This experiment examines the infruence of expert psychological testimony on juror decision making in eyewitness ident@cation cases. Experienced jurors and undeqraduate mock jurors viewed versions of a videotaped trial, rated the credibility of the eyewitness and the strength of the prosecution's and defense's cases, and rendered verdicts. In the absence of expert testimony jurors were insensitive to eyewitness evidence. Expert testimony improved juror sensitivity to eyewitness evidence without making them more skeptical about the accuracy of the eyewitness identijcation. Few differences emerged between the experienced jurors and undergraduate mock jurors.
Due to the reconstructive nature of human memory, eyewitness identifications in courtroom proceedings will sometimes be inaccurate (Goodman & Hahn, 1987; Penrod, Loftus, & Winkler, 1982). The criminal justice system has produced several safeguards designed to curtail false convictions resulting from mistaken identifications, including the use of corroborative evidence and rigorous crossexamination. In practice the utility of these safeguards is limited, for corroborative evidence is often lacking and effective cross-examination requires a sophisticated knowledge of human memory (Walters, 1985). Psychological research, however, has demonstrated that laypersons, including police, attorneys, judges, and juries, are not knowledgeable enough about memorial processes to draw valid inferences about the accuracy of eyewitness identification under various witnessing conditions