Search

Daubert required judges to base their decisions about the admissibility of expert witness testimony in large part on the reliability and validity of empirical observations. Because judges have a wide array of duties and may not be equipped to understand the complexities of statistical analysis, some jurists have recommended that court-appointed experts assist judges in their gatekeeping function. To assist such experts in scrutinizing empirical papers, we propose a Structured Statistical Judgement (SSJ) that takes advantage of advances in the various statistical methods - such as effect sizes that adjust for error - which have allowed researchers to report increasingly more reliable and valid observations. We also include supplementary materials that court-appointed experts can use both as a codebook to operationalize the SSJ and as a quick reference that will aid consultation with judges. An initial application of the SSJ examined all 93 empirical articles published in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law and Law and Human Behavior in 2015 and resulted in excellent interrater reliability (π = 0.83; π = 0.95; π = 0.97), at the same time it indicated that a majority of the articles fail to include the comprehensive and transparent statistical analysis that would be most useful to courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Expert testimony concerning risk and its communication to the trier of fact has important implications for some of the most significant legal decisions. In a simulated sexual violent predator hearing, we examined how mock jurors interpret and use recidivism risk expert testimony communicated either categorically, using verbal labels, or probabilistically, using numeric values. Based upon the STATIC-99R, we compared mock jurors' decision-making and verdicts when we manipulated the style of risk communication across four different risk levels. In terms of verdict decisions, we found that higher risk levels were associated with more commitment decisions, but that this relationship only existed for the categorical risk-communication format. We also replicated previous research demonstrating that participants overestimate recidivism risk in general, especially when higher risk is communicated categorically. Finally, our participants did not differentiate well between the four levels of risk offered, instead apparently employing a more simplistic dichotomy between "low" or "high" risk for both their verdict decisions and their thresholds for commitment. The legal and policy implications of our findings are discussed, as well as suggestions for more effective presentation of expert risk testimony. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

This review of women's participation in the legal system as expert witnesses examines the empirical literature on the perceived credibility and persuasiveness of women compared with men experts. The effects of expert gender are complex and sometimes depend on the circumstances of the case. Some studies find no differences, some find favorable effects for women and others for men, and still others find that expert gender interacts with other circumstances of the case. The findings are interpreted through social role theory and the role incongruity theory of prejudice. Future directions for research are identified and implications are considered for attorneys who select and prepare expert witnesses. Suggestions for men's and women's behavior as expert witnesses are provided. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conforming to erroneous memory reports of co-witnesses can have serious impacts on subsequent forensic investigation and court reports. One theoretical explanation proposed is that memory conformity arises due to informational influence; the co-witness desires to give accurate information and reports the co-witness's version because they perceive the co-witness as being more credible. We tested the idea that perceptions of credibility drive memory conformity. We manipulated credibility through expertise; specifically, by telling participants that the (confederate) co-witness had previously worked as either a policeman (high expertise) or an electrician (low expertise). After a discussion with the co-witness, we assessed cued-recall memory and perceptions of credibility about the co-witness and the self. We found that higher expertise led to greater memory conformity. Although higher expertise also led to higher credibility assessments of the co-witness, this was only for perceptions of the credibility as an eye-witness and memory confidence, neither of which predicted memory conformity. By contrast, memory accuracy of the co-witness relative to self-memory accuracy predicted memory conformity, but this was not affected by expertise. These results show support for an informational influence explanation but suggest that expertise perceptions operate differently from our explanation. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The functioning and frailties of memory are frequently at the centerpiece of much expert testimony about the reliability of eyewitness accounts. Although we have much knowledge about how false memories and suggestibility can affect testimonies, the contributions in this special issue show that when using a sound theoretical framework, novel directions in this field can surface. The papers in this issue can broadly be divided into contributions that are related to: (1) the exact determinants of false memory and suggestibility; (2) new paradigms in legal psychology; (3) positive consequences of memory illusions; and (4) developmental false memory research. Collectively, these contributions have the potential to provide novel shifts in memory research and push this field beyond its current boundaries. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite widespread use of mental health testimony in cases where violence risk is at issue, relatively little is known about the impact of such information on juror decision-making. This study addressed the effects of testimony based on three types of risk assessment instrument or method (clinical opinion, actuarial assessment, and ratings of psychopathy) to examine whether they would have differential impact on jurors' perceptions of the defendant. In a mock sexually violent predator civil commitment trial, 172 undergraduates were presented a case summary that included prosecution and defense expert testimony related to violence risk based on one of the three methods noted above. Consistent with earlier research, the hypothesis that a defendant described as a “high risk psychopath” by the prosecution would be judged more severely than a defendant judged as “high risk” based on other evaluation procedures was supported, but only among female jurors. Unlike prior studies, little support was found for the hypothesis that clinical opinion testimony would be more influential than actuarially based testimony for either gender. Mechanisms that may underlie the observed gender differences are discussed, as are the potential implications of these findings for civil commitment proceedings. Copyright © 2003 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]

Extensive controversy over the appropriate application of expert knowledge regarding issues of eyewitness accuracy led to a conference and a special issue of Law and Human Behavior in 1986. Arguments were presented both in support of and against the eyewitness researcher as expert testifier. The current research explored the views of the general public (N = 50), defense attorneys (N = 14), and prosecutors (N = 10) with regard to the use of eyewitness expertise in each of four roles (court-appointed expert, consultant, researcher, expert testifier for the defense). Extensive differences of opinion were found across both samples and expert roles. In general, prosecutors held significantly more negative views of the usefulness of expert witnesses for the defense than did the public or defense attorneys. The role of court-appointed expert was viewed positively by all three groups and may present a useful alternative to the battles of experts that may result from current practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article attempts to clarify the concepts of law, pornography, and the special role of the expert witness in pornography. Different conceptual frameworks taken by experts in this filed are addressed, as are the shortcomings of various approaches. Finally, the critical role of ethics in giving expert witness testimony in pornography is discussed. expert evidence, expert [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of social framework testimony by social psychologists in employment discrimination cases is expanding. After reviewing the legal background of this type of testimony, we describe its content and discuss an important Title VII case of sex discrimination where the testimony played a critical role. We also distinguish social framework testimony from other types of expert testimony by psychologists. [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]

The role of mental health professionals testifying as expert witnesses has been the subject of increasing criticism. Cases in which opposing experts reach different conclusions are dismissed as "battles of the experts" and psychologists and psychiatrists are described as "hired guns." This preliminary, analogue study examined the degree to which the opinions and testimony of mental health professionals may differ according to which side retains the expert. Results provided some support for the proposition that mental health professionals' testimony may vary according to the side by which they are retained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Considers the ultimate issue debate regarding the participation of mental health professionals in the legal process. Difference between testimony concerning the ultimate issue and testimony using penultimate language; Reason of academicians for prohibiting the use of ultimate issue language; Limitations of the expertise of mental health professionals.

This experiment examines the influence of expert psychological testimony on juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Experienced jurors and undergraduate mock jurors viewed versions of a videotaped trial, rated the credibility of the eyewitness and the strength of the prosecution's and defense's cases, and rendered verdicts. In the absence of expert testimony jurors were insensitive to eyewitness evidence. Expert testimony improved juror sensitivity to eyewitness evidence without making them more skeptical about the accuracy of the eyewitness identification. Few differences emerged between the experienced jurors and undergraduate mock jurors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Changes in standards for child custody determinations have resulted in an increased demand for menial health professionals to serve as expert witnesses. However, the entry of mental health professionals into custody disputes has been met with harsh criticism of the value of their contributions. Critics have generally pointed to the absence of substantive requirements for who may serve as an expert mental health witness, the ambiguities inherent in the best interests standard, the weak scientific basis for psychology and psychiatry, and the questionable measurement techniques employed by mental health professionals as reasons for increased regulation of forensic mental health services. This article critically reviews these concerns and proposes a regulatory model that addresses the salient issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides a critical review of two major types of expert evidence: (a) clinical assessments, and (b) generalizations drawn from psychological research. Strong arguments both for and against both types of testimony have been offered by legal experts and psychologists. These arguments are evaluated and the conclusion is drawn that there are two fundamental problems for psychologists in the role of expert. First, the types of assessments clinicians are asked to make (e.g., concerning the accused's mental state at the time of committing the offense) may exceed the capacity of the discipline; such assessments are problematic. Second, the research foundation that psychologists employ in court does not always apply to the court situation in the way experts imply; the application of laboratory research findings to real world contexts is sometimes premature. The article concludes with an admonition that psychologists should adopt a more conservative response to requests to provide expert evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reviews the history of and basis for mental health testimony. It surveys the roles of such experts in the legal system and the concomitant problems with current approaches. Finally, it suggests specie reforms that may improve the use of mental health experts in legal proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]