Additional Documentation
Pages 5 & 6 of the Application for Approval to Use Human Subjects in Research
(in the event that expedited or full review is required)

Purpose and Design of Research
          Purpose. 
         The purpose of this research is to learn more about how jurors evaluate and are influenced by expert testimony.  Expert testimony has been a special problem in the law, and recent developments have placed expert testimony under the legal and empirical microscope.  The Supreme Court=s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) emphasized the trial court judge=s role as the Agatekeeper@ of scientific evidence.  The Daubert opinion was responding to a growing concern over courts= use of Ajunk@ science.  Judges were encouraged to evaluate the scientific reliability of expert evidence in determining its admissibility, including an examination of the methodology underlying the expert=s opinions.  The Daubert Court suggested that judges could do this by looking at the testimony=s falsifiability, error rate, peer review/publication, and general acceptance.
         Concerns have been raised about whether or not judges are capable of appropriately evaluating the reliability of complex expert testimony (Gatowski, Dobbin, Richardson, Ginsburg, Merlino, & Dahir, 2001; Kovera & McAuliff, 2000; Lehman, Lempert, & Nisbett, 1988).  Many judges are untrained in scientific methodology, and the science presented via expert testimony is often novel and complex.  If judges are unable to identify and exclude all scientifically unreliable expert evidence, some unreliable expert testimony will be presented to the jury.  Even if judges are able to distinguish reliable from unreliable evidence, reliability could be an issue argued by the attorneys.  Therefore, reliability could be an issue for jurors to evaluate when determining the weight to give to expert testimony.  Jurors also may lack training in scientific methodology and thus be unable to distinguish between reliable and unreliable testimony (Kovera, McAuliff, & Hebert, 1999; Krauss & Sales, 2001).  Therefore, unreliable testimony might not only be admitted, but it might be heavily relied upon in jurors= verdict decision making.  Recognizing this potential problem, the Daubert Court suggested several legal safeguards to prevent jurors from relying on unreliable experts, including the use of jury instructions.  Jury instructions could be constructed which attempt to educate jurors about scientific reliability in the same manner as the Daubert Court was attempting to assist judges in assessing reliability (see, e.g., Cutler, Penrod, & Dexter, 1990; Ramirez, Zemba, & Geiselman, 1996).  The effectiveness of this type of legal safeguard against jurors= use of unreliable testimony is yet unknown.
         The purpose of the proposed study is to determine if jurors are sensitive to reliability, to examine the effectiveness of jury instructions, and to provide additional information about jurors' information processing.  This will be accomplished by manipulating various indicia of reliability for psychological expert testimony and by manipulating the use and type of jury instructions to determine if and to what degree their presence increases juror sensitivity to evidentiary reliability.  First, the complexity of the testimony will be manipulated.  Second, whether or not the Daubert criteria are met will be manipulated.  Third, the presence and type of jury instructions will be manipulated. The goal of this study is to identify the Daubert criteria for which juror sensitivity can be increased via jury instructions and to identify what type of jury instructions are the most effective at increasing this sensitivity.
         Hypotheses are advanced about the interplay of safeguards and evidence reliability in light of theories  about the processes underlying juror decision making based on the elaboration likelihood model and on the use of heuristics (see, e.g., Fiske & Taylor, 1991).  It is hypothesized that the greatest increase in sensitivity due to the jury instructions will be observed when the testimony is not complex because systematic or central processing will occur.  When the testimony is complex, it is hypothesized that the jury instructions will be less effective (Cooper, Bennett, & Sukel, 1996; Cooper & Neuhaus, 2000).
 
Design. 
         Research will be conducted in 60 minute sessions.  Materials will include a mock criminal trial for robbery, in which participants will be asked to play the role of jurors in the case.  The mock trial will be presented as a written summary.  The mock trial will include a prosecution opening statement, a defense opening statement, examination of prosecution witnesses, examination of defense witnesses, examination of the expert witness,  prosecution closing argument, and defense closing argument.  The expert testimony will be provided by an experimental psychologist on the reliability of an eyewitness identification.  The expert will describe general research findings on eyewitness reliability, and he will describe experiments he conducted on eyewitness reliability.  After reading the trial stimulus, participants will be asked to render a verdict and complete several measures relating to the verdict and to their perceptions of the witnesses.  Several measures will be included to assess juror sensitivity to the reliability of the expert=s testimony.
         The study will use a fractional factorial design.  Fractional factorial designs involve fully crossing a selected portion of the manipulated variables.  The remaining manipulated variables are confounded with the higher-order interactions among fully crossed variables-interactions which would be of little interest or uninterpretable. Manipulated variables will include complexity (high vs. low), whether or not the Daubert criteria were met (including general acceptance, peer review, error rate, and falsifiability), and the presence and type of limiting instructions (standard and Daubert). Manipulations will be as follows:
Complexity:
         Complexity will be manipulated by varying the amount of technical language or jargon used by the expert.  In the Acomplexity high@ conditions, the expert will use high levels of technical jargon, and in the Acomplexity low@ conditions, the expert will testify using everyday language.
The Daubert criteria:
         General acceptance: The expert=s testimony will either be generally accepted or not.  In the generally accepted condition, the expert will testify that the majority of researchers in the field endorse the theories presented in the testimony, and that the APA has published a book summarizing the research being presented.  In the not generally accepted condition, the expert will testify that the research is relatively recent and a few researchers endorse the testimony, and that no professional organization has made a statement of endorsement about the testimony.
         Peer review/publication: The expert will testify that his or her work was published numerous times and cited in major psychological textbooks OR will testify that his or her work has been submitted for publication but has not yet been published or cited in any major psychological textbooks.
         Falsifiability:    Because of the two types of expert testimony being presented, the falsifiability manipulation will focus on the potential to test the theories in order to keep the materials in experiments 1 and 2 equivalent..  The experimental expert will either focus on the fact that experiments have been conducted which simulate an eyewitness situation (falsifiable) or that research cannot directly test eyewitness reliability because researchers cannot randomly commit crimes against participants to create real eyewitnesses with controls and true accuracy is an unknown in a real eyewitness situation that lacks experimental controls (not testable).
         Known or potential error rate: Error rate will presented as either Aknown@ or Aunknown.@  In the Aknown@ condition, the psychologist will present data about false identification rates from eyewitness studies.  In the Aunknown@ condition, he will testify that he is unaware of error rates associated with the research in his testimony.
Jury instructions:
         General: General instructions will either be present or absent.  General instructions will provide information about the burden of proof (as suggested in Daubert) and will inform the jurors that it is their responsibility to determine the weight and credibility given to each witness, including the expert.
         Daubert: Daubert instructions will either be present or absent.  Daubert instructions will inform the jurors about each of the Daubert criteria, their meaning, and their application.  Jurors also will be instructed that the Daubert criteria may be used in determining the weight and credibility given to the expert.

References
         Cooper, J., Bennett, E.A., & Sukel, H.L. (1996).  Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions?  Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379-394.
         Cooper, J., & Neuhaus, I.M. (2000).  The Ahired gun@ effect: Assessing the effect of pay, frequency of testifying, and credentials on the perception of expert testimony.  Law and Human Behavior, 24, 149-171.
         Cutler, B.L., Dexter, H.R., & Penrod, S.D. (1990).  Nonadversarial methods for sensitizing jurors to eyewitness evidence.  Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1197-1207.
         Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2795 (1993).
         Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill: New York, New York.
         Gatowski, S.I., Dobbin, S.A., Richardson, J.T., Ginsburg, G.P., Merlino, M.L., & Dahir, V. (2001).  Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world.  Law and Human Behavior, 25, 433-458.
         Kovera, M.B., & McAuliff, B.D. (2000).  The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers?  Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 574-586.
         Kovera, M.B., McAuliff, B.D., & Hebert, K.S. (1999).  Reasoning about scientific evidence: Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decision in a hostile work environment case.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362-375.
         Lehman, D.R., Lempert, R.O., & Nisbett, R.E. (1988).  The effects of graduate training on reasoning: Formal discipline and thinking about everyday-life events, American Psychologist, 43, 431-42.
         Ramirez, G., Zemba, D., & Geiselman, R.E. (1996).  Judges= cautionary instructions on eyewitness testimony. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 14, 31-66.

Selection and Recruitment of Subjects for Participation in Research
          People in vulnerable populations (prisoners, pregnant women, institutionalized individuals, and children) will not be used as participants in this study.  There is no special selection criteria for participation in this study, other than being of legal age to consent to participate.  College students are expected to be the primary participants in the study. Participants will be recruited by placing flyers in approved areas in John Jay College, such as the psychology department bulletin boards.  Flyers may also be distributed to individuals by the investigator, asking them to contact the investigator if they are interested in participating. [a copy of the flyer is attached]  Participants will not be recruited by the coercion or influence of the investigators.

Procedures to be Followed
          This research involves the use of standard social science data collection procedures.  After entering the lab (space provided in the psychology department), the experimenter will briefly describe the research procedures to the participants.  Informed consent documents will be handed out, and it will be made clear that participants may ask questions about the informed consent or the study prior to agreeing to participate.  The informed consent will address concerns about confidentiality of responses, unlikely incidence of risk associated with the research, and the freedom not to participate (see below and attached).  Phone numbers of researchers will be provided in the event that any potential participants have any questions concerning their participation in the study.  Participants not wishing to continue with the research after reading the informed consent will be excused, thanked for their participation, and assured that no negative consequences will occur as a result of their decision not to participate. 
         Participants wishing to participate who sign the informed consent document will next be given a summary of a trial (see attached copy of trial summary).  They will be told to read the summary and to place themselves in the role of a juror in the case.  After reading the trial summary, participants will be asked to answer some questions concerning their opinion about the trial and the witnesses (see attached copy of responses to be collected).  Of particular interest is the expert witness, and most of the questions concern his testimony.  Finally, participants will be asked some demographic questions to determine jury-eligibility.  At no time will the participants= names be associated with these responses.  After completing the research tasks, participants will be debriefed. 

Types and Levels of Risk
          The level of risk participants in this research should expect to experience is minimal.   The trial summary contains information that would typically be presented on a news program, in the newspaper, or on a tv show about trial procedures (such as 20/20 or Law and Order).  Participants will likely be exposed to similar material in their daily lives.  Participants will be exposed to substantially less emotional information and inconvenience than if they were to actual serve on a jury.  Participants are not asked any questions probing their personal beliefs or attitudes which would be expected to make them uncomfortable.  Questions in the research focus on the quality of the expert testimony presented in the trial summary.  Participants are not expected to feel demeaned or dehumanized because of their participation.  Because the trial summary is of a robbery, it is possible for some participants to experience some discomfort if they or someone close to them was recently the victim of a violent crime.  This information will be contained in the informed consent document so that such participants will be free not to participate.  In addition, the phone number of a counseling service will be included in the informed consent document and in the debriefing sheet in the event that discomfort does occur.

Confidentiality and Anonymity
          Participant responses to the questionnaires will be kept strictly confidential.  Research results will likely be published in scientific journals and/or presented at conferences.  However, at no time during the dissemination of the research results will any participants names be used nor will any information be used which would allow individual participants to be identified.  Anonymity of the participants= responses will be maintained in the following manner.  Signatures on informed consent documents will be the only location in the materials where participants will provide their name.  On the stimulus materials where participants= responses will be provided, participants will not be asked for their name.  Informed consent documents and responses to the stimulus materials will be stored separately, and there will be no way to link the names on the consent documents to any identifying information or responses in the research materials.  All documents from the research, including responses and informed consent, will be stored in a locked file cabinet in a secure office.  Only the investigators will have access to the file cabinet.

Debriefing Procedures
          A copy of the debriefing sheet is attached to these materials. After reading the trial summary and answering the questions, participants will be debriefed.  They will be asked if they have any questions about the research.  They will be given a debriefing sheet which explains the purpose of the research, the hypotheses, and the ways the research results will likely be disseminated.  The phone numbers of the investigator will be provided, and participants will be told to contact the investigator if questions concerning the research occur at a later time.  Participants will be invited to contact the experimenter about the results of the research if they so desire.  The phone number of a counseling service will also be provided in the event that discomfort from participating should occur at a later time. 

Informed Consent
          A copy of the informed consent document is attached to these materials.  Participants will be asked to read and sign the informed consent document prior to their participation in the research project.  The informed consent document contains information which will allow the participants to determine if they want to participate or not.  It explains the procedures that will be used in the research, the potential risks/benefits of participation, and the confidentiality of responses.  Most important, it informs the participant that they may chose not to participate or to discontinue participation without receiving any penalties.  Participants who chose to continue will sign the informed consent and will be given a copy of the informed consent to keep for their records.

Justification of Exempt Status
Exempt review is requested for this project, under category #2.  The research uses standard survey-type procedures which involve asking the participants to read a trial summary and to answer some questions about the witnesses.  All responses will be anonymous and participation will be kept strictly confidential.  There is minimal risk associated with this research.  Participants will not be exposed to any material that is different than what they would reasonably be expected to encounter in their daily lives (such as by watching the news, reading a newspaper, or watching a crime-related drama television show).  The type of material is described in the informed consent so that participants can make an informed choice about participating, and participation will be completely voluntary, which will also be made clear to the participants in the informed consent document.  No deception will be used as part of this research. Additional information regarding exempt status appears below:

Subject Population:
          People in vulnerable populations (prisoners, pregnant women, institutionalized individuals, and children) will not be used as participants in this study.  There is no special selection criteria for participation in this study, other than being of legal age to consent to participate.  College students attending John Jay College of Criminal Justice are expected to be the primary participants in the study.

Subject Selection:
          Participants will be recruited by placing flyers in approved areas in John Jay College, such as the psychology department bulletin boards.  Flyers may also be distributed to individuals by the investigator, asking them to contact the investigator if they are interested in participating.  Participants will not be recruited by the undue coercion or influence of the investigators. 

Subject Anonymity:
          Participant responses to the questionnaires will be kept strictly confidential.  Research results will likely be published in scientific journals and/or presented at conferences.  However, at no time during the dissemination of the research results will any participants names be used nor will any information be used which would allow individual participants to be identified.  Anonymity of the participants= responses will be maintained in the following manner.  Signatures on informed consent documents will be the only location in the materials where participants will provide their name.  On the stimulus materials where participants= responses will be provided, participants will not be asked for their name.  Informed consent documents and responses to the stimulus materials will be stored separately, and there will be no way to link the names on the consent documents to any identifying information or responses in the research materials.  All documents from the research, including responses and informed consent, will be stored in a locked file cabinet in a secure office.  Only the investigators will have access to the file cabinet.

Informed Consent:
          A copy of the informed consent document is attached to these materials.  Participants will be asked to read and sign the informed consent document prior to their participation in the research project.  The informed consent document contains information which will allow the participants to determine if they want to participate or not.  It explains the procedures that will be used in the research, the potential risks/benefits of participation, and the confidentiality of responses.  Most important, it informs the participant that they may chose not to participate or to discontinue participation without receiving any penalties.  Participants who chose to continue will sign the informed consent and will be given a copy of the informed consent to keep for their records.

Procedures to be Followed
          This research involves the use of standard social science data collection procedures.  After entering the lab (space provided in the psychology department), the experimenter will briefly describe the research procedures to the participants.  Informed consent documents will be handed out, and it will be made clear that participants may ask questions about the informed consent or the study prior to agreeing to participate.  The informed consent will address concerns about confidentiality of responses, unlikely incidence of risk associated with the research, and the freedom not to participate (see below and attached).  Phone numbers of researchers will be provided in the event that any potential participants have any questions concerning their participation in the study.  Participants not wishing to continue with the research after reading the informed consent will be excused, thanked for their participation, and assured that no negative consequences will occur as a result of their decision not to participate. 
         Participants wishing to participate who sign the informed consent document will next be given a summary of a trial.  They will be told to read the summary and to place themselves in the role of a juror in the case.  After reading the trial summary, participants will be asked to answer some questions concerning their opinion about the trial and the witnesses.  Of particular interest is the expert witness, and most of the questions concern his testimony.  Finally, participants will be asked some demographic questions to determine jury-eligibility.  At no time will the participants= names be associated with these responses.  After completing the research tasks, participants will be debriefed. 

Types and Levels of Risk
          The level of risk participants in this research should expect to experience is minimal.   The trial summary contains information that would typically be presented on a news program, in the newspaper, or on a tv show about trial procedures (such as 20/20 or Law and Order).  Participants will likely be exposed to similar material in their daily lives.  Participants will be exposed to substantially less emotional information and inconvenience than if they were to actual serve on a jury.  Participants are not asked any questions probing their personal beliefs or attitudes which would be expected to make them uncomfortable.  Questions in the research focus on the quality of the expert testimony presented in the trial summary.  Participants are not expected to feel demeaned or dehumanized because of their participation.  Because the trial summary is of a robbery, it is possible for some participants to experience some discomfort if they or someone close to them was recently the victim of a violent crime.  This information will be contained in the informed consent document so that such participants will be free not to participate.  In addition, the phone number of a counseling service will be included in the informed consent document and in the debriefing sheet in the event that discomfort does occur.
 
Informed Consent Form
Juror Assessments of the Reliability of Expert Testimony

You are invited to participate in this research study about how jurors make decisions. The following information is provided in order to help you to make an informed decision about whether or not to participate.  If you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask.

This research is being conducted by Jennifer Groscup, an adjunct professor in the Department of Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York.  You are qualified to participate in this research because you are 18 years of age or over.  The purpose of this research study is to identify how people make decisions when they are asked to determine if a defendant should be held responsible for a crime. In particular, we are interested in how jurors use and evaluate expert testimony.  We are also interested in how jurors= use of expert testimony can be improved.

Participation in this study will require approximately one hour of your time. You will be asked to read a scenario depicting a criminal trial that includes the testimony of an expert, and to answer some questions about it in the packet provided to you.  The criminal trial contains a description of an armed robbery, much like you would hear on the evening news or see on a crime drama television show.  This could create some minimal discomfort for you.  If you find that the information makes you uncomfortable or feel that it will make you uncomfortable, you are free to decide not to participate or to withdraw at any time.  In the event of any problems resulting from participation in the study, information about psychological treatment is available at the John Jay College Counseling Information Office at (212) 237-8111.

The benefits to your participation in this research include that you may find the learning experience enjoyable, and the process may help you to better understand the criminal justice process and the way in which jury decisions are made. It is possible that you may experience no direct benefit from your participation.  However, the information gained from this study will help us better understand the factors that individuals use in their decision-making about crimes and about expert testimony. 

Any information obtained during this study which could identify you will be kept strictly confidential.  The information obtained in this study may be published in scientific journals or presented at scientific meetings, but your identity will be kept strictly confidential. Results will be kept in a secure location which is only accessible to the investigators, and your identity will be kept separate from your responses to the questions you will be asked.  You will not be asked to put your name on any of the responses you give during the research. 
                                            
You are free to decide not to participate in this study or to withdraw at any time without adversely affecting your relationship with the investigators or with John Jay College.  Your decision not to participate will not result in any loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.  Your decision to discontinue participation at any time during the study will not result in any loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.  Your academic standing will be in no way affected by your decision to participate or to not participate.

You may ask questions concerning the research before agreeing to participate or during the experiment. If you have any questions regarding this research, you may contact Professor Groscup at (212) 237-8774 or in room 2124 in the Department of Psychology at John Jay College.  If you have any questions about your rights as a research subject that have not been answered by the investigator you may contact Dr. Wallenstein, the Chairman of the John Jay College Institutional Review Board at (212) 237-8364.

You are voluntarily making a decision whether or not to participate in this research study.  Your signature certifies that you have decided to participate having read and understood the information presented. You will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.
___________________________       ____________________________             ____________
Signature of Research Participant        Printed Name                                          Date

___________________________       ____________________________             ____________
Signature of Researcher            Printed Name                                          Date

Jennifer L. Groscup, M.A., J.D., Principal Investigator         
Office: 2124N, Department of Psychology
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
445 W. 59th St.
New York, NY 10019-1199
(212) 237-8774
 
Debriefing
Juror Assessments of the Reliability of Expert Testimony
Thank you for your participation in this study.  This debriefing is given as an opportunity for you to learn more about this research project, how your participation plays a part in this research, and why this research may be important to society.  Please do not discuss this study with anyone else who might also participate in the future.  Knowledge about the study may influence their responses and, essentially, invalidate the information obtained from them.  (For this same reason, it is important that you tell the experimenter if you knew details about this study before participating.)
As you may have read in the paper or seen on the news, expert testimony is often an important part of many trials.  Some people argue that expert testimony is very influential to the jury in deciding on a verdict.  One of the many things people have been concerned about expert testimony is how reliable it is.  If a jury is going to be influenced by an expert, then the expert should be reliable.  If an expert is not reliable and a jury is very influenced by his or her testimony, then this could bias their verdict.  This would be especially bad if it biased a verdict toward finding an innocent defendant guilty.  The reliability of an expert=s testimony has been such a big concern, that the Supreme Court decided a case called Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) which required judges to assess an expert=s reliability before allowing him or her to testify.  In Daubert, the Court said judges could assess reliability by looking at whether the expert=s testimony was generally accepted, peer reviewed, falsifiable, or if there was a known rate of error for the topic of the testimony.  Even though it is the judge=s job to look at these things, it is possible for many legal reasons that an expert would be allowed to testify even if the reliability of his or her testimony was in question.  Then, it would be the jury=s job to figure out how much weight to give to this expert, and they could look at reliability to figure that out.  We wanted to know if jurors are able to tell if an expert=s testimony is reliable or not.
This study was designed to examine how sensitive jurors are to reliability in expert testimony, and if providing an educational instruction to the jury would help increase their ability to tell if expert testimony is reliable or not.  Mock jurors like you read a summary of a criminal trial including expert testimony.  To test how sensitive jurors are to the reliability of an expert=s testimony, the reliability of the testimony was varied by the factors suggested in Daubert.  We manipulated whether or not the testimony was generally accepted in the field of eyewitness reliability, whether or not the topic of the testimony was falsifiable or testable, whether or not the testimony was peer reviewed, and whether or not there was a known or potential error rate for the topic of the testimony.  Because it could be more difficult to assess reliability if the expert=s testimony is very complex, we also varied how complex the expert=s language was.  The expert either spoke in very technical jargon or in every day language.  Lastly, we manipulated the type of jury instructions you were given.  You were either given no instructions, standard instructions, or a special instruction designed to help the jury in their understanding of reliability.  You were given some combination of these manipulations in the trial summary you read.  Everyone answered the same questions at the end, asking you about the expert=s reliability.
We hypothesized that jurors would be more sensitive to reliability when the testimony is simple, and that the educational instructions would be more effective when the testimony is simple.  We also hypothesized that jurors will be less sensitive to the statistical types of reliability, such as error rate and falsifiability, and more sensitive to peer review and general acceptance.  This research is important in the fields of psychology and law because it may provide information about how juries make decisions in trials.  In general, this research may offer insight into how jurors evaluate expert testimony. In particular, this research will help us understand how good jurors are at identifying scientific reliability and may tell us if jury instructions could help jurors accomplish this task.  Improving jury decision-making is very important to the legal system.
It is likely that the results of this research will be presented at academic conferences and/or published as an article in a journal.  Again, your individual responses will be kept confidential during this process.  If you are interested in the results of this study or if you have any additional questions or comments, please contact Jennifer Groscup by phone at (212) 237-8774 or in room 2124N, Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York, 445 W 59th St., New York, NY, 10019-1199. In the event of any problems resulting from participation in the study, psychological treatment is available at the John Jay College Counseling Information Office at (212) 237-8111.
Thank you again for your participation.

 Research
Opportunity!!!
                                                                                         
Interested in participating in research?  Interested in jury decision-making?  You=ve come to the right place!
We are conducting some research in psychology and law, and we invite you to participate in our study.  It will take about 1 hour of your time.  You will be asked to play the role of a juror in a criminal trial for robbery, to read a summary of that trial, and to answer some questions about the trial. 




Sound fun?  If so, please contact Professor Jennifer Groscup in room 2124N in the Department of Psychology or at (212) 237- 8774 to ask questions or to schedule an appointment.
 
The following is a summary of a criminal trial for armed robbery (robbery in the first degree).  Please read these materials as if you were a juror in the case.  After reading the trial summary, you will be asked to render a verdict in the case and to answer several questions about the trial and the witnesses.  Please read carefully, as if this information would be used to decide the fate of a real criminal defendant.

PROSECUTION OPENING STATEMENT:

          The prosecuting attorney opened his case by stating that he would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, John Trent, committed armed robbery.  The evidence will show that he went into the 7-11 with a gun, threatened the store clerk, and robbed the store of $120.  The evidence that will prove this is the testimony of the only eyewitness - the store clerk.  She saw the defendant commit the crime, and she identified him in a lineup soon after the crime occurred.  The police officer who arrested the defendant will also testify.  He found the defendant in a bar, without an alibi, and carrying a lot of cash.  Then, he arrested the defendant after he was identified in the lineup.

DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT:

          The defense attorney opened his case by stating that he would show there was a lot of reasonable doubt in the prosecution=s case.  The jury would see that the only evidence brought by the prosecution will be a scared victim and a suspicious police officer.  The prosecution=s best evidence is the lineup identification of the defendant.  The defense will bring evidence that will show that this identification was not reliable.  In fact, the victim made a mistake in identifying the defendant.  The jury will hear evidence from an expert in eyewitness identification which will show this.  And the defendant will testify that he was no where near the 7-11 at the time of the robbery. 

PROSECUTION WITNESSES:

1)  Jane Smith (Store clerk at the 7-11)

          Ms. Smith testified that she was working at her job as the night clerk at the neighborhood 7-11, a 24 hour convenience store.  At about 1:15 am, a man ran in the door and up to where she was standing at the cash register, which was about 10 feet from the door.  She testified that he was Caucasian, about 5'8" tall, with brown hair and an average build.  He was wearing a dark colored stocking cap, jacket, and gloves.  He was carrying a gun and said to her Agimme the money.@  Smith said she felt like she was frozen, and she just stood there for a second until he pointed the gun at her and repeated Agimme the money.@  She opened the cash drawer and gave him the money.  Smith said she was very scared and was shaking when she handed him the cash. The robber ran out of the store.  The whole thing took about a minute.  She said there was about $120 in mixed bills in the register.  After the robber left, she called the police, who came and got a description.  The next day, the police called her at home and said they had a suspect in custody.  She went to the police station and was asked to identify the man who robbed her in a lineup.  She identified the defendant.  She testified that she knew right away which lineup member he was and that she was very confident in her choice in the lineup.

2)  Officer Barry Brown (Arresting police officer)

         Officer Brown testified that he was the officer who responded to the 7-11 when Ms. Smith called to report the robbery.  He took down her description of the incident and the robber, and he thought he recognized him as being John Trent, the defendant.  He had arrested Trent in the past for some small burglary of local stores, although Trent was never arrested for using a gun or committing any violent acts.  After speaking with Ms. Smith, Officer Brown went over to John Trent=s apartment.  He was not at the apartment, but his roommate said he was at O=Neils, the bar on the corner.  Officer Brown went to O=Neils and found Trent there drinking at the bar. He was wearing a dark jacket.  Officer Brown asked him where he was at 1:15, and Trent said he was playing pool in the back room of the bar.  The person he said he was playing with was not in the bar anymore, and the police were unable to find him.  No one else in the bar saw Trent playing pool around that time.  The bartender said the first time he saw Trent was after 1:30. Officer Brown searched Trent for the gun, but he didn=t find it.  He did find $100 in cash in Trent=s pocket.  Knowing Trent=s reputation as a petty thief, Officer Brown thought this was suspicious.  He asked Trent to come down to the police station with him.  The next morning, Officer Brown rounded up some people who looked like Trent to put in the lineup with him.  Trent was the only person in the lineup who was wearing a dark jacket.  When Ms. Smith came into the station, he told her that they had a suspect.  In the identification room, he told her she should pick out the person who robbed her store.  Smith identified Trent.  Brown arrested Trent for robbery in the first degree.



DEFENSE WITNESSES:

1)  John Trent (Defendant)

         John Trent denied that he robbed the 7-11.  He said he went down to O=Neils at around midnight, and it was crowded.  He went into the back room with the pool table first.  He talked to no one on the way to the pool room.  There is no view of the pool room from the bar.  There was a guy playing by himself.  He said his name was Jack and that he was just passing through town.  Trent asked him if he wanted to play a game.  Trent racked the balls while Jack got some beer for them.  Trent never went to the bar himself.  They played for $20 a game, and Trent said he won the $100 from the games.  Jack left at about 1:45, saying he was leaving town but he didn=t say where he was going.  Trent went to the bar to drink some more.  After a few beers, Officer Brown came in and started asking questions.  He denied robbing the store, but wanted to cooperate so he went down to the station.  He denied that he was the one who robbed the store, he was just playing pool.




2)  Dr. Lawrence Jones

Defense Attorney:
Would you please tell us a little bit about yourself?

Dr. Jones:
My name is Lawrence Jones.  I have a Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Minnesota.  Right now, I am working as a professor at the University of Connecticut, where I am the Chair of the psychology department and have been teaching and doing research for 25 years. 

Defense Attorney:
What kind of research do you do?

Dr. Jones:
My area of research is in how reliable eyewitnesses are.  Recently, I=ve been doing research specifically on the effect of lineup instructions on eyewitness accuracy in a lineup identification.

Defense Attorney:
Ok, we=ll get to that research in a little bit Dr.  Have you heard the testimony of the victim of the robbery and of the police officer who conducted the lineup and arrested Mr. Trent?

Dr. Jones:
Yes, I have.

Defense Attorney:
What other preparation have you done for your testimony today? 

Dr. Jones:
I reviewed the police reports.  I was looking for information related to the techniques employed when conducting the eyewitness interview, the selection of foils for the lineup, the procedures employed when the lineup was conducted, and any other information related to the identification of the defendant.  Although I=ve been doing research in the area of eyewitness reliability for several years now, I also reviewed some of the research in the field to refresh myself on the findings.

Defense Attorney:
And what do you mean by research?

Dr. Jones:
I am referring to the results of empirical studies which have been conducted.  A researcher develops a theory related to some factor that might affect an eyewitnesses.  The researcher forms a hypothesis about the effect of this theory on the eyewitness.  Then, an empirical study is created to test the theory=s veracity and confirm the hypothesis.  This study might simulate an eyewitness situation and then test theory about what makes an eyewitness more reliable or less reliable.  Studies like this have been done which test many factors eyewitness identifications.
Defense Attorney:
So these aren=t just people=s theories, right?

Dr. Jones:
No, this research is based on testing people=s theories by making a hypothesis about the research results and then testing that hypothesis to see if it is right or wrong.  For example, a researcher might hypothesize that a procedure employed by the police might result in a  false identification.  To test this theory, an experiment would be conducted in which an event would be staged for the research participants, such as a theft in the laboratory.  Usually then a lineup is staged and we manipulate how that lineup is conducted to see if differences in the procedures used makes witnesses more or less accurate in their identifications.  Essentially, we simulate an eyewitness situation and a lineup where we definitely know that the suspect in the lineup was the perpetrator observed in the staged event by the participants.  When differential performance is observed due to the experimental manipulations, then we conclude that performance was caused by the  different procedures we have used.  All other factors which could affect the results are controlled and held constant.  This is how we test the theory that different lineup procedures result in different identifications.

Defense Attorney:
What research did you review that might be relevant to the identification of the defendant in this case?

Dr. Jones:
Well, there are a few issues I observed concerning the lineup that the research addresses.  First, there is the issue of the witnessing conditions.  Typically, the longer the retention interval is for an event that is to be subsequently recalled, the better the memory for that event will be.  When the retention interval is shorter, memory may be inferior.  This crime occurred in approximately a minute.  This does not constitute a very long retention interval for viewing the robber, especially considering the other situational factors.  For example, being the victim of a crime is considered to be a high stress situation.  Stress can affect how an individual remembers a situation.  When the level of stress is high, then the memory of the situation may not be as accurate.  This isn=t always true - sometimes a moderate level of stress improves memory retention, as when one is studying for an examination.  However, when there is a weapon involved, not only is stress increased, but other deleterious effects on memory might occur.  Research in this area has shown that when a weapon is present, the focus of the victim=s attention will on the weapon instead of on the perpetrator.  The victim might have an exemplary memory of the weapon.  However, because attention was focused largely on the weapon, subsequent details such as the characteristics of the perpetrator were not attended to or were forgotten.  This is identified as the Aweapon focus@ effect.

Defense Attorney:
Ok, so the time a witness has to view the robber, their level of stress, and the presence of a weapon can all affect the quality of the witness=s memory?

Dr. Jones:
Yes.

Defense Attorney:
Anything else that strikes you about the identification of Mr. Trent?

Dr. Jones:
Yes.  In every lineup, people other than the suspect have to be selected to be in the lineup.  These people allow for a witness to chose who the suspect is among several people.  How the people other than the suspect who are in the lineup are chosen is important.  There are two ways of thinking about this.  One is to pick people who look like the suspect, and the other is to pick people who fit the description given by the witness.  These may not sound very different, but the method used has been shown to affect whether the witness can correctly pick the suspect out of the lineup.  For example, assume there is a robbery, a witness has given a description of the perpetrator, and the police have a suspect.  If the police want to conduct a lineup, they would required to select foils to participate in the lineup with the suspect.  Several problems occur when they select foils who appear similar to the suspect.  One is that the investigator=s goal would be to pick people who are bear a very high resemblance to the suspect.  If the lineup members are all too homogeneous, then it may be difficult for the person making the identification to select the suspect.  Research has shown that the number of correct identifications decreases in this situation, so that a guilty suspect may fail to be selected because he or she appears too similar to the foils in the lineup.  Another problem is that when all the lineup members are selected for their similarity to the suspect, it is possible that the suspect is the only lineup member who matches the description given by the witness.  The foils in the lineup may appear similar to the suspect but they lack some essential features mentioned in the description of the perpetrator.  Therefore, the suspect may be the only lineup member that resembles the description of the perpetrator given by the witness.  Research has demonstrated that this increases the likelihood that the suspect will be selected, which is true even if the suspect is innocent.  Therefore, selecting foils for the lineup who resemble the suspect, but not necessarily consistent with the witness=s description, increases the likelihood that a false identification will occur.  Both of these problems are ameliorated when the foils comport with the witness=s description of the perpetrator and not with the appearance of the suspect. Therefore, the research indicates that the superior method for the selection of lineup foils is to recruit individuals who have characteristics consistent with the description of the perpetrator and not by their degree of similarity to the appearance of the suspect.

Defense Attorney:
And after your review of the police report, what method was used for the lineup where Mr. Trent was identified?

Dr. Jones:
The foils in the lineup were selected based on their similarity to the appearance of Mr. Trent, not based on their similarity to the description provided by the witness.

Defense Attorney:
What else about the other lineup members could influence the accuracy of the identification?

Dr. Jones:
Well, the clothing worn by the lineup members is important.  Once the foils are selected, they should all be dressed similarly.  One suggested procedure which should be followed is to ensure that the suspect is indistinguishable from the other lineup members based what he or she is wearing.  In this lineup, Mr. Trent was the only lineup member wearing dark clothing.  This would make him salient to the witness.  The suspect should also never be the only person in the lineup dressed in the clothing that was in the witness=s description of the perpetrator. Here, not only was Mr. Trent the only one wearing a particular type of clothing, it was the type of clothing that the perpetrator was described as wearing.  This would make it very likely that he would be salient among the other lineup members and be identified.

Defense Attorney:
Were any other procedures used by the police that might have affected the accuracy of the eyewitness during the lineup?

Dr. Jones:
Yes, research has demonstrated that the instructions given by and the behavior of the police officer conducting the lineup during the lineup can affect the eyewitness.   Research has shown that the person attempting to make an identification is more likely to select someone from the lineup if they are not informed that they have the option to identify no one.  The magnitude of this problem is lesser when the suspect - or the actual perpetrator - is present in the lineup.  Witnesses are fairly accurate in their identifications of the actual perpetrator in a target-present lineup regardless of the instructions given by the officer conducting the lineup.  However, when the actual perpetrator is absent from the lineup, it is a greater problem.  When the witness is instructed to select the perpetrator, but they are not informed that the perpetrator might absent from the lineup, the witness essentially hears Apick someone.@ That is precisely what they do.  They are very likely to select an innocent lineup member in a target-absent lineup.  If they are instructed that the robber might not be in the lineup, the probability that they will select an innocent lineup member is greatly reduced. Therefore, instructing a witness to select a lineup member increases the probability that an innocent lineup member will be identified when given a target-absent lineup.

Defense Attorney:
From your review of the police reports about the lineup, what was said to the witness?

Dr. Jones:
The officer instructed her to select the perpetrator of the store robbery out of the lineup.

Defense Attorney:
Is there anything else you would like to discuss about this identification?

Dr. Jones:
Well, one other thing strikes me as being important.  The witness reported that she was very confident that she chose the right person in the lineup.  Much research has been conducted on the relationship between a witness=s expressed confidence and their accuracy in an identification situation.  This research on the confidence-accuracy relationship demonstrates two very relevant phenomena.  First, people generally endorse the view that when a witness is confident in their selection of the perpetrator from a lineup, that means they were accurate in their selection during the lineup.  In fact, witness confidence is one of the most influential factors in an eyewitness identification for jurors in these trials when jurors are attempting to assess the credibility of an eyewitness identification.  However, the second important phenomenon demonstrated by the research is that there is little or no relationship between the confidence of a witness and the identification accuracy of that witness.

Defense Attorney:
What does the confidence of a witness tell us about how accurate their identification was?

Dr. Jones:
Based on the research, not much.

Defense Attorney:
Dr. Jones, you=ve been describing the results of all of this research to us.  What are the chances that all of this research is wrong?

Dr. Jones:
Well, when we conduct research, there is always some error involved.  This error can come from the manner in which the research was conducted.  If the rate of error is high, then there is potential for a researcher to report the existence of a relationship between some variables when that relationship is not really present in the population or that is does not really exist.  For example, I just described that there is a relationship between the presence of a weapon and witness accuracy.  If the amount of error in that research is high, then in reality there might be absolutely no relationship between weapon and accuracy.

Defense Attorney:
So, how do we know that any of what you=ve just told us about the research is true in the real world?

Dr. Jones:
Well, concern about the influence of error on these results would be increased if I was describing  the results of only one piece of research.  That one piece of research could have a very high error rate, and it could say that there is a relationship between two variables which does not exist in reality.  However, I=ve been discussing the results of a large body of research that has been conducted by many different researchers using a variety of experimental methods.  The same results are observed across all of this research.  When we observe the same findings over a large body of research, our confidence that the observed relationships in the results are not the product of error is increased.  We are more confident that the relationships we observe in the research represent relationships that actually exist.

Defense Attorney:
Given that the research you have described includes the results of a lot of research, what is your opinion on the rate of error of this research?

Dr. Jones:
I am confident that the error in this research is low and that the relationships I have described to you are factors that could affect eyewitnesses in the real world.

Defense Attorney:
Has this research you have just described been published anywhere?

Dr. Jones:
Yes.  The work in this area has been published numerous times.  Most of these publications were in journals where the articles are reviewed by other experts in the field prior to their publication. These are called peer reviewed journals.  This research has also been cited in major psychological textbooks that are used in graduate and undergraduate courses that cover eyewitness reliability.

Defense Attorney:
What would other experts in your field have to say about the research you have discussed here?

Dr. Jones:
I would say that the majority of researchers in the field would agree with the findings of this research.  Many other researchers have reported similar results.  In addition, the American Psychological Association, which is an organization that most psychologists belong to, has published a book summarizing the research being presented.  The techniques I have suggested have been and are being used in many police departments already.

Defense Attorney:
Thank you for your time Doctor.  I have no further questions.

DEFENSE CLOSING ARGUMENT:

          The defense attorney closed his case by reminding the jury that they had to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and he asked the jury if they really thought the prosecution had done that.  He then asked them to look at the evidence.  The only evidence brought by the prosecution was a scared victim and a suspicious police officer.  When Officer Brown first heard the description of the robber, he had no real reason to suspect Trent.  He seemed to have his suspicions confirmed by the lineup identification.  But, the defense attorney asked the jurors how sure they were that this victim correctly identified Mr. Trent?  Dr. Jones testified that there are many things to worry about this identification.  The victim was probably so scared that her memory was affected.  She probably focused mostly on the gun.  The lineup itself was biased.  Mr. Trent was the only person in the lineup wearing a dark jacket, so, he was the only one who matched her description.  Officer Brown encouraged her to pick someone from the lineup.  Dr. Jones testified that all of these things are potential problems with the lineup.  The defense attorney encouraged the jury to take all of these things into account when deciding if this eyewitness identification was reliable or not.  The defendant himself testified that he didn=t do it.  The prosecution may argue that no one saw him playing pool, but this doesn=t mean it didn=t happen.  The defendant testified under oath that it did.  All of these factors - no reason to suspect Trent in the beginning, the bad identification, and the defendant=s own testimony - add up to reasonable doubt.

PROSECUTION CLOSING ARGUMENT:

          The prosecuting attorney asked the jury to do exactly as the defense attorney suggested - look at the evidence.  The prosecution has an eyewitness to the crime.  She had the opportunity to see who robbed the store, she was able to give a description of him to the police, and most important she was able to identify the defendant in a lineup the very next day.  The prosecuting attorney asked who the jury thought they should trust about the identification, the person who was actually there and witnessed the crime, or an expert who only does research and wasn=t there when it happened?  Officer Brown immediately thought of the defendant when he heard her description of the robber.  When he found the defendant, he was wearing clothes fitting the description of the robber, and he had lots of cash on him.  He gave Officer Brown an alibi that no one could confirm.  He said he was playing pool, but no one saw him.  The police could never find the person he allegedly playing with because the defendant claimed he was an out-of-towner, and the defendant didn=t even know where he was going or his last name.  The only time any other person saw the defendant at the bar was after the robbery took place.  The prosecuting attorney asked the jury to think about whether this was a credible alibi.  The prosecution had two strong witnesses who showed that the defendant was the one who robbed the store, and the defense only had a shaky alibi and some research.  All this adds up to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, John Trent, robbed the 7-11.
 




These are instructions which have been given to you, the juror, by the judge in this case.  You should read these carefully before rendering your verdict.

JURY INSTRUCTIONS (these are the Astandard@ instructions)

DUTY OF THE JURY TO FIND FACTS AND FOLLOW LAW

    It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence admitted in this case. To those facts you must apply the law as I give it to you. The determination of the law is my duty as the presiding judge in this court. It is your duty to apply the law exactly as I give it to you, whether you agree with it or not. You must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, prejudices or sympathy. That means that you must decide the case solely on the evidence before you and according to the law. You will recall that you took an oath promising to do so at the beginning of the case.
    In following my instructions, you must follow all of them and not single out some and ignore others; they are all equally important. You must not read into these instructions, or into anything I may have said or done, any suggestions by me as to what verdict you should return--that is a matter entirely for you to decide.


PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE--BURDEN OF PROOF--REASONABLE DOUBT

    (1) As you know, the defendant has pleaded not guilty to the crime charged in the indictment. The indictment is not any evidence at all of guilt. It is just the formal way that the government tells the defendant what crime he is accused of committing. It does not even raise any suspicion of guilt.
    (2) Instead, the defendant starts the trial with a clean slate, with no evidence at all against him, and the law presumes that he is innocent. This presumption of innocence stays with him unless the government presents evidence here in court that overcomes the presumption, and convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.
    (3) This means that the defendant has no obligation to present any evidence at all, or to prove to you in any way that he is innocent. It is up to the government to prove that he is guilty, and this burden stays on the government from start to finish. You must find the defendant not guilty unless the government convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.
    (4) The government must prove every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt. Possible doubts or doubts based purely on speculation are not reasonable doubts. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It may arise from the evidence, the lack of evidence, or the nature of the evidence.
    (5) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means proof which is so convincing that you would not hesitate to rely and act on it in making the most important decisions in your own lives. If you are convinced that the government has proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, say so by returning a guilty verdict. If you are not convinced, say so by returning a not guilty verdict.


ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE - DEFINITION

   The defendant, John Trent, is charged with robbery in the first degree.  A person commits the crime of robbery in the first degree when in the commission of a robbery he or she is armed with a deadly weapon or displays what appears to be a firearm or other deadly weapon.  Deadly weapon means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, which under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used, or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or substantial bodily injury.


CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

  You, as jurors, are the sole and exclusive judges of the credibility of each of the witnesses called to testify in this case and only you determine the importance or the weight that their testimony deserves. After making your assessment concerning the credibility of a witness, you may decide to believe all of that witness' testimony, only a portion of it, or none of it.

  In making your assessment of that witness you should carefully scrutinize all of the testimony given by that witness, the circumstances under which each witness has testified, and all of the other evidence which tends to show whether a witness, in your opinion, is worthy of belief. Consider each witness's intelligence, motive to falsify, state of mind, and appearance and manner while on the witness stand. Consider the witness's ability to observe the matters as to which he or she has testified and consider whether he or she impresses you as having an accurate memory or recollection of these matters. Consider also any relation a witness may bear to either side of the case, the manner in which each witness might be affected by your verdict, and the extent to which, if at all, each witness is either supported or contradicted by other evidence in the case.

  Inconsistencies or discrepancies in the testimony of a witness or between the testimony of different witnesses may or may not cause you to disbelieve or discredit such testimony. Two or more persons witnessing an incident or a transaction may simply see or hear it differently. Innocent misrecollection, like failure of recollection, is not an uncommon human experience. In weighing the effect of a discrepancy, however, always consider whether it pertains to a matter of importance or an insignificant detail and consider whether the discrepancy results from innocent error or from intentional falsehood.

  After making your own judgment or assessment concerning the believability of a witness, you can then attach such importance or weight to that testimony, if any, that you feel it deserves. You will then be in a position to decide whether the government has proven the charge[s] beyond a reasonable doubt.