T. R. Benton, Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, and Bradshaw (2006) studied 111 jurors drawn from a jury pool.


T. R. Benton, Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, and Bradshaw (2006) studied 111 jurors drawn from a jury pool in Hamilton County, Tennessee. Using a questionnaire after a period 30 statements encircling evidence corroboration (Kassin et al., 2001), they set that jurors significantly disagreed after a period evidence experts on over than 85% of the items. For illustration, period almost all of the experts agreed that instructions by police can favor the willingness of an evidence to effect an identification, hither than half of the jurors agreed. Over three quarters of the experts agreed that an evidence may mistakenly identify someone they saw in another condition as a offender, hither than a third of the jurors agreed. And period over than nine out of ten of the experts agreed that Hypnosis may govern a witnesses’ suggestibility toward ascititious and misascititious questions, hither than a mercy of the jurors believed that hypnosis could possess such an contact. In sum, the authors concluded that jurors possess limited familiarity regarding the achievement of evidence corroboration and their beliefs regarding the achievement of evidence corroboration disagree significantly from the opinions of experts.