Jury Decision-making - Case Study Example

After the authenticity of DNA evidence had been proved, many judgements have been overturned and one such famous case is The Case of the Winchester Three, (1990) where three Irish people were sentenced for 25 years of imprisonment for the murder of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Tom King. Eye witnesses had spotted them in the crime scene and they had money, a second hand car, a radio, a woolly hat, a list of prominent British people and also had false name driving licences. Jury relied on eye witness evidence and any reasonable jury could do so and in this case it eventually proved to be a miscarriage of justice.

Even though it was not Actus reus, it was easy to convince the jury. "An eyewitness who has no motive to lie is a powerful form of evidence for jurors, especially if the eyewitness appears to be highly confident about his or her recollection. In the absence of definitive proof to the contrary, the eyewitness's account is generally accepted by police, prosecutors, judges, and juries" says Wells (2006). Wells and Loftus (1984, p. 1), mention the bewildering case of Robert Dillen, a freelance photographer, who was charged with indecent exposure for relieving himself in the park bushes, after ascertaining that the public lavatory was locked.

Unfortunately, his photo was published and identified by many eye witnesses as the man who conducted rape, armed robbery, kidnapping etc. in various cases. Fortunately, his strong alibis and the weakness of eye witnesses convinced the jury otherwise, and he was released every time. This shows that people can feel convinced that they saw the accused and they are absolutely sure that even a lie test fails to point out. Psychological studies have proved that it is possible to convince a person that he has witnessed something that had never happened.

A confluence of memory combined with complexly operating socially influential alternatives could be responsible in eye witnessing errors and courts should consider them from every angle. "The eight factors that have been shown to affect identification accuracy, disguise of robber, weapon focus, violence of robbery, retention interval, exposure, to mug shots, biased line-up instructions, line-up size, and fairness of the line-up, had trivial effects on probability ratings and on verdicts" Culter et al (1988).

Sometimes eyewitness confidence and accuracy are very poorly related and the memory of the face that could go through changes in the mind of the witness, and this shows that vibrant psychological effects are behind eyewitness evidence. Cultler concludes one of his researches: "This research provides some justification for admitting expert psychological testimony on eyewitness identification. The juror apparently does not evaluate eyewitness memory in a manner consistent with psychological theory and findings.

" Cutler (1990). In one of his researches, Kassin concludes:"Clearly, participants distinguished between a voluntary and coerced confession. Yet at the same time, the presence of any confession powerfully increased the conviction rate-even when it was seen as coerced, even when