Search

Although psychologists and psychiatrists often testify in court, we know relatively little about the extent to which jurors value the testimony they hear from these experts. We surveyed 161 jurors who rendered opinions in 14 sex offender civil commitment trials after hearing testimony from psychologists and psychiatrists serving as expert witnesses. Most jurors reported that the experts they heard testify were honest, and they tended to attribute disagreements among experts to case complexity, as opposed to adversarial allegiance or bias. Most reported that hearing from the experts helped them make better decisions and that experts using risk assessment instruments could make more accurate predictions than those who did not. Jurors were, however, more skeptical about the ability of experts to accurately predict recidivism when they heard testimony from both prosecution and defense experts. Findings suggest that jurors value risk assessment testimony from experts, but that experts must think carefully about how to best make risk assessment instrument results accessible to jurors. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of death qualification in venirepersons' evaluations of expert scientific testimony in capital trials. 200 venirepersons from the 12th Judicial Circuit in Bradenton, FL completed a booklet that contained the following: one question that measured their attitudes toward the death penalty; one question that categorized their death-qualification status; the Need for Cognition (NFC) scale (Cacioppo, Petty & Kao, 1984); a summary of the guilt phase of a capital case (which included the cross-examination of the state's expert witness); verdict preference; five questions concerning participants' evaluations of the expert's testimony; the penalty phase of a capital case; sentence preference; and standard demographic questions. Results indicated that death-qualified venirepersons were more likely to demonstrate a low need for cognition and view ambiguous expert scientific testimony as valid, important in their decision-making processes, unbiased, and of high quality. Finally, death-qualified participants were more conviction– and death– prone than their excludable counterparts. Surprisingly, death-qualified and excludable jurors did not differ with respect to whether or not they felt that the expert followed correct procedures. Legal implications and applications are discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines influences on mock juror and jury decision making regarding damages in an employment discrimination case. We examined the effects of expert economic testimony, suggested awards, and conflicting economic testimony on decisions regarding lost wages and benefits and pain and suffering. Participants heard excerpts of an age discrimination lawsuit in which liability had previously been determined in the plaintiff's favor. We varied whether suggested awards were included and if so, whether they were presented by attorneys, a plaintiff's expert economist, or both a plaintiff's and defendant's expert economist. Results tentatively showed that attorney's suggestions were not persuasive and that the effects of expert testimony depend on its nature and on the particular decision task at hand. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the legal and scientific issues inherent in the use of expert psychological testimony on the factors that affect eyewitness reliability. First, the history of the use of such expert testimony is traced. Next, we look at the criteria that state and federal courts have used in determining whether to admit such testimony, as well as the grounds upon which the testimony has been excluded. We then examine the Daubert decision and discuss its implications for the use of expert eyewitness testimony. We conclude by reviewing eyewitness research and research on jury decision-making that is likely to assume new importance in the post-Daubert era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow pharmaceutical Inc. has focused attention on judicial treatment of expert testimony. A survey of the development of the forensic use of such testimony helps to explain the salient characteristics of modern American practice. The surveys in the context of medical experts, discloses a several centuries long trend toward an adversarial approach that places selections preparations and presentation of expert witness testimony ever more completely in the hands of the litigants. This trend has been challenged since at least the 1800s by those desiring an inquisitorial alternative featuring court's witnesses or neutral panels of experts. These proposals have generally been rejected. Daubert represents a modest step in the direction of greater judicial control of the presentation of expert evidence but raises questions about the evenhandedness of heightened judicial scrutiny of proffered expert testimony. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reviews studies dealing with children's secrets-i.e., their concealment of information regarding events they have witnessed or been involved in. Potentially important implications for children's testimony are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ninety-one introductory psychology students viewed a videotape of a simulated personal damage trial in which a psychologist expert witness testified about a plaintiff's psychological problems resulting from trauma. The defense attorney's cross-examination tactics, employed against the expert witness, were varied in the videotape. A 2 X 2 factorial design was used, with leading versus nonleading questions and a hostile versus nonhostile attorney. An interaction effect was obtained, in which a hostile attorney using leading questions and a nonhostile attorney using nonleading questions were perceived as least effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]