Expert bias and partisanship: A comparison between Australia and the Netherlands

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 42-61

  Malsch, Marijke ^a,c   Freckelton, Ian ^b  

^a Netherlands Inst Stud Crime/Law E   (Netherlands)

^b MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 13844281537     PISSN: 10768971     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.42     Document Type: Review

References (67)

1. Anderson, T. J. (1999). The Netherlands criminal justice system: An audit model of decision making. In M. Malsch & J. F. Nijboer (Eds.), Complex cases: Perspectives on the Netherlands criminal justice system (pp. 47-68). Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
2. Brekke, N., Euro, P., Clavet, G., & Seelaw, E. (1991). On juries and court-appointed experts. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 451-474.
3. Broeders, T. (2002). The role of the forensic expert in an inquisitorial system. In P. J. van Koppen & S. D. Penrod (Eds.), Adversarial versus inquisitorial justice: Psychological perspectives on criminal justice systems (pp. 246-254). New York: Plenum.
4. Cecil, J. S., & Willging, T. E. (1993). Court-appointed experts: Defining the role of experts appointed under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
5. Champagne, A., Shuman, D. W., & Whitaker, E. (1996). The problem with empirical examination of court-appointed experts: A report on non-findings. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 14, 702-742.
6. Chayko, G. M., Gulliver, E. D., & Macdougall, D. V. (1991). Forensic evidence in Canada. Ontario: Canada Law Book.
7. Coady, C. A. J. (1992). Testimony: A philosophical study. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
8. Cooper, J., Bennett, W., & Sukel, H. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379-394.
9. Cooper, R. E. (1998). Federal court expert guidelines. Australian Bar Review, 16, 203-211.
10. Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1990). Non-adversarial methods for sensitising jurors to eyewitness evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1197-1207.
11. Damaška, M. R. (1997). Evidence law adrift. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509, U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2795 (1993).
13. de Ruiter, C., & Hildebrand, M. (2002). The dual nature of forensic psychiatric practice: Risk assessment and management under the Dutch TBS-order. In P. J. van Koppen & S. D. Penrod (Eds.), Adversarial versus inquisitorial justice: Psychological perspectives on criminal justice systems (pp. 91-106). New York: Plenum.
14. Eggleston, R. (1983). Evidence, proof and probability. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
15. Erichson, M. H. (1999). Mass tort litigation and inquisitorial justice. Georgetown Law Journal, 87, 1983-1984.
16. Family Court of Australia. (2002). The changing face of the expert witness: A discussion paper. Canberra: Family Court of Australia.
17. Family law rules. (2004). Canberra, Australia: Attorney-General's Department.
18. Foster, K. R., & Huber, P. W. (1997). Judging science: Scientific knowledge and the Federal courts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Freckelton, I. (1987). The trial of the expert. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
20. Freckelton, I. (1997a). Judicial attitudes toward scientific evidence: The antipodean experience. University of California Davis Law Review, 30, 1137-1227.
21. Freckelton, I. (1997b). Wizards in the crucible: Making the boffins accountable. In J. F. Nijboer & J. M. Reijntjes (Eds.), Proceedings of the First World Conference on New Trends on Criminal Investigation and Evidence (pp. 95-110). Lelystad, Netherlands: Koninklijke Vermande.
22. Freckelton, I., Reddy, P., & Selby, H. (1999). Australian judicial perspectives on expert evidence: An empirical study. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration.
23. Freckelton, I., Reddy, P., & Selby, H. (2001). Australian magistrates and judicial perspectives on expert evidence: A comparative empirical study. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration.
24. Freckelton, I., & Selby, H. (2005). Expert evidence: Law, practice and procedure. Sydney, Australia: Law Book.
25. Golan, T. (2004). Laws of men and laws of nature: The history of scientific expert testimony in England and America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Gross, S. G. (1991). Expert evidence. Wisconsin Law Review, 1, 1113-1232.
27. Gudjonsson, G. H., & Haward, L. R. C. (1998). Forensic psychology: A guide to practice. London: Routledge.
28. Hagen, M. A. (1997). Whores of the court: The fraud of psychiatric testimony and the rape of American justice. New York: Harper Collins.
29. Hielkema, J. (1996). Deskundigen in Nederlandse strafzaken [Experts in Dutch criminal cases]. Den Haag, the Netherlands: SDu.
30. Hielkema, J. (1999). Experts in Dutch criminal procedure. In M. Malsch & J. F. Nijboer (Eds.), Complex cases: Perspectives on the Netherlands criminal justice system (pp. 27-46). Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
31. Hodgkinson, T. (1990). Expert evidence: Law and practice. London: Sweet and Maxwell.
32. Huber, P. W. (1991). Galileo's revenge: Junk science in the courtroom. New York: Basic Books.
33. Imwinkelried, E. J. (1997). The methods of attacking scientific evidence. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.
34. In re W and W (Abuse Allegations; Expert Evidence) (2001) FamCA 216. Retrieved October 28, 2004 from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/ family_ct/2001/216.html
35. Jasanoff, S. (1995). Science at the bar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36. Jones, C. A. G. (1994). Expert witnesses. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
37. Kapardis, A. (2002). Psychology and law (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
38. Keane, A. (2000). The modern law of evidence. London: Butterworths.
39. King, M., & Kaganas, M. (1998). The risks and dangers of experts in court. In H. Reece (Ed.), Law and science (pp. 221-242). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
40. Kreiling, K. R. (1990). Scientific evidence: Toward providing the lay trier of fact with comprehensible and reliable expert evidence necessary to meet the goals of the rules of evidence. Arizona Law Review, 32, 915-983.
41. Langbein, J. (1985). The German advantage in civil procedure. University of Chicago Law Review, 52, 835-866.
42. Lindsay, R. C., MacDonald, P., & McGarry, S. (1990). Perspectives on the role of the eyewitness expert. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 8, 457-464.
43. Malsch, M. (1999a). Conflicting mental health experts: The defendant's responsibility for his acts in the Double Murder Case (EdB). In M. Malsch & J. F. Nijboer (Eds.), Complex cases: Perspectives on the Netherlands criminal justice system (pp. 189-198). Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
44. Malsch, M., & Hielkema, J. (1999). Forensic assessments in Dutch criminal insanity cases: Participants' perspectives. In M. Malsch & J. F. Nijboer (Eds.), Complex cases: Perspectives on the Netherlands criminal justice system (pp. 213-228). Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
45. Malsch, M., & Nijboer, J. F. (Eds.). (1999). Complex cases: Perspectives on the Netherlands criminal justice system. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
46. McEwan, J. (1998). Evidence and the adversarial process: The modern law (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Hart.
47. Meintjes-van Der Walt, L. (2001). Expert evidence in the criminal justice process. Amsterdam: Rozenberg.
48. New Zealand Law Commission. (1991). Evidence law: Expert evidence and opinion evidence (Preliminary Paper No. 13). Wellington: New Zealand Law Commission.
49. R v DD, [2000] SCC 43. [Canadian citation]
50. R v. Dowding (2000) VSC 222. Retrieved October 28, 2004, from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2000/222.html
51. R v. Karger (2001) SASC 64. Retrieved October 28, 2004, from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASC/2001/64.html
52. Redmayne, M. (2001). Expert evidence and criminal justice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
53. Roberts, P. (1996). The admissibility of expert evidence: Lessons from America. Expert Evidence, 4, 93-100.
54. Saks, M. J. (1998). Merlin and Solomon: Lessons from the law's formative encounters with forensic identification science. Hastings Law Journal, 4, 1069-1141.
55. Saks, M. J. (2002). Expert witnesses in Europe and America. In P. J. van Koppen & S. D. Penrod (Eds.), Adversarial versus inquisitorial justice: Psychological perspectives on criminal justice systems (pp. 235-244). New York: Plenum.
56. Sperling, J. (2000). Expert evidence: The problem of bias and other things. Judicial Review, 4, 429-462.
57. Spika Trading Pty Ltd v. Royal Insurance Australia Ltd (1985) 3 ANZ Ins Cas 60-663.
58. Sward, E. (1989). Values, ideology, and the examination of the adversarial system. Indiana Law Journal, 74, 301-355.
59. Swart, B. (1999). The European Convention as an invigorator of domestic law in the Netherlands. Journal of Law and Society, 1, 38-53.
60. Taylor of Gosforth, Lord. (1995). The Lund Lecture. Medicine, Science and Law, 25, 3-8.
61. van der Leij, J. B. J., Jackson, J. L., Malsch, M., & Nijboer, J. F. (2001). Residential mental health assessment within Dutch criminal cases: A discussion. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 691-702.
62. van Kampen, P. T. C. (1998). Expert evidence compared: Rules and practices in the Dutch and American criminal justice systems. Antwerpen, the Netherlands: Intersentia.
63. van Kampen, P. T. C. (1999). Expert evidence compared. In M. Malsch & J. F. Nijboer (Eds.), Complex cases: Perspectives on the Netherlands criminal justice system (pp. 99-122). Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
64. van Marle, H. J. C., & van Esch, C. M. (1998). Werk in uitvoering: Penitentiaire forensische psychiatrie [Work in progress: Penitentiary forensic psychiatry]. Deventer: Gouda Quint.
65. Wagenaar, W. A. (1988). The proper seat: A Baysian discussion of the position of expert witnesses. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 499-510.
66. Woolf, M. R. (1996). Access to justice: Final report to the Lord Chancellor on the civil justice system in England and Wales. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
67. Ziskin, J., & Faust, D. (1995). Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony. Los Angeles: Law and Psychology Press.