{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0183366077275704, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0019646365422396855, 'mean_word_length': 5.882882882882883, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Viewing Videotaped Identification Procedure Increases Juror Sensitivity to Single-Blind Photo-Array Administration

We investigated whether watching a videotaped photo array administration or expert testimony could sensitize jurors to the suggestiveness of single-blind eyewitness identification procedures. Mock jurors recruited from the community (N = 231) watched a videotaped simulation of a robbery trial in which the primary evidence against the defendant was an eyewitness identification. We varied whether the witness made an identification from a single- or double-blind photo array, the evidence included a videotape of the photo array procedure, and an expert testified about the effects of single-blind identification procedures on administrators’ behaviors and witness accuracy. Watching the videotaped photo array administration sensitized mock jurors to the suggestiveness of the single-blind procedure, causing them to be less likely to convict a defendant identified through single-rather than double-blind procedures. Exposure to the videotaped procedure also decreased the favorability of mock jurors’ ratings of the eyewitness, irrespective of whether the lineup was conducted by a single-blind administrator. Expert testimony did not sensitize jurors to administrator bias. Thus, videotaping identification procedures could serve as an important procedural reform that both preserves a record of whether the lineup administration was suggestive and might improve jurors’ evaluations of eyewitness evidence.