Search

Past research examining the effects of expert testimony on the future dangerousness of a defendant in death penalty sentencing found that jurors are more influenced by less scientific clinical expert testimony and tend to devalue scientific actuarial testimony. This study was designed to determine whether these findings extend to civil commitment trials for sexual offenders and to test a theoretical rationale for this effect. In addition, we investigated the influence of a recently developed innovation in risk assessment procedures, Guided Professional Judgment (GPJ) instruments. Consistent with a cognitive–experiential self-theory based explanation, mock jurors motivated to process information in an experiential condition were more influenced by clinical testimony, while mock jurors in a rational mode were more influenced by actuarial testimony. Participants responded to clinical and GPJ testimony in a similar manner. However, participants' gender exerted important interactive effects on dangerousness decisions, with male jurors showing the predicted effect while females did not. The policy implications of these findings are discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In experiment 1, 267 undergraduates read a case summary and witness statement. Sex and age of the witness (49, 69, 79 or 89 years) were varied. Participants rated the witness's perceived convincingness, confidence, quality of observation, accuracy, honesty, competence, memory, suggestibility, and cognitive functioning. As well as an age effect for honesty, age by sex interactions were observed for several characteristics, particularly for comparisons of the 79-year-olds versus the 49-year-olds, and 89-year-olds versus the 49-year-olds. In experiment 2, 94 undergraduates read the same testimony given by a 79-year-old male or female witness, and completed the Fraboni Scale of Ageism and the Aging Semantic Differential. Participants who evidenced stronger aging stereotypes on these measures rated the witness less favorably than did participants who were less prejudiced. This experiment is the first to show a link between perceived credibility of older adults and ageist attitudes. Practical applications regarding how older witnesses are viewed by jurors, and the criminal justice system more generally, are discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although a considerable amount of research has been conducted examining the validity of psychopathy as a psychological construct, relatively few studies have focused on the effects of using this disorder in “real-world” settings to influence the attitudes of laypersons who are making life-altering decisions about offenders. This study attempted to replicate and extend earlier findings (Guy & Edens, 2003) suggesting that there are gender differences in the impact of expert testimony regarding psychopathy. A sample of 599 undergraduates reviewed case facts regarding a hypothetical Sexually Violent Predator trial in which the type of risk assessment testimony provided (clinical opinion, actuarial scale, psychopathy evaluation) and the age of the victims (adult versus child) were manipulated. Consistent with prior research, despite overall high rates of support for commitment in the adult victim condition, men were less prone than women to support civil commitment when the defendant was described as “a psychopath” (62.5 versus 86.5%). No such gender differences were noted in the clinical opinion or actuarial conditions. When the victims were identified as children, type of testimony had no impact because support for commitment was almost unilateral. Finally, ratings of how psychopathic the defendant was perceived to be (regardless of the testimony provided) were significantly associated with support for commitment across most conditions. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two studies examined the impact of witness preparation training with criminal defendants. In the first study, mock criminal defendants testified twice on videotape about minor crimes they were accused of but had not committed. Approximately half underwent witness preparation between their first and second testimony simulations. In the second study, eight public defender clients were videotaped during testimony simulations both before and after being prepared to testify. In both studies, ratings by trained evaluators indicated that witness preparation was associated with increases in the use of several testimony delivery skills, improvements in overall testimony quality, and reductions in apparent guilt. Training was also associated in both studies with an unintended decrease in expressiveness. Ratings from the mock defendant study further suggested that prepared defendants were seen as more credible than unprepared defendants because they used more effective testimony delivery skills, and as less likely to be guilty than unprepared defendants because they were perceived as being more credible. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Past research examining the effects of actuarial and clinical expert testimony on defendants' dangerousness in Texas death penalty sentencing has found that jurors are more influenced by less scientific pure clinical expert testimony and less influenced by more scientific actuarial expert testimony (Krauss & Lee, 2003; Krauss & Sales, 2001). By applying cognitive–experiential self-theory (CEST) to juror decision-making, the present study was undertaken in an attempt to offer a theoretical rationale for these findings. Based on past CEST research, 163 mock jurors were either directed into a rational mode or experiential mode of processing. Consistent with CEST and inconsistent with previous research using the same stimulus materials, results demonstrate that jurors in a rational mode of processing more heavily weighted actuarial expert testimony in their dangerousness assessments, while those jurors in the experiential condition were more influenced by clinical expert testimony. The policy implications of these findings are discussed. Copyright © 2004 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 study explored the influence of mood and emotion on mock-jurors' processing of testimonial inconsistencies, perceptions of witness credibility and offender culpability, and verdicts. Jurors' mood and testimonial consistency were manipulated using a simulated trial with a 2 (mood: sad/neutral)×2 (testimonial consistency: consistent/inconsistent) between-groups design. Sad mood resulted in more accurate reporting of testimonial inconsistencies, a finding consistent with previous research indicating more substantive processing in association with sad mood. Direct relationships between veridicality and number of inconsistencies detected and mock-juror judgments were also observed. Although anger was not experimentally manipulated, the data suggest that trial circumstances which arouse anger in jurors may impair processing and also bias their judgments of witnesses and defendants. Possible directions for research on mood and emotion in the courtroom context are suggested. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Witnesses often meet with an attorney or witness preparation specialist before trial to review, discuss, and sometimes modify the substance and delivery of their anticipated testimony. This process is commonly referred to as witness preparation. During witness preparation, witnesses are taught to use effective testimony delivery skills (e.g., verbal and nonverbal communication skills) so that they will be perceived as being credible and persuasive in the courtroom. Although social scientists know much about communication skills, credibility, and persuasion, few published studies have attempted to determine whether or not these factors can be modified through witness preparation training. The present article reviews the psychological literature pertaining to witness preparation and makes recommendations for needed witness preparation research. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The testimony of mental health experts is often important evidence considered by criminal courts in determining issues arising throughout the adjudicative process, but not all evidence provided by experts is equally valid or probative. Using a hypothetical insanity defense case, we compared the preferences of Virginia judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys for different types of forensic mental health evidence, including descriptive and diagnostic testimony, testimony about relevant research and actuarial data, and ultimate issue testimony. In addition, we determined their preferences for different types of mental health professionals. Four key findings emerged. First, many participants preferred that psychiatrists, rather than psychologists or other mental health professionals, conduct forensic evaluations for the court. Second, while participants were interested in most types of mental health evidence, they were primarily interested in clinical diagnosis, followed by an analysis of whether the condition met the relevant legal threshold, and an ultimate opinion on the legal issue. Third, participants were less interested in research or actuarial evidence. Fourth, participants differed in their evidentiary preferences in ways that reflect their respective roles in the adversary system. The findings suggest that while courts and attorneys find traditional clinical testimony useful in criminal cases, they also favor ultimate issue testimony, and view research data or statistically based information as less helpful. Mental health professionals should consider how to educate the courts and bar about the dangers inherent in over-reliance on the conclusory legal testimony of mental health experts, the utility of scientific data as such information becomes more routinely introduced as evidence at trial, and the expertise available from various mental health professionals. [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]

Police may engage in deceptive and coercive interrogations to obtain confessions. When a confession is later retracted, judges and juries must assess the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession, including the interrogation techniques used and the effects of these tactics on the particular defendant. A suspect who is vulnerable and confused or who is given false evidence by a coercive interrogator may produce a false confession. Expert testimony may be necessary to help jurors understand the circumstances that lead to nonvoluntary confessions. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Considerable attention has been given to the psychology of confession evidence in recent years. While various factors have been used to define the types of confessions possible, most classification frameworks have focused on the various types of false confessions. An expanded framework is outlined using a decision-tree model in which confessions are defined according to a number of dimensions, including whether or not a confession is retracted, veracity or truthfulness, legal culpability of the suspect, voluntariness, and specific nature of the coercion that might produce a confession. A proposal is made for a new subtype of false confession, the coerced–reactive type, to supplement current theoretical approaches. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the implications of this conceptual model for providing consultation and expert testimony in cases involving disputed confessions. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Notwithstanding ethical rules that address therapeutic and forensic role conflicts for psychologists and psychiatrists, overzealous patient advocacy by therapists, tightened reimbursement for therapy, and a growth market for forensic psychology and psychiatry, have led many therapists to appear willingly as forensic experts on behalf of their patients. Existing ethical rules, as well as other proposed approaches to address this problem, assume that it can be resolved by modest changes in existing practice that permit therapists to testify as long as their testimony avoids psycholegal opinions. This essay questions whether these modest changes can adequately address this problem and advances consideration of a more radical proposal to address this problem, prohibiting therapists from testifying about their patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Chapple v. Ganger, (1994), the Daubert standard was applied for the very first time to the use of fixed (standardized) versus flexible (nonstandardized) neuropsychological test batteries in the federal court. In this personal injury case the Chapple court gave far greater weight to the results obtained from a fixed battery than to the results obtained from two flexible neuropsychological test batteries. Significantly, under the Daubert standard the District Judge noted the lack of medical and scientific evidence to support the conclusions made by the Plaintiffs' two expert witnesses, a psychologist and a neuropsychologist, even though each had administered a comprehensive and flexible neuropsychological test battery and had based their conclusions on the test results. However, the Judge accepted as scientific evidence the objective test results obtained from the fixed Halstead­Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery for Older Children administered by the Defendants' expert witness Dr. Ralph Reitan and also accepted his scientific expert medical testimony which was closely derived from these data. Applying the Daubert standard to the neuropsychological test results and opinions of the expert witnesses, the District Judge held that the entire reasoning process and not simply part of the reasoning process upon which the expert witness derives a conclusion must reflect scientific methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research is reviewed on the memory abilities of elderly eyewitnesses. Two major issues are addressed: First, how credible are elderly witnesses? Second, how accurate are they? Despite negative stereotypes regarding elderly eyewitnesses, they do not necessarily lack credibility at trial. In terms of their memory performance, older witnesses are accurate as young adults in many respects, but they are particularly vulnerable to misleading information that is presented after the witnessed event. Furthermore, their performance varies depending on the type of information that is sought and the manner in which their memory is assessed. Recommendations are made for improving the reliability of testimony that is offered by elderly eyewitnesses. [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]

The article discusses the Frye standard for the admission of scientific evidence. The author opposes the continued adherence to Frye. He argues as a matter of statutory construction that the Frye rule did not survive the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence. He also attacks the general assumption underlying Frye that laypersons are incapable of evaluating scientific testimony but he welcomes the two limitations to Frye as he feels they come to the right result, reducing the reach of the general acceptance test. The rub is that cases espousing these limitations reach that end by questionable means and methods.

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]

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]

Sexual abuse, the fasters growing type of abuse complaint, often raises issues concerning the credibility of individual allegations. This paper discusses historical, developmental, and societal factors affecting children's credibility and recommended assessment methods that maximize a child's capacity to relate his or her experience. Clinical factors leading to false allegations are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reviews the basic rules of evidence and procedure that provide the basis for the introduction of expert testimony into court. Second, it reviews some of the findings of social psychology regarding expert testimony, primarily the ways in which the structure of society affects what information will reach the court and what is the readiness of the fact-finder to deal with that information. Finally, it reports original data on jurors' assessments of a variety of witnesses, (viz. physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, chemists, document examiners, polygraph examiners, police, eyewitnesses, firearms experts, and accountants and appraisers). Jurors' differential assessments of the different experts and differences among juror subgroups are reported and some explanations for a few of those differences are tested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Faulty eyewitness testimony is a major source of wrongful convictions. Four solutions are examined to safeguard against mistaken testimony having undue impact: (1) to overturn any conviction based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness, (2) to require that an attorney be present at any pretrial identification procedure, (3) to allow an expert to testify during the trial about factors of perception and memory that could affect a witness's accuracy, and (4) to have the judge deliver a cautionary instruction to the jury, admonishing them to carefully scrutinize eyewitness testimony, or to educate them about such testimony. Each alternative is discussed within the context of psychological research and legal cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]