The National Institute of Justice guide for eyewitness identification evidence: Can it improve juror decision-making?

Mistaken eyewitness identifications of innocent lead to more false convictions in the United States than any other cause. In response to concerns about the reliability of eyewitness evidence, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in 1999 published a Guide for the gathering and preservation of eyewitness evidence by law enforcement personnel. Previous research has shown that eyewitness identifications are more accurate when obtained using procedures recommended in the NIJ Guide. This experiment assessed whether informing jurors about the Guide can improve their ability to discriminate between eyewitness identifications likely to be accurate and those likely to be inaccurate and, if so, how to most effectively provide jurors with such information. ^ Seven hundred sixteen U.S. citizens who reported for criminal jury duty participated. Half of the participant jurors read a summary of an armed robbery trial in which the police followed the NIJ Guide when obtaining an eyewitness identification of the defendant. The other half read about an identical case in which the police did not follow the Guide. Jurors received information about the Guide from a court-appointed expert witness, one of the attorneys in the case, the trial judge, the judge in combination with one of the attorneys, or from no one (in the control groups). Jurors then rendered a verdict in the case and answered questions about the evidence in the case. ^ When an expert witness or the judge (either alone or in combination with one of the attorneys) informed jurors about the Guide, the jurors voted to convict defendants likely to be guilty and to acquit defendants likely to be innocent more often than did uninformed jurors assigned to a control group. These data suggest that informing jurors about the NIJ Guide using expert testimony or instructions from a judge will improve the quality and accuracy of jurors' verdict decisions in cases involving eyewitness identification evidence. However, more research is needed to determine whether the judge will remain an effective source of information about the Guide in a longer, more detailed trial scenario and to learn more about the underlying psychological processes governing the effects observed in this experiment. ^

A history of the presidency of National Taiwan University: The relationship between the university and an evolving democratic nation

Higher education always plays an important role in the development of a nation. Taiwan is no exception. Graduates of the National Taiwan University have occupied most of the important positions in this country and today many devote themselves to the development of Taiwan since the central government of the Republic of China (ROC) withdrew from Mainland China and re-located to Taiwan in the winter of 1949. The higher education system in Taiwan, including university and junior colleges, received special attention from the government except from 1945 to 1949 during the transitional period; the time of the early restoration year and the central government's retreating period from Mainland China.^ The five presidents of National Taiwan University who served from 1949 to 1993, Fu Szu-nien, Chien Seu-liang, Yen Chen-Hsing, Yu Chao-chung, and Sun Chen, are the subject of this research. All of the presidents were appointed by the government which established a direct connection between the government and the university leadership. The purpose of this study is to understand how each president balanced politically assigned roles and expectations with personal visionary academic responsiveness to the principles which define the university.^ Each president and his tenure were analyzed using historical research, a developed leadership model, an integration of role theory, Locke's leadership model, Wiles and Bondi curriculum leader tasks, and Burn's leadership style. Results of analyses of documents showed that all presidents of the National Taiwan University were highly respected due to their academic background, personal characteristics, and contribution to the university as a leader. Meanwhile, implementation and achievement of the presidents led to the conclusion that appointed university presidents had significant relationships with government policy. Their leadership style was affected strongly by their personal traits and knowledge and the social and political climate of the time. ^