Most of the time, the jury tends to put a lot of weight on eyewitness testimonies (Eyewitness testimonies: Psychological aspects, 2001). Additionally, in a study from S. G. Thompson (2012), jurors acknowledge their difficulties by examining the reliability from eyewitness testimonies (p. 386). Furthermore, in the jurors’ perspective, there is some certain credibility in the eyewitnesses. They refuse the argument that interview strategies impact the trustworthiness of the confession. At the end, the court system is the one who give the final decision on the case; therefore, their position and their evaluation play a significant role in determining whether the individual is guilty or not. S. G. Thompson (2012) reveals that this is somehow a “dilemma” to the court system also; fortunately, there are some guidelines and policies for them in identifying their decision (p. …show more content…
In Greene and Loftus’s study, “Solve the eyewitness problem” (1984), the issue is raised by psychologists McCloskey and Egeth (1983) is that whether or not the improvement of the evaluation from the juror happens when there is the support from the expert (p. 400). The argument explains when the juror needs clarification and further understanding on the inaccurate eyewitness, their mind has formed the idea of the witness is already unreliable, which fades out their incredulity. Moreover, there is the argument that has the expert in the jury may take away the significance of the judges, the prosecutors, the jurors, and the lawyer, who are originally the “soul” of the court system (Greene & Loftus, 1984, p. 400). This issue is provocative. It depends on the court system in each region, in each state; it depends on the preference of the people in the jury on how they want to run the