Mock Jurors’ Perceptions of Eyewitness Evidence: The Role of Familiarity with the Defendant, Race of the Defendant, and Eyewitness Confidence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almost exclusively, eyewitness research in the context of juror decision-making has examined the situation where the eyewitness and defendant are strangers. The purpose of the current study was to examine how prior familiarity with the defendant together with eyewitness confidence and defendant race influence mock jurors' perceptions of the eyewitness evidence and the defendant's guilt. Mock jurors (N = 427) read a trial transcript from a mock robbery case that involved eyewitness identification evidence. Both defendant race and eyewitness confidence were found to influence jurors' judgments with more positive perceptions of the eyewitness and higher perceptions of the defendant's guilt when the eyewitness identified the same-race defendant and when he expressed high identification confidence, respectively. Although familiarity was not influential in their legal judgments, mock jurors' subjective perceptions of the eyewitness-defendant familiarity were associated with their judgments and verdict decisions. The implications of these findings and future directions are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it