Final answer:
The work of Elizabeth Loftus, particularly her research into the misinformation effect, demonstrates the malleability of eyewitness memory and how it can be influenced by external factors, including the phrasing of questions. Though the specific jury decision in the Loftus 1979 study is not provided, her research suggests that a jury might lean towards a not guilty verdict if an eyewitness is discredited. This underscores the importance of careful questioning and presentation of evidence to avoid creating false memories in witnesses.
Step-by-step explanation:
The research by Loftus highlights the concept of misinformation effect, where the memory of an eyewitness is highly susceptible to the influence of misleading information. In the 1979 study by Loftus, jurors who were presented with the testimony of an eyewitness discredited due to poor vision found themselves at a crossroads. However, without specific results given here for the 1979 study, based on the broader implications of Loftus's work, it could be inferred that jurors might vote not guilty due to the discrediting of the eyewitness testimony—though the actual answer to the student's question regarding the specific jury verdict in that study is not provided.
Loftus's experiments, like the one with the verbs affecting the speed estimation in car accidents, demonstrate the principle that witnesses' memories can be altered by how questions are phrased. Misinformation can lead to the creation of false memories, such as remembering non-existent broken glass when the word 'smashed' was used in questioning. The broader implications of these findings have led to reforms in legal proceedings, such as the use of neutral language in questioning, blind photo lineups to avoid cueing by law enforcement, and judicial advisements to juries about the potential flaws in eyewitness testimony.