Many modern theories of decision making recognize the fact that decisions do not take place in a vacuum. Individual preferences and knowledge, along with situational variables can greatly impact the decision process. In order to facilitate our research on verdict decision making we are interested in knowing certain factors about you, the decision maker. Specifically, we are interested in whether or not you actually take the time to read the directions; if not, then some of our manipulations that rely on changes in the instructions will be ineffective. So, in order to demonstrate that you have read the instructions, please select the sports items below that begin with the letter s and ignore the rest of these instructions. Below is a list of activities, select the ones you engage in regularly. Thank you.

    Court Case Summary
    ​
    1. At 7:03 P.M. on September 26, 2007, a heavy-set dark-skinned black male matching the defendant’s description entered the convenience store wearing a hooded jacket. He approached the counter, lifted his hood onto his head and proceeded to rob the manager of the store at gunpoint. The suspect, and his “look out,” fled with an undisclosed amount of money in a gold Jeep Cherokee.

    2. ​What follows is a summary of the trial proceedings in the case of Cefco v. Alan Crowtzer. The defendant was charged with one count of Armed Robbery.
    ​3. In his opening statement, the prosecutor claimed the evidence would show that Alan Crowtzer robbed the Cefco at gunpoint during the evening of September 26, 2007. Crowtzer denies involvement in the robbery, but the evidence will prove that he had the means and opportunity.
    ​4. The prosecutor outlined his theory of the case. On the night of the armed robbery, Crowtzer with the help of an unidentified friend decided to rob a local gas station. The evidence presented by the prosecution included a positive identification of the defendant by the store clerk. The police also found money in the defendant’s closet that was very close to the amount reported stolen, and the defendant had a gun registered to his name. Crowtzer did not have substantial savings and desperately needed the money.
    ​5. The defense attorney opened by claiming that all the evidence is purely circumstantial. After all, Crowtzer never confessed. The defense claimed that the defendant was in the convenience store as a customer earlier that day, and that the defendant’s girlfriend provided an alibi indicating that he was not present at the store at the time of robbery. The defense also claimed that the gun registered in the defendant’s name was stolen several years earlier, though no police report was ever made. The defense also claimed that the money in the closet represented savings from the defendant’s job. It is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. 
    ​6. The prosecutor began his closing argument by reminding the jury that a gas station was robbed, and someone had to pay for the damages. He fit the physical profile of the robber. The weapon was never found, but Crowtzer did own a gun and had ample time to dispose of it. In light of all the evidence, the defendant should be found guilty of armed robbery.
    ​7. The defense lawyer began closing argument by acknowledging Alan Crowtzer frequented the gas station on occasion. So what is the crime against Crowtzer? There was no confession and no weapon, only weak circumstantial evidence. The defense attorney concluded by arguing the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that Crowtzer should be found not guilty. 
    ​
     Eyewitness Statement
     
     
    1.  The witness for the prosecution was Omar Patel, an Indian man who served as the cashier on the night of the incident. He positively identified the defendant as the man who robbed the convenience store the night of September 26, 2007. He was very confident in his identification. He stated that he would never forget the defendant’s face or the type of gun used during the robbery. He stated that he feared for his life during the short duration of the robbery and that is why he gave up the money.
    ​2. Patel rebuked the defense attorney’s notion that the defendant was in the store earlier on the same day, although he acknowledged that he didn’t remember the face of every person who walked in the store that day. He was then shown a photograph of a man who was known to be in the store earlier that day, before the robbery was committed. The eyewitness stated that the man did resemble the defendant, but stood by his identification of Alan Crowtzer, the defendant, as the man who robbed the store.

    Verdict Assessment
     
     
    Please consider all the evidence presented to you. Then, make a judgment as you would if you were passing final judgment on this particular case.
     
    1. On the case against Alan Crowtzer, do you find the defendant:

    ​2. Indicate the degree of confidence you have in the above verdict decision:
     
    0%       10        20       30       40       50       60       70       80       90       100%
     
    No Confidence                       Moderate Confidence                     Complete Confidence

    Henderson Juror Instructions
     
               
                Alan Crowtzer, as part of his general denial of guilt, contends that the State has not presented sufficient reliable evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he is the person who committed the alleged offense. The burden of proving the identity of the person who committed the crime is upon the State. For you to find Alan Crowtzer guilty, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person is the person who committed the crime. Alan Crowtzer has neither the burden nor the duty to show that the crime, if committed, was committed by someone else, or to prove the identity of that other person. You must determine, therefore, not only whether the State has proved each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, but also whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Alan Crowtzer is the person who committed it.
                The State has presented testimony that on a prior occasion before this trial, Omar Patel identified Alan Crowtzer as the person who committed Armed Robbery. According to the witness, his identification of the defendant was based upon the observations and perceptions that he made of the perpetrator at the time the offense was being committed. It is your function to determine whether the witness’s identification of Alan Crowtzer is reliable and believable or whether it is based on a mistake or for any reason is not worthy of belief. You must decide whether it is sufficiently reliable evidence that Alan Crowtzer is the person who committed the offense charged.
                Eyewitness identification evidence must be scrutinized carefully. Human beings have the ability to recognize other people from past experiences and to identify them at a later time, but research has shown that there are risks of making mistaken identifications. That research has focused on the nature of memory and the factors that affect the reliability of eyewitness identifications.
                Human memory is not foolproof. Research has revealed that human memory is not like a video recording that a witness need only replay to remember what happened. Memory is far more complex. The process of remembering consists of three stages: acquisition – the perception of the original event; retention – the period of time that passes between the event and the eventual recollection of a piece of information; and retrieval – the stage during which a person recalls stored information, At each of these stages, memory can be affected by a variety of factors.
                Relying on some of the research that has been done, I will instruct you on specific factors you should consider in this case in determining whether the eyewitness identification evidence is reliable. In evaluating this identification was based, the witness’s ability to make those observations and perceive events, and the circumstances under which the identification was made. Although nothing may appear more convincing than a witness’s categorical identification of a perpetrator, you must critically analyze such testimony. Such identifications, even if made by good faith, can be mistaken. Therefore, when analyzing such testimony, be advised that a witness’s level of confidence, standing alone, may not be an indication of the reliability of the identification. In deciding what weight, if any, to give to identification testimony, you should consider the following factors that are related to the witness, the alleged perpetrator, and the criminal incident itself.

    1. The Witness’s Opportunity to View and Degree of Attention: In evaluating the reliability of the identification, you should assess the witness’s opportunity to view the person who committed the offense at the time of the offense and the witness’s degree of attention to the perpetrator at the time of the offense. In making this assessment you should consider the following: 

     a. Stress: Even under the best viewing conditions, high levels of stress can reduce an eyewitness’s ability to recall and make an accurate identification. Therefore, you should consider a witness’s level of stress and whether that stress, if any, distracted the witness or made it harder for him or her to identify the perpetrator. 
     
    b. Duration: The amount of time an eyewitness has to observe an event may affect the reliability of an identification. Although there is no minimum time required to make an accurate identification, a brief or fleeting contact is less likely to produce an accurate identification than a more prolonged exposure to the perpetrator. In addition, time estimates given by witnesses may not always be accurate because witnesses tend to think events lasted longer than they actually did. 

    c. Weapon Focus: You should consider whether the witness saw a weapon during the incident and the duration of the crime. The presence of a weapon can distract the witness and take the witness’s attention away from the perpetrator’s face. As a result, the presence of a visible weapon may reduce the reliability of a subsequent identification if the crime is of short duration. In considering this factor, you should take into account the duration of the crime because the longer the event, the more time the witness may have to adapt to the presence of the weapon and focus on other details. 

    d. Distance: A person is easier to identify when close by. The greater the distance between an eyewitness and a perpetrator, the higher the risk of a mistaken identification. In addition, a witness’s estimate of how far he or she was from the perpetrator may not always be accurate because people tend to have difficulty estimating distances. 

    e. Lighting: Inadequate lighting can reduce the reliability of an identification. You should consider the lighting conditions present at the time of the alleged crime in this case. 

    f. Intoxication: The influence of alcohol can affect the reliability of an identification. An identification made by a witness under the influence of a high level of alcohol at the time of the incident tends to be more unreliable than an identification by a witness who drank a small amount of alcohol. 

    g. Disguises/Changed Appearance: The perpetrator’s use of a disguise can affect a witness’s ability both to remember and identify the perpetrator. Disguises like hats, sunglasses, or masks can reduce the accuracy of an identification. Similarly, if facial features are altered between the time of the event and a letter identification procedure, the accuracy of the identification may decrease. 

    2. Prior Description of Perpetrator: Another factor for your consideration is the accuracy of any description the witness gave after observing the incident and before identifying perpetrator. Facts that may be relevant to this factor include whether the prior description matched the photo or person picked out later, whether the prior description provided details or was just general in nature, and whether the witness’s testimony at trial was consistent with, or different from, his prior description of the perpetrator. 
    ​
    3. Confidence and Accuracy: You heard testimony that Omar Patel made a statement at the time he identified the defendant from a photo array/line-up concerning his level of certainty that the person/photograph he selected is in fact the person who committed the crime. As I explained earlier, a witness’s level of confidence, standing alone, may not be an indication of the reliability of the identification. Although some research has found that highly confident witnesses are more likely to make accurate identifications, eyewitness confidence is generally an unreliable indicator of accuracy. 

    4. Time Elapsed: Memories fade with time. As a result, delays between the commission of a crime and the time an identification is made can affect the reliability of the identification. In other words, the more time that passes, the greater the possibility that a witness’s memory of a perpetrator will weaken. 

    ​5. Cross-Racial Effects: Research has shown that people may have greater difficulty in accurately identifying members of a different race. You should consider whether the fact that the witness and the defendant are not of the same race may have influenced the accuracy of the witness’s identification.


    ​Answer the following questions based on what you've read about the case and Henderson Instructions.

    Second Verdict Assessment
     
     
    Please consider all the evidence presented to you. Then, make a judgment as you would if you were passing final judgment on this particular case.
     
    1. On the case against Alan Crowtzer, do you find the defendant:


    ​2. Indicate the degree of confidence you have in the above verdict decision:
     
    0%       10        20       30       40       50       60       70       80       90       100%
     
    No Confidence                       Moderate Confidence                     Complete Confidence


    Click submit once you have completed the readings and questions.
    ​