“When jurors are presented with evidence that is particularly gruesome, they are likely to experience a visceral emotionally charged feeling that leads them to be inappropriately punitive.” Incorporates studies demonstrating that exposure to gruesome evidence decreases the brain’s capacity for logical reasoning.
p. 22-38 discuss the use of 404(b) “other acts” evidence and why evidence of drug possession is not relevant to intent to distribute drugs. The brief goes on to outline research demonstrating that such “other acts” evidence is highly likely to improperly prejudice the jury in a way that cannot be cured by a limiting […]
p. 19-26 incorporate social science research on primacy and impact of the first-listed choice over the second-listed choice.
Argues that “likelihood ratio” evidence — the statistical frequency of a suspect’s characteristic — has not been sufficiently validated and is misleading to the jury because the jury conflates it with probability of guilt.
p. 14 – 22 outline research on how jurors respond to limiting instructions, demonstrating that “providing a limiting instruction likely has little effect because it is almost impossible for jurors to forget evidence for one purpose, while remembering it for another.”
p. 9-18 overview studies on unreliability of cross-racial identifications and juror tendency to overestimate eyewitness accuracy. Brief also details why expert testimony and cross-examination do not eliminate the need for a jury instruction.
Amicus Brief – American Psychological Association – In Support of Evidence Based Jury Instructions on Eyewitness Identification
Brief outlines the factors that have been demonstrated to impact the reliability of eyewitness identification and argues for jury instructions that explain each individual factor.
p. 9-13 cite research on jury bias, impact of prior conviction evidence, and inefficacy of limiting instructions about prior convictions
Brief – Use of Term “Felon” and Introduction of Prior Convictions are Unfairly Prejudicial and should be Precluded
p. 8 – 12 outline existing research on how jurors respond to and use evidence of prior convictions. Incorporates research demonstrating that limiting instructions do not cure the prejudice, as jurors still use prior convictions as propensity evidence even when instructed not to.
In-court identifications are inherently suggestive because they imply to the witness that the prosecutor has confirmed the witness’ initial identification. This brief argues that such an identification is more suggestive than a show-up and that the witness’ sense of accuracy artificially increases during subsequent identifications.