what Is her hypothesis?
Writing a Scientific Paper
Abstract
Literature Review/Introduction
Method
Results
Discussion
References
Writing your literature review introduction
The purpose of an introduction is to summarize the scientific literature on your research question or topic.
RQ1: Does the type of eyewitness testimony presented in court influence perceptions of guilt?
Your introduction must have at least 5 scholarly sources and should take 4-5 pages to write.
What are some good search terms for our variables?
“Eyewitness testimony”, “credibility of eyewitnesses”, etc,
Getting to the Library
For this assignment, I’d like you refer back to Lecture Slides: Consuming Research to find scholarly research on eyewitness testimony.
Find at least 5 sources dealing with eyewitness testimony.
Use Outline for an Experiment Paper to guide your writing.
Writing your method section
This section of a primary scholarly article describes how a study is conducted.
Allows readers to judge the reliability/validity of your study.
Allows future researchers to replicate your study.
Three subsections:
1. Participants
Explain the major characteristics of your sample:
# of participants
# of people from each gender
Average and standard deviation age of participants
Explain how participants were recruited
Sampling method
Recruitment method (text? Face-to-face? Social media?)
Compensation?
2. Materials
Describe each survey in-depth.
Name of survey, # of questions
Describe the scale
Give a sample question
3. Design and Procedure
Explain the process of taking the survey.
Participates were encouraged to take the survey at their convenience. After completing an Informed Consent Form…
Explain each research question
Independent variable
Dependent variable
Hypothesis
Formatting
Will immediately follow introduction (do not start a new page).
Method will be bolded and centered.
Keep the same font size
Writing your Results Section
Please refer to the Outline for an Experiment Paper to assist you in writing your results section.
Writing your Discussion Section
The purpose of the discussion is to interpret the importance of your findings in response to the previous literature.
To explain anything new to the general knowledge on the topic.
The most important section
It demonstrates your ability to think critically about the topic.
It presents the big picture importance of your study.
Highlights limitations and future directions.
Components of the Discussion
Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings (1-2 paragraphs).
Reiterate research question and method
Briefly restate your results.
Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important (around 1 page).
Explain your hypothesis and whether your finding supports/refutes it.
Overall meaning of your findings; why it is important.
Components of the Discussion
Consider Alternative Explanations of your results (1-2 paragraphs).
Alternative explanations to your findings (use logic and creativity)
Acknowledge the Study’s Limitations (1-2 paragraphs)..
Explain 1-3 flaws in our study
Make Suggestions for Future Researchers (1-2 paragraphs).
Think about if you could do this study again. Write down 1-3 things that could be done to improve our study.
Small n.
Lack of diversity.
Lack of a- control group.
Failure to control for certain confounds.
Lack of standardized instructions.
Lack of generalizability.
Low reliability/validity.
Use of a correlational design.
14
Formatting
Will immediately follow results (do not start a new page).
Discussion will be bolded and centered.
Keep the same font size
Writing your Abstract
It’s the last thing you write but the first section of your paper after the title page.
Write 1-2 sentences summarizing each section of the paper.
Introduction
Problem under investigation, Purpose of Study
Method
Participants, Study Design (IV, DV)
Results
State results
Discussion
Theoretical implications of your results. Conclusions.
Formatting
Will immediately follow the title page (do not start a new page).
Abstract will be bolded and centered.
12pt Times New Roman font.
1
Sample Outline for LITERATURE REVIEW/INTRODUCTION to a Scientific Paper
Organize your introduction per the following outline. This section should take about 4 pages. Please use the
document Preformatted APA Paper for SOC200 to format your paper.
1. Introduction: Explain the issue you are examining and why it is significant.
a. Describe the general area to be studied.
b. Explain why this area is important to the general area under study.
2. Background/Review of the Literature: A description of what is already known about this area and
short discussion of why the background studies are not sufficient.
a. Discuss several critical studies that have already been done in this area (This is the biggest
subsection of the introduction; use your sources).
b. Discuss 1-3 flaws from the previous research (i.e., What is missing? What else could be done in
future studies?)
3. The Current Study: Explain your current research question(s) and hypotheses.
a. Briefly state your research question and hypotheses. Be brief, as you fully explain this in your
Method section.
b. Explain how your study will add to the literature on this topic.
2
Sample Outline for METHOD SECTION to a Scientific Paper
Use the document on Canvas, “IRB Proposal – Eyewitness Testimony and College Major” and “Methods
Statistics Document” to answer the following outline questions. Begin writing your Method section (1-3 pages)
using the Example Methods Section PDF as a template.
1. Participants
a. Total number of participants
b. Number of males and females & % of sample that are males and females:
c. Average and standard deviation age of participants:
d. Explain how participants were recruited:
o Circle the sampling method used: (Random, Stratified, Systematic, Convenience, Snowball,
Cluster)
o How did we get people to take the survey?
o Explain how the participants were compensated (e.g., paid, earned course credit, were not
compensated, etc.).
2. Materials
a. Describe demographic questions that were asked:
b. Describe the experimental manipulation
o No eyewitness condition (N = ):
o Unchallenged eyewitness condition (N = )
o Discredited eyewitness condition (N = )
c. Explain how guilt rating was measured:
3. Design & Procedure
a. Explain the entire process of taking the experiment. (e.g., informed consent -> Demographic
questions -> etc.):
b. Write the Research Question.
o Explain the research design (Circle One): Between-Subjects Design vs. Within-Subjects
Design (see Lecture Slides: Experimental Design for help)
o State the Independent variable:
o What are the groups or levels of the IV?
o State the Dependent variable:
c. State your Hypothesis (i.e., We predict that…)
3
The RESULTS SECTION to a Scientific Paper
The results section is a summary of the statistics that you conducted for your paper. You’ll learn more about this
section in your next statistics class. The first two paragraphs of the results section for each student in this
class is going to be exactly the same. Use the Canvas document, Method and Results Statistics Document to
fill in the blanks here. Copy and paste this section into your paper immediately following the Method section.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to evaluate the research question. It was
hypothesized that participants in the Unchallenged Eyewitness group (N = ___)* would rate the fictional
defendant as more guilty than the No Eyewitness group (N = ___) and the Discredited Eyewitness group (N =
___). There was/was not (choose one) a significant difference in groups F (2,292) = _____, p =
______).
Post hoc tests revealed that there was/was not (choose one) a significant difference in
guilty ratings between the No Eyewitness group (M = _____, SD = _____) and the Unchallenged Eyewitness
group (M = _____, SD = _____). However, there was/was not (choose one) a significant
difference in guilty ratings between the Discredited Eyewitness group (M = _____, SD = _____) and the No
Eyewitness Group as well as the Unchallenged Eyewitness group.
In your own words, answer the following prompts
• Do the results support or refute our hypothesis?
*Note: N refers to the number of participants in the group. You can find this on the statistics document.
4
Sample Outline for DISCUSSION SECTION to a Scientific Paper
Organize your discussion per the following outline. Feel free to alter how you see fit.
1. Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings (1-2 paragraphs).
a. Briefly reiterate the research question and the method you used to examine it.
b. Briefly describe the major findings of the study (be direct and succinct):
2. Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important (around 1 page).
a. Refer to your hypothesis and explain your finding relevant to the hypothesis (e.g., explain
whether your hypothesis was supported or refuted). Do this for each hypothesis.
b. Explain what you think is the overall meaning of your findings. State why you think the meaning
is important.
3. Consider Alternative Explanations of your results (1-2 paragraphs).
a. Write potential alternative explanations to your findings (i.e., why do you think our hypotheses
were not supported?). Use your logic and creatively to carefully think of alternative reasons for
our findings.
4. Acknowledge the Study’s Limitations (1-2 paragraphs)..
a. Explain 1-3 flaws in our study (e.g., Could we use better sampling techniques next time? Could
it be that our correlational survey did not capture the causal effect that we expected?)
5. Make Suggestions for Future Researchers (1-2 paragraphs).
a. Think about if you could do this study again. Write down 1-3 things that could be done to
improve our study.
Copyright of Journal of Social Psychology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247358793
Reconstructing memory: The incredible eyewitness
Article · January 1975
DOI: 10.2307/29761487
CITATIONS
109
READS
5,454
1 author:
Elizabeth F Loftus
University of California, Irvine
386 PUBLICATIONS 23,408 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Elizabeth F Loftus on 03 September 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247358793_Reconstructing_memory_The_incredible_eyewitness?enrichId=rgreq-c732f4918902f4f3ef92450e0073d95d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzM1ODc5MztBUzoxMzczODkwNTM4NDU1MDRAMTQwOTc2NzUxMTA4Mg%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247358793_Reconstructing_memory_The_incredible_eyewitness?enrichId=rgreq-c732f4918902f4f3ef92450e0073d95d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzM1ODc5MztBUzoxMzczODkwNTM4NDU1MDRAMTQwOTc2NzUxMTA4Mg%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-c732f4918902f4f3ef92450e0073d95d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzM1ODc5MztBUzoxMzczODkwNTM4NDU1MDRAMTQwOTc2NzUxMTA4Mg%3D%3D&el=1_x_1&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elizabeth_Loftus?enrichId=rgreq-c732f4918902f4f3ef92450e0073d95d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzM1ODc5MztBUzoxMzczODkwNTM4NDU1MDRAMTQwOTc2NzUxMTA4Mg%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elizabeth_Loftus?enrichId=rgreq-c732f4918902f4f3ef92450e0073d95d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzM1ODc5MztBUzoxMzczODkwNTM4NDU1MDRAMTQwOTc2NzUxMTA4Mg%3D%3D&el=1_x_5&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/institution/University_of_California_Irvine?enrichId=rgreq-c732f4918902f4f3ef92450e0073d95d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzM1ODc5MztBUzoxMzczODkwNTM4NDU1MDRAMTQwOTc2NzUxMTA4Mg%3D%3D&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elizabeth_Loftus?enrichId=rgreq-c732f4918902f4f3ef92450e0073d95d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzM1ODc5MztBUzoxMzczODkwNTM4NDU1MDRAMTQwOTc2NzUxMTA4Mg%3D%3D&el=1_x_7&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elizabeth_Loftus?enrichId=rgreq-c732f4918902f4f3ef92450e0073d95d-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzM1ODc5MztBUzoxMzczODkwNTM4NDU1MDRAMTQwOTc2NzUxMTA4Mg%3D%3D&el=1_x_10&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
RECONSTRUCTING MEMORY: THE INCREDIBLE EYEWITNESS
Author(s): Elizabeth F. Loftus
Source: Jurimetrics Journal, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Spring 1975), pp. 188-193
Published by: American Bar Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29761487
.
Accessed: 03/09/2014 14:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
American Bar Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Jurimetrics
Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.195.137.154 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 14:02:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aba
http://www.jstor.org/stable/29761487?origin=JSTOR-pdf
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
RECONSTRUCTING MEMORY: THE
INCREDIBLE EYEWITNESS*
Elizabeth F. Loftust
“I SAW IT WITH MY OWN EYES.” That statement has ended many an
argument, since for most people seeing is believing. But it shouldn’t be.
Between the time you first witness an event and the time you recount it
to someone else, your memory of the event may change drastically.
Many factors can affect the accuracy of your report. I have found that
the questions asked about an event influence the way a witness “remem
bers” what he saw. Changing even one word in a single question can
systematically alter an eyewitness account.
Most previous research on this topic has been directed toward
demonstrating how poor eyewitness testimony is, without exploring why
people make the errors they do. One favorite method of study has been
to stage an incident, then interrogate all the witnesses about what hap
pened. Typically, everyone tells a different story.
In a study conducted at Dartmouth in the 1930s, some students
unknowingly became subjects in such an experiment. While a class was
in session, a man dressed in workman’s overalls entered the room, made
some remarks about the heat, tinkered with the radiator for a minute or
two, and left. About two weeks later he returned with five other men of
similar appearance, and the students were asked to pick him out from a
lineup of all six individuals. Seventeen percent of the students chose the
wrong man.
Another group of students, who had not witnessed the event but
who were told they had seen it, also had to make a selection. Seventy
percent of these subjects reported (correctly) that they could not recall
the incident, but 29 percent did point to one of the men. That is, they
“identified” a man they had never seen.
In a more recent study by Robert Buckhout and his colleagues at
California State University, Hayward, 141 students witnessed a staged
*Reprinted from PSYCHOLOGY TODAY magazine, December 1974. Copyright @ 1974
Ziff-Davis Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
tDr. Elizabeth F. Loftus is Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Washing
ton.
188 JURIMETRICS JOURNAL
This content downloaded from 128.195.137.154 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 14:02:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
assault on a professor. Seven weeks later they were asked to pick out the
assailant from a group of six photographs. Although the episode had been
a dramatic one that could hardly have gone unnoticed, 60 percent of the
witnesses, including the professor who had been attacked, chose the
wrong man. Twenty-five percent selected an individual who had been at
the scene of the crime, but as an innocent bystander.
This kind of demonstration is rather entertaining, but when some?
thing similar happens in real life, the results can be serious. A few months
ago, the Los Angeles Times reported the erroneous conviction of a man
whom seven witnesses had identified as the robber of a bank. In a similar
case last year, 17 witnesses identified a man charged with shooting a
police officer; later it turned out the man had not even been in the vicinity
of the crime while it was going on. Innocent people have sat in prison
for years on the strength of eyewitness testimony. The witnesses in these
cases probably were all honest people, but they were tragically wrong.
Yet, despite the poor performance of eyewitnesses, judges and juries
continue to place great faith in them. My colleagues and I recently
studied the influence a single eyewitness can have in the courtroom. We
simulated a criminal trial, using 150 students as jurors. The students
received a written description of a grocery store robbery in which the
owner and his granddaughter were killed. They also received a summary
of the evidence and arguments presented at the defendant’s trial. Each
juror had to arrive at a verdict, guilty or not guilty.
We told some of the jurors that there had been no eyewitnesses to
the crime. We told others that a store clerk testified he saw the defendant
shoot the two victims, although the defense attorney claimed he was
mistaken. Finally, we told a third group of students that the store clerk
had testified to seeing the shootings, but the defense attorney had dis?
credited him. The attorney claimed the witness had not been wearing his
glasses on the day of the robbery, and since he had vision poorer than
20/400 he could not possibly have seen the face of the robber from where
he stood.
When we analyzed our results, we found that 82 percent of the jurors
who had not heard about an eyewitness voted for acquittal, while 72
percent of those who thought there was a credible witness voted guilty.
Most important, 68 percent of the jurors who had heard about the dis?
credited witness still voted for conviction, in spite of the defense attor
TRAGIC MISTAKES
THAT’S THE MAN
No Eyewitness
Percentage of Guilty Verdicts
Eyewitness Discredited
Eyewitness
18% 72% 68%
SPRING 1975 189
This content downloaded from 128.195.137.154 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 14:02:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
ney’s remarks. It seems that people are convinced by a witness who
declares with conviction, “That’s the man.”
Since eyewitness testimony carries so much weight, it is important
to find out why distortion occurs in a witness’ memory. I would like to
know what goes on in a person’s mind when he is trying to make a
truthful report but makes a false one. To find the answer, one must
consider the nature of human memory.
Studies of memory for sentences and pictures indicate that when we
experience an event, we do not simply file a memory, then on some later
occasion retrieve it and read off what we’ve stored. Rather, at the time
of recall or recognition, we reconstruct the event, using information from
many sources. These include both the original perception of the event
and inferences drawn later, after the fact. Over a period of time, informa?
tion from these sources may integrate, so that a witness becomes unable
to say how he knows a specific detail. He has only a single, unified
memory.
I studied the way leading questions can introduce new information
that alters one’s memory of an event. A leading question is one that by
its form or content suggests to a witness the answer he should give, as
in the classic “When did you stop beating your wife?” We all probably
ask leading questions without realizing we are doing so. Lawyers, though,
have long recognized the usefulness of deliberately asking such ques?
tions. They know that by the time the opposing lawyer objects and the
judge rules the question improper, a suggestion may already have taken
hold in the minds of the jurors.
Police undoubtedly use leading questions too, when they are interro?
gating witnesses to a crime. If they influence a witness to make a false
statement (and that can happen easily, even with well-intentioned police
officers), chances are good he will repeat the error later when a trial
lawyer asks him to “tell in your own words what happened.”
A famous example of police suggestion occurred in the 1921 case of
Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, two Italian anarchists tried for
murder and robbery in Massachusetts, at the height of nationwide hys?
teria over radicalism. Five prosecution witnesses identified Sacco at the
trial, yet most of these witnesses had originally told police they could not
identify anyone. Four witnesses identified Vanzetti, although one of
them had earlier told police he had been unable to get a good look at the
robbers. This same witness stated at the trial that he had had a very good
look, after all. In fact, he was able to recall that the gunman had a dark
complexion, high cheek bones, red cheeks, short hair, a trimmed mus?
tache, a high forehead, and a hard, broad face. Sacco and Vanzetti were
convicted of the crime, and eventually executed. A later investigation of
the identification techniques used in this case indicated that witnesses
had been subject to enormous suggestion from the police.
TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
Such cases, while instructive, do not prove conclusively that leading
questions affect testimony. In order to examine more carefully the influ
190 JURIMETRICS JOURNAL
This content downloaded from 128.195.137.154 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 14:02:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
ence of the interrogator’s language on an eyewitness, I took the problem
into the laboratory. My assistants and I conducted several experiments,
using students as eyewitnesses, and films of automobile accidents as the
events they had to remember and report. Since we had a permanent
record of each event, and we asked specially constructed questions, we
were able to pinpoint the sources and types of inaccuracies.
In our first study, we showed 100 students a short film segment
depicting a multiple-car accident. In the film, a car makes a right-hand
turn into the main stream of traffic. The turn causes oncoming cars to
stop suddenly, and there is a five-car, bumper-to-bumper collision. After
our subjects viewed this film, they filled out a 22-item questionnaire
containing 16 fillers and six critical questions. Three of the key questions
asked about items that had appeared in the film, while three others asked
about items that had not actually been present. For half the subjects, the
critical questions began with the words Did you see a, as in “Did you see
a broken headlight?” For the rest, the critical questions began with the
words Did you see the, as in “Did you see the broken headlight?” Thus
the sentences differed only in the form of the article, the or a.
We had a good reason to look at this contrast. A speaker uses the
when he assumes the object referred to exists and may be familiar to the
listener. An investigator who asks, “Did you see the broken headlight?”
essentially says, “There was a broken headlight. Did you happen to see
it?” His assumption may influence the witness. But a requires no such
assumption.
When we tabulated the percentage of “yes,” “no,” and “don’t know”
responses, we found that witnesses who received questions with the were
much more likely to report having seen something that had not really
appeared in the film; 15 percent in the the group said “yes” when asked
about a nonexistent item; while only seven percent in the a group made
that error. On the other hand, witnesses who received questions with a
were more likely to respond “don’t know,” both when the object had
been present and when it had not. We see, then, that even this subtle
change in wording can influence eyewitness reports.
Percentage of “Don’t Know” Responses to Questions With “A” Or “The”
_Item Present_Item
Not Present_
the a the a
23% 51% 13% 38%
SOME GOT SMASHED
We also wanted to know whether the substitution of one word for
another could affect quantitative judgments, e.g., judgments of speed. We
showed 45 subjects seven films of traffic accidents, again varying the form
of the questions we asked after the film. For some of our subject-wit?
nesses, the critical question was “About how fast were the cars going
when they hit each other?” For others we replaced the verb hit with
smashed, collided, bumped or contacted. Although these words all refer
SPRING 1975 191
This content downloaded from 128.195.137.154 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 14:02:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
to the coming together of two objects, they differ in what they imply
about speed and force of impact. We wondered if these differences would
affect judgments about velocity.
They did. Our subjects’ estimates varied considerably, depending on
which question they had to answer. Those questioned with contacted
gave the lowest speed estimates, while those questioned with smashed
gave the highest.
Four of our films involved staged crashes, and we knew exactly how
fast the cars had been traveling: one 20 mph, another 30 mph, and two
others 40 mph. The average estimates for these collisions were 37.7, 35.2,
39.7 and 36.1 mph, respectively. These figures bear out previous findings
that people are not very good at judging the speed of a vehicle, and
increase our confidence that our results were due to the way our ques?
tions were worded.
The studies I’ve described so far do not tell us why people are
influenced by leading questions. Perhaps they are merely biased by the
form of the question to give one answer instead of another. For example,
a witness might be uncertain whether to say 30 mph or 40 mph, but the
verb smashed could sway him toward the higher estimate. In that case,
we could not say that his memory of the event had changed, only that
his answer had.
To find out if our subjects were really misremembering, we ran one
more experiment. Again, we showed subjects a short film of a traffic
accident. A third of them answered the question, “About how fast were
the cars going when they smashed into each other?” Another third
answered the same question with hit instead of smashed. The remaining
third, which acted as a control group, did not get a question about
automobile speed. As in our previous study, witnesses who saw smashed
gave higher estimates than those who saw hit.
A week later our subjects returned. Without viewing the film again,
they answered a new series of questions about it. This time, the critical
question asked whether the witness had seen any broken glass, although,
in fact, there had been none in the film. If smashed really influenced
subjects to remember the accident as more severe than it had been, they
might also “remember” details that were not shown but were commensu?
rate with an accident occurring at high speed?like broken glass.
Our analysis showed that more than twice as many subjects queried
with smashed reported seeing the nonexistent glass as those queried with
hit. This result is consistent with our interpretation that memory itself
undergoes a change as a result of the type of question asked.
Average Speed Estimates for Different Verbs
smashed
collided
bumped
hit
40.8 mph
39.3 mph
38.1 mph
34.0 mph
31.8 mph contacted
192 JURIMETRICS JOURNAL
This content downloaded from 128.195.137.154 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 14:02:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
MURDER OR SELF-DEFENSE?
Eyewitnesses are inaccurate in estimating not only speed, but also
time and distance. Yet in courts of law they must make quantitative
judgments all the time. Last year I worked with the Seattle Public De?
fender’s office on a case involving a young woman who had killed her boy
friend. The prosecutor called it first-degree murder, but her lawyer
claimed she had acted in self-defense. What was clear was that during an
argument, the defendant ran to the bedroom, grabbed a gun, and shot her
boy friend six times. At the trial, a dispute arose about the time that had
elapsed between the grabbing of the gun and the first shot. The defendant
and her sister said two seconds, while another witness said five minutes.
The exact amount of elapsed time made all the difference in the world
to the defense, which insisted the killing had occurred suddenly, in fear,
and without a moment’s hesitation. In the end the jury must have be?
lieved the defendant; it acquitted her.
I do not know whether leading questions played a role in this case,
but I am sure they have in others. Accident investigators, police officers,
lawyers, reporters and others who must interrogate eyewitnesses would
do well to keep in mind the subtle suggestibility that words carry with
them. When you question an eyewitness, what he saw may not be what
you get.
SPRING 1975 193
This content downloaded from 128.195.137.154 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 14:02:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
View publication statsView publication stats
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247358793
p. 188
p. 189
p. 190
p. 191
p. 192
p. 193
Jurimetrics Journal, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Spring 1975), pp. i-iii, 143-253
Front Matter
ARTICLES AND REPORTS
REPORT ON SECTION OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND FIRST COUNCIL MEETING [pp. 143-145]
STRONG INFERENCE [pp. 146-159]
ON SOME LOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LEGAL NORMS [pp. 160-170]
EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY [pp. 171-187]
RECONSTRUCTING MEMORY: THE INCREDIBLE EYEWITNESS [pp. 188-193]
THE SHAPLEY-SHUBIK POWER INDEX AND SUPREME COURT BEHAVIOR [pp. 194-205]
MOCK TRIAL ADMISSIBILITY OF COMPUTERIZED BUSINESS RECORDS: SECTION OF LITIGATION—NATIONAL INSTITUTE THE LITIGATOR IN A TECHNOLOGICAL AGE [pp. 206-246]
CURRENT LITERATURE
BOOK REVIEW
Review: untitled [pp. 247-249]
BOOK NOTE [pp. 250-250]
NEWS [pp. 251-253]
Back Matter
