Summary
The California Supreme Court determined that telling jurors to think about how sure an eyewitness seemed did not go against fair legal processes. However, the Court also told other courts to stop using eyewitness certainty as athing for jurors to consider. This change was made because studies have shown that how confident an eyewitness is usually does not mean they are more accurate.
Summary
The California Supreme Court determined that telling jurors to think about how sure an eyewitness seemed did not go against fair legal processes. However, the court also told lower courts to stop including certainty as a factor for jurors to consider. This change was made because studies have shown that an eyewitness's confidence in their memory is generally not a dependable indicator of whether their memory is accurate.
Summary
The California Supreme Court ruled on whether juries should consider how certain an eyewitness is. The court found that telling jurors to think about an eyewitness's certainty did not go against fair legal processes. However, the court also told lower courts to stop including certainty as a factor for jurors to consider. This is because research shows that how confident an eyewitness is usually does not reliably indicate whether their testimony is accurate.
Summary
California's highest court decided that telling jurors to think about how sure an eyewitness seemed was not against the law. However, the court also said that judges should stop telling jurors to consider how sure an eyewitness is. This is because studies show that how confident an eyewitness feels often does not mean they are more accurate.