Mcquiston-Surrett And Sak: A 2009 Study

1209 Words5 Pages

A 2009 study by Mcquiston-Surrett and Saks looked at how forensic evidence is presented, rather than the actual evidence. How evidence is presented can have a large impact on how the jury feels about the evidence. There were 425 participants in this study, which included 128 judges and the rest jurors (Mcquiston-Surrett & Saks, 2009). Forensic experts gave different versions of the same hair comparison evidence in a murder trial and then they compared the outcomes of each version. The expert would switch things up like offering his own opinion in this testimony to saying that the hair was an exact match with the defendant’s hair. The participants were then given a survey asking questions about what they believed to be true regarding this mock …show more content…

The scenario consisted of a prosecution witness presenting microscopic hair comparison evidence and making it sound like it is very reliable without stating its limitations and subjectivity. There was also testimony from a defense expert and instructions from the judge stating the limitations of hair comparison evidence (Eastwood & Caldwell 2015). Some of the mock jurors received instructions from the judge on hair comparison limitations and some did not. The results showed that the mock jurors’ decisions were not affected much by judicial instructions, but they were affected by mock jurors who received instructions from an expert witness (Eastwood & Caldwell, 2015). There were fewer guilty verdicts from the mock jurors who received instructions from an expert witness than those who did not receive instructions on limitations (Eastwood & Caldwell, 2015). This study shows us that expert witnesses have a tremendous impact on what the jurors decide in a criminal trial. (Eastwood & Caldwell, 2015) In many cases, the expert witness is deemed credible just by being called an expert witness by the courts. This study had some limitations. The mock trial only used one type of forensic evidence and the participants were all freshman college students, …show more content…

There were seventy-two students that watched a clip of a bank robbery where a little boy was shot and killed (Whitehouse et al., 2005). These participants were interviewed about a week later and asked about what they remembered from the video (Whitehouse et al., 2005). Afterwards, some of the students were randomly selected to go through forensic hypnosis (Whitehouse et al., 2005) Eyewitness testimony has a large impact on criminal court cases and many people have been looking for ways to help witnesses remember more from crime scenes (Whitehouse et al., 2005). This study found that cognitive interviews were just as effective as forensic hypnosis, if not slightly more effective (Whitehouse et al., 2005). Research on these types of methods is subjective, which makes it hard for law enforcement agencies to adopt the use of them (Whitehouse et al.,

Open Document