Polygraph evidence and juror judgments: The effects of corroborating evidence

Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 948-962

  Myers, Bryan ^a   Rosol, Angela ^b   Boelter, Eric ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042527107     PISSN: 00219029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01933.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Amato, S. L. (1993). A survey of the Society for Psychophysiological Research regarding the polygraph: Opinions and interpretations. Unpublished master's thesis, University of North Dakota.
2. Brown v. Darcy, 783 F.2d 1389, 1397 (9th Cir. 1986).
3. Carlson, S. C., Pasano, M. S., & Jannuzzo, J. A. (1977). The effects of lie detector evidence on jury deliberations: An empirical study. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 5, 148-154.
4. Cavoukian, A., & Heselgrave, R. J. (1980). The admissibility of polygraph evidence in court: Some empirical findings. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 117-131.
5. Cross, T. P., & Saxe, L. (1992). A critique of the validity of polygraph testing in child sexual abuse cases. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1, 19-33.
6. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993).
7. Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-571.
8. Faigman, D. L., Kaye, D. H., Saks, M. J., & Sanders, J. (1997). The legal relevance of scientific research on polygraph tests. In D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (pp. 554-564). St. Paul, MN: West.
9. Frye v. U.S., 293 F. 1013 (D.C. App. 1923).
10. Gallup Organization. (1984). Survey of members of the American Society for Psychophysiological Research concerning their opinion of polygraph test interpretation. Polygraph, 13, 153-165.
11. Iacono, W. G., & Lykken, D. T. (1997). The validity of the lie detector: Two surveys of scientific opinion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 426-433.
12. Iacono, W. G., & Patrick, C. J. (1999). Polygraph ("lie detector") testing: The state of the art. In A. K. Hess & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), The handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 440-473, 2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
13. Koffler, J. (1957). The lie detector: A critical appraisal of the technique as a potential undermining factor in the judicial process. New York Law Forum, 3, 123-158.
14. Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999).
15. Lykken, D. T. (1960). The validity of the guilty knowledge technique: The effects of faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44, 258-262.
16. Lykken, D. T. (1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Plenum.
17. Markwart, A., & Lynch, B. E. (1979). The effect of polygraph evidence on mock jury decision-making. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 7, 324-332.
18. McCall, J. R. (1996). Misconceptions and reevaluation - Polygraph admissibility after Rock and Daubert. University of Illinois Law Review, 363, 364-422.
19. Myers, B., & Arbuthnot, J. (1997). Polygraph testimony and juror judgments: A comparison of the Guilty Knowledge Test and the Control Question Test. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1421-1437.
20. Peeples, L. C., Bell, S. P., & Guiffre, T. M. (1997). Exculpatory polygraphs in the courtroom: How the truth may not set you free. Cumberland Law Review, 28, 77.
21. People v. Leone, 255 N.E. 2d 696, 700 (N.Y. 1969).
22. Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (1997). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: The case for polygraph tests. In D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (pp. 565-582). St. Paul, MN: West.
23. Reid, J. E., & Inbau, F. E. (1966). Truth and deception: The polygraph ("lie detection") technique. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.
24. Rosol, A., Myers, B., Barrios, F., & Davis, S. (2000, June). Polygraph expert testimony in a simulated sexual assault trial. Poster presentation at the annual conference of the American Psychological Society, Miami, FL.
25. Saxe, L., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1999). Admissibility of polygraph tests: The application of scientific standards post-Daubert. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 203-223.
26. Spanos, N. P., Myers, B., Dubreuil, S. C., & Pawlak, A. E. (1992-1993). The effects of polygraphy and eyewitness testimony on the beliefs and decisions of mock jurors. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 12, 103-113.
27. State v. Bohner, 210 Wis. 651, 246 N.W. 314 (1933).
28. State v. Grier, 300 S.E. 2d 351, 360 (N.C. 1983).
29. U.S. v. Addison, 498 F.2d 741, 744 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
30. U.S. v. Alexander, 526 F.2d 161, 168 (8th Cir. 1975).
31. U.S. v. Gilliard, 96 F.3d 1435 (1996).
32. U.S. v. Piccinonna, 885 F.2d 1529, 1535 (11th Cir. 1989).
33. U.S. v. Scheffer, 140 L. Ed. 2d 413 (1998).
34. Vidmar, N., Lempert, R. D., Diamond, S. S., Hans, V. P., Landsman, S., MacCoun, R., Sanders, J., Hosch, H. M., Kassin, S., Galanter, M., Eisenberg, T., Daniels, S., Greene, E., Martin, J., Penrod, S., Richardson, J., Heuer, L., & Horowitz, I. (2000). Amicus brief: Kumho Tire v. Carmichael. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 387-400.