1 / 10

Expert Evidence on Eyewitness Testimony: The Role of Psychologists

This article explores the use of psychologists as expert witnesses in cases involving eyewitness testimony, discussing landmark trials, fluctuating rules for admission of expert testimony, goals of expert testimony, effects on jurors, and the general acceptance of expert findings. It also examines the use of psychologists in the United Kingdom's legal system.

elisas
Télécharger la présentation

Expert Evidence on Eyewitness Testimony: The Role of Psychologists

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Graham DaviesLegal Psychology Week 6 Expert Evidence on Eyewitness Testimony

  2. The Psychologist as Eyewitness Expert • First recorded case – 1896 - Shrenck – Notzing in Germany • Most prevalent in the US - 450 trials in 25 States (Brigham, 1988) - 87% for the Defence (Kassin et al. 1989) • Landmark Trials - Robert Buckhout and the Angela Davies case (1972) - Elizabeth Loftus vs. Lenore Terr in People vs. Franklin (1994)

  3. Fluctuating Rules for Admission of Expert Testimony – thumbs down? • The ‘Frye rule’ - testimony to be based on information and data generally accepted in the expert’s field • US vs. Amaral (1973) - rejects eyewitness expert - expert evidence must be beyond common knowledge of the jury - evidence must be more probative than prejudicial

  4. Fluctuating Rules for Admission of Expert Testimony – thumbs up? • Federal Rules of Evidence (1975) - does it assist the Court ? - is the testimony sufficiently reliable ? • State of Arizona vs. Chapple (1983) - decision reversed because no expert allowed • The Daubert Judgement (1993) - reliability and relevance of evidence critical - peer review and publication relevant criteria But the legal door still only half open

  5. The Backlash: McCloskey & Egeth (1983) • Goals of expert testimony to correct any misapprehensions of jurors to assist in distinguishing reliable from unreliable testimony • Neither of these achieved jurors not given new or reliable information jurors are just made more sceptical without improving reliability Psychologists should stay out of the courts !

  6. Do jurors over-believe eyewitness testimony ? • Experts summarise state of knowledge - Estimator and system variables - reliance on experimental findings • Questionnaire Studies (Deffenbacher & Loftus, 1982) - good grasp of cross-race ID; biased parades - poor grasp of weapon focus; confidence and accuracy - calibration issue (Wells, 1986) - Judges’ knowledge and attitudes (Wise & Safer, 2004) • Eyewitness discrediting effect (Loftus, 1974) - not always reliable (Sanders et al. 1983)

  7. Are Jurors made over-sceptical toward eyewitness testimony ? • Experts reduce conviction rate (62% to 42%) but no improvement in accuracy (Wells et al. 1980) • But if experts focus on critical variables they do improve juror accuracy (Wells & Wright, 1983) Didactic vs. Case-based testimony

  8. Subsequent Research • Much more research on critical variables - weapon focus meta-analysis (Stablay, 1992) • More realistic field studies - cross-racial ID (Brigham et al. 1982) - unconscious transference (Read et al. 1990)

  9. General Acceptance ? • An emerging consensus (Kassin et al. 2001) - 80% or more agreement by experts - system variables (e.g. line-up instructions; mugshot bias) - estimator variables (e.g. post-event information, leading questions; cross-race ID) • Consensus statements - children’s suggestibility in interviewing (Ceci & Bruck, 1995) - identification methods (Wells et al. 2001)

  10. Eyewitness Testimony in the United Kingdom• Testimony of psychologists in court - rarely permitted (R v. Turner, 1975) - briefing (typically) the Defence through reports• Judge takes on ‘educational’ role - ‘Turnbull’ directions (Devlin 1976) • Little signs of change - 1993 Royal Commission on Criminal Justice - 2002 Auld Committee Report - But psychologists appear regularly in civil cases

More Related