Jury instructions on eyewitness identification evidence: a re-evaluation

Leverick, F. (2016) Jury instructions on eyewitness identification evidence: a re-evaluation. Creighton Law Review, 49(3), pp. 555-588.

Abstract

The primary contribution of this paper is to challenge the accepted wisdom that jury instructions are an ineffective safeguard against wrongful conviction caused by mistaken eyewitness identification. It argues that such a conclusion is based on an erroneous interpretation of the available experimental evidence and that, in fact, there are grounds for optimism about the effectiveness of jury instructions in educating jurors about the risks posed by eyewitness identification evidence and sensitising them to the factors relevant to its evaluation. In order to play a useful role in safeguarding against wrongful conviction, however, instructions need to be easily comprehensible; to reflect the relevant scientific findings; and be provided to jurors in writing (or an alternative format for those who would find written instructions inaccessible). The paper also makes a secondary contribution, which is to warn of the dangers of accepting uncritically the findings of mock jury research as the basis for legal policy formation.

• Item Type: Articles
• Status: Published
• Refereed: Yes
• Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID: Leverick, Professor Fiona
• Authors: Leverick, F.
• College/School: College of Social Sciences > School of Law
• Journal Name: Creighton Law Review
• Publisher: Creighton University, School of Law
• ISSN: 0011-1155
• ISSN (Online): 2168-9261
• Copyright Holders: Copyright © 2016 The Author
• First Published: First published in Creighton Law Review 49(3): 555-588
• Publisher Policy: Reproduced with the permission of the Editor