Witness Appeal

Attractiveness of the defendant

Attractive people seem to receive more positive scores than unattractive people (Dion et al 1972).

Do you think that in a court of law, adults may be judged based on their attractiveness? The answer to this is a resounding yes!

Q- What is the halo effect?

• A - The halo effect refers to how we may perceive one trait to be influenced by a previous trait in a sequence (Thorndike, 1920). This relates to the implicit personality theory whereby the first traits we recognise have an effect on later ones. This is why attractive people are often judged as having more intelligence or skills than unattractive people.

Castellow et al (1990) discovered that the physical attractiveness of the defendant has an effect on the jury’s verdict. The more attractive the defendant, the less they are seen to be guilty. It was a sexual harassment case and a guilty verdict was more likely when the female secretary was attractive and the male boss was unattractive. Therefore it seems that looks matter a great deal in court as well as in our everyday lives.

Q - But would this apply if the defendant was a very good looking swindler?

• A - If the defendant was a very good looking swindler, it would not apply according to further mock trials as the jury would more likely think that the swindler had used his or her looks to advance his criminal activity

Witness Confidence

Did you know that faulty eyewitness testimony plays a large role in convictions that are later overturned due to the results of DNA evidence?

Yet it stands to reason that jurors are more likely to rate more highly the testimony from a confident eyewitness than a nervous, shy one and yet the eyewitness could still be wrong.

Despite Loftus (1974) asserting how fragile the human memory is, jurors still place enormous emphasis on the credibility of eyewitness testimony, often more than actual forensic evidence. Loftus showed how even an eyewitness who was short sighted and not wearing glasses could still encourage the jury to find the defendant guilty.

Examine Penrod and Cutler (1995) study and look at these facts in order of the study

• The aim was to examine factors such as confidence that jurors may think about when judging eyewitness testimony
• A video of a mock trial of a robbery was shown to participants
• The participants were undergraduate students and experienced jurors
• The witness was either 80% or 100% that she had identified the robber
• When the witness seemed 100% confident then the conviction was 67%
• When the witness seemed 80% confident then the conviction was 60%
• The results are statistically significant
• This shows how the jury is influenced by a confident witness
• The more confident a witness the more the jury are likely to believe them
• The judge may advise the jury not to place emphasis on the eyewitness testimony but the confidence of the eyewitness is the most influential predictor of verdicts

Children giving evidence

Below are some of the kinds of problems that may emerge if a child is the only witness to a crime.

• Children can become very distressed with having  to go to court and confront their abuser or recall events that were traumatic
• Children as witnesses may not be believable as children can make up stories and say what they think adults want them to say
• A child may be put under extreme pressure if they face their accuser in court (which occurs in America)

A child may sit behind a screen so that they aren’t intimidated by the defendant or appear on a video screen. This can reduce the trauma that they experience.

Is this prejudicial to the defendant though? This could make the child seem in need of protection and that would suggest that the defendant was guilty.

Look at the following table of Ross et al (1994) study to investigate the impact of protective shields and videotape testimony on jurors’ decisions.