State v. Henderson and the New Model Jury Charges - New Jersey ...

a-8-08.opn.html
possible to replicate the atmosphere of a criminal trial in a mock-trial setting.
While true, that comment does not justify scuttling the studies entirely. Also,
the growing use of mock trials by the private bar undercuts the strength of the
assertion. See generally Martha Neil, Practice Makes Perfect: Mock Trials Gain
Ground as a Way to Get Inside Track in Real Trial, 89 A.B.A. J. 34 (2003).
The Special Master did cite the studies. In one mock-jury experiment,
researchers showed jurors different versions of a videotaped mock trial about
an armed robbery of a liquor store. Brian L. Cutler et al., Juror Sensitivity to
Eyewitness Identification Evidence, 14 Law & Hum. Behav. 185, 186-87 (1990).
To test how sensitive jurors were to the effect of weapon focus, some heard an
eyewitness testify that the defendant pointed a gun at her during the robbery,
while others heard that the gun was hidden in the robber’s jacket. Id. at 188.
Similarly, some jurors heard the eyewitness declare that she was 80% confident
that she had correctly identified the robber, while others heard that she was
100% confident. Id. at 189. Researchers used similar methods to test reactions
to eight other system and estimator variables. See id. at 188-89.
The study revealed that mock-jurors “were insensitive to the effects of
disguise, weapon presence, retention interval, suggestive lineup instructions,
and procedures used for constructing and carrying out the lineup” but “gave
disproportionate weight to the confidence of the witness.” Id. at 190. Stated
otherwise, eyewitness confidence “was the most powerful predictor of verdicts”
regardless of other variables. Id. at 185. The authors thus concluded that jurors
do “not evaluate eyewitness memory in a manner consistent with psychological
theory and findings.” See id. at 190.
Neither juror surveys nor mock-jury studies can offer definitive proof of
what jurors know or believe about memory. But they reveal generally that
people do not intuitively understand all of the relevant scientific findings. As a
result, there is a need to promote greater juror understanding of those issues.
D. Consensus Among Experts
The Special Master found broad consensus within the scientific
community on the relevant scientific issues. Primarily, he found support in a
2001 survey of sixty-four experts, mostly cognitive and social psychologists. See
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]