juror Perceptions of Identification Evidence – An SEO Design ................................... 58 Procedure .............................................................................................................................. 59 Analytical Framework ........................................................................................................... 66 Manipulation Checks ............................................................................................................. 67 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 69 Hypotheses ............................................................................................................................ 69 Results .....................................................................................................................................