This is my second paper of the week, this time for my sociological enterprise course. The assignment was to find an academic article; summarize it; review it, identifying strengths and weaknesses; and describe its importance. My semester-long topic has been the dangers of overreliance on eyewitness testimony, so I decided to select an article related to judges’ knowledge on eyewitness testimony.

I titled my paper Article Review: “A comparison of Chinese judges’ and US judges’ knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony” (I know, such an original title).

The dangers of putting too much trust in eyewitness testimonies not only affect juries, but also have an impact on unsuspecting judges. It is important for both juries and judges to be aware of the skewed evidence presented by eyewitnesses. Although many people agree that juries need to be educated prior to deliberating on a case involving eyewitnesses, it is generally assumed that judges are already aware of the problems eyewitnesses introduce into a particular case. A group of psychologists in the United States worked with the Sichuan Provincial People’s Court in China to determine if that assumption is correct by surveying 160 US judges and 170 Chinese judges in a cross-cultural investigation of knowledge to find out if judges do in fact know as much as they should know about various facets of eyewitness testimonies.

The questions the researchers asked the judges covered a broad range of different topics, including (but not limited to) physical details, psychological effects, inadvertent bias, external choice influences, and assumed knowledge of attorneys. When the researchers asked a question, they read a statement (such as “A police officer who knows which member of the lineup or photo array is the suspect should not conduct the lineup or photo array”) and asked for a response of “A” for agreement with the statement, “D” for disagreement with the statement, or “T” for generally true (meaning, the statement is true most of the time). For example, the correct response for the previous statement about foreknowledge by police officers should be “A,” as the statement is true and the questioned judge should agree with the statement. The success rates for this question used in the example were 67% for Chinese judges and 62% for US judges – this means 67% of Chinese judges answered “A” while 33% of Chinese judges provided a different answer, and 62% of US judges answered “A” while 38% of US judges provided a different answer.

Statistics show that on average, Chinese judges performed slightly worse than US judges, but overall, both groups of judges performed poorly relative to what was expected by expert analysts for people of such a high standing in the legal system. The statements that both groups of judges did extremely poorly on were “A witness’ ability to recall minor details about a crime is a good indicator of the accuracy of the witness’ identification of the perpetrator of the crime” (correct response is “D,” accuracy rates were 36% correct by Chinese judges and 23% correct by US judges) and “At trial, an eyewitness’ confidence is a good predictor of his or her accuracy in identifying the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime” (“D,” 23% Chinese and 32% US). The statements on which Chinese judges performed significantly (p<0.01) poorer than US judges were “Attorneys know how most eyewitness factors affect eyewitness accuracy” (“D,” 8% Chinese and 41% US) and “Jurors now how most eyewitness factors affect eyewitness accuracy (“D,” 11% Chinese and 64% US).

The implications of the findings of this research are clear – even though judges in the United States might be slightly more aware of the dangers of eyewitness testimony, the awareness is still nowhere near what it should be. According to the Innocence Project (which, according to their website, is “an organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals”), problems in eyewitness testimonies are the primary contributing factor for 77% of wrongful convictions. The findings about judges’ lack of knowledge of these problems make it clear that eyewitnesses and jury members are not the only ones who are at fault for this massive discrepancy.

By placing too much weight and trust on eyewitness testimonies, judges are making wrong decisions that are placing innocent people in prison simply because someone claiming to have seen the crime first-hand points to the suspect and declares that “(s)he is the one.” The position of being a judge comes with great prestige and honor, and judges should not be making such dramatic errors within their own profession. This research acts as good support for providing continued and focused education for judges even after they earn their title. In order for them to complete their duties to the fullest, they must continue to receive a stream of accurate information and findings regarding research targeting the legal field so they are able to identify newly discovered sources of obstacles and adjust their performance accordingly.