Expanding the Scope of Cross Examination so that Jurors Can Infer Witness Calibration
6 Pages Posted: 7 Jul 2007
Date Written: September 3, 2007
Abstract
Jurors rely heavily on witnesses' confidence and veracity when evaluating credibility. Three studies demonstrate that jurors will regard a witness's calibration - the relation between that witness's own confidence and accuracy - as more important than either confidence or veracity when calibration information is available. We have already shown (Tenney et al. 2007) that initially jurors prefer a high-confidence witness; however, when an error allows the evaluation of calibration, jurors prefer a low-confidence but well-calibrated witness to a high-confidence poorly-calibrated one. Experiment 1 rules out the explanation that "modesty in the face of errors" is what matters. Experiment 2 shows that jurors understand that "good faith errors" are not errors in calibration. Experiment 3 shows that intentional lies are not treated as errors in calibration. Our results encourage a broad interpretation of FRE 611(b), allowing for more extensive cross-examination to provide calibration information that is relevant to credibility judgments. Calibration information can ameliorate over-reliance on witness confidence. Explanations for calibration errors can be important to witness credibility.
Keywords: jury decision making, testimony, evidence
JEL Classification: K41, K40
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation