Finnish District Judges’ Assessments of Live Versus Video-Mediated Party Statements in Court

Abstract

Professionals within the judicial system sometimes believe they can assess whether someone is lying or not based on cues such as body language and emotional expression. Research has, however, shown that this is impossible. The Finnish Supreme Court has also given rulings in accordance with this demonstrated fact. There has also been previous research on whether party or witness statements are assessed differently in court depending on whether they are given live, via videoconference, or via prerecorded video. In the present study, we investigated how a Finnish sample of district judges (N=47) assigned probative value to different variables concerning the statement or the statement giver, such as body language and emotional expression. We also investigated the connection between the judges’ beliefs about the relevance of body language and emotional expression and their preference for live statements or statements via videoconference. The judges reported assigning equal amounts of probative value to statements given live and statements given via videoconference. However, judges found it easier to detect deception live, and this preference correlated with how relevant they thought body language is when assessing the probative value of the statement. In other words, a slight bias to assess live statements more favorably than statements given via videoconference might still exist. More effort needs to be put into making judges and Supreme Courts aware of robust scientific results that have been the subject of decades of research, such as the fact that one cannot assess whether someone is lying or not based on cues such as body language.