Psychological evidence at the dawn of the law's scientific age

Annual Review of Psychology

Volumn 56, Issue , 2005, Pages 631-659

  Faigman, David L ^a   Monahan, John ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

Daubert; Evidence; Expert; Law; Testimony

Indexed keywords

EXPERT WITNESS; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; PSYCHOLOGY; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

EXPERT TESTIMONY; HUMANS; JURISPRUDENCE; PSYCHOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 14544288236     PISSN: 00664308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070316     Document Type: Review

References (101)

1. Alexander v. Smith & Nephew, 90 F.Supp.2d 1225 (N.D. Okla. 2000)
2. Appelbaum PS. 2002. Policing expert testimony: the role of professional organizations. Psychiatr. Serv. 53:389-90
3. Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978)
4. Barlow DH, Levitt JT, Bufka LF. 1999. The dissemination of empirically supported treatments: a view to the future. Res. Ther. 37: S147-62
5. Berger M. 1994. Novel forensic evidence: the need for court-appointed experts after Daubert. Shepard's Expert Sci. Evid. 1:487-512
6. Bicardi v. New York Lighter, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1335 (2000)
7. Black B, Ayala J, Saffran C. 1994. Science and the law in the wake of Daubert: a new search for scientific knowledge. Texas Law Rev. 72:715-802
8. Black v. Food Lion, 171 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 1999)
9. Blum V. 2004. D.O.J's new porn police. Legal Times, Mar. 8, p. 1
10. Borgida E, Hunt JS. 2003. Psychology and law. In Social Psychology, ed. SE Taylor, LA Peplau, DO Sears, pp. 496-514. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 11th ed.
11. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
12. Bruck M, Ceci SJ. 1999. The suggestibility of children's memory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50:419-39
13. Carlson R. 1992. Experts as hearsay conduits: confrontation abuses in opinion testimony. Minn. Law Rev. 76:859-75
14. Cecil J, Willging T. 1994. Accepting Daubert's invitation: defining a role for court-appointed experts in assessing scientific validity. Emory Law J. 43:995-1070
15. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. McDermott International, Inc., 2002 WL 14379 *4 (E.D.La. 2002)
16. Chesebro KJ. 1994. Taking Daubert's "focus" seriously: the methodology/conclusion distinction. Cardozo Law Rev. 15:1745-53
17. Commonwealth v. Morasse, 15 Mass. L. Rptr. 115 (2001)
18. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
19. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995)
20. Denbeaux MP, Risinger DM. 2003. Kumho Tire and expert reliability: how the question you ask gives the answer you get. Seton Hall Law Rev. 34:15-75
21. Diamond SS. 2002. Survey research. In Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, ed. DL Faigman, DH Kaye, MJ Saks, J Sanders, 1:286-330. St. Paul, MN: West/Thompson. 2nd ed.
22. Diamond SS, Vidmar N, Rose M, Ellis L, Murphy B. 2003. Jury discussions during civil trials: studying an Arizona innovation. Univ. Ariz. Law Rev. 45:1-81
23. Doe v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258 (9th Cir. 2000)
24. Ebenhoech v. Koppers Ind., Inc., 239 F.Supp.2d 455 (D.N.J. 2002)
25. Faigman DL. 1989. To have and have not: assessing the value of social science to the law as science and policy. Emory Law J. 38:1005-95
26. Faigman DL. 1999. Legal Alchemy: The Use and Misuse of Science in the Law. New York: Freeman
27. Faigman DL. 2002. Is science different for lawyers? Science 197:339-40
28. Faigman DL. 2004. Laboratory of Justice: The Supreme Court's 200-Year Struggle to Integrate Science and the Law. New York: Holt
29. Faigman DL, Kaye DH, Saks MJ, Sanders J, eds. 2002. Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony. St. Paul, MN: West/Thompson. 2nd ed.
30. Faigman DL, Porter E, Saks MJ. 1994. Check your crystal ball at the courthouse door, please: exploring the past, understanding the present, and worrying about the future of scientific evidence. Cardozo Law Rev. 15:1799-835
31. Fiske ST, Borgida E. 1999. Social framework analysis as expert testimony in sexual harassment suits. In Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, ed. S Estreicher, pp. 575-83. Boston: Kluwer Law
32. Fox RE. 2000. The dark side of evidence-based treatment. Practitioner Focus. http://www. apa.org/practice/pf/jan00/cappchair.html
33. Frazier PA. 2002. The scientific status of research on rape trauma syndrome. See Faigman et al. 2002, 2:117-43
34. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)
35. Garb HN, Lilienfeld SO, Wood JM. 2003. The scientific status of research on projective techniques. In Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, ed. DL Faigman, DH Kaye, MJ Saks, J Sanders, 4(Suppl.):75-104. St. Paul, MN: West/Thompson. 2nd ed.
36. Gatowski SI, Dobbin SA, Richardson JT, Ginsburg GP, et al. 2001. Asking the gatekeepers: a national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law Hum. Behav. 25:433-58
37. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997)
38. Goldstein AM. 2003. Handbook of Psychology. Vol.11: Forensic Psychology. New York: Wiley
39. Goode E. 2004. Defying psychiatric wisdom, these skeptics say "Prove it." N. Y. Times, March 9, p. F1
40. Greenhouse L. 1993. Ruling on scientific evidence: the Supreme Court: judges as gate-keepers for science. N. Y. Times, June 29, p. A1
41. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)
42. Grisso T. 2003. Evaluating Competencies: Forensic Assessments and Instruments. New York: Kluwer Acad. 2nd ed.
43. Grisso T, Appelbaum PS. 1998. Assessing Competence to Consent to Treatment: A Guide for Physicians and Other Health Care Professionals. New York: Oxford
44. Groscup JL, Penrod SD. 2003. Battle of the standards for experts in criminal cases: police vs. psychologists. Seton Hall Law Rev. 33:1141-65
45. Groscup JL, Penrod SD, Studebaker CA, Huss MT, O'Neil KM. 2002. The effects of Daubert on the admissibility of expert testimony in state and federal criminal cases. Psychol. Public Policy Law 8:339-72
46. Gross S. 1991. Expert evidence. Wisc. Law Rev. 1991:1113-232
47. Gross SR, Mnookin J. 2003. Expert information and expert evidence: a preliminary taxonomy. Seton Hall Law Rev. 34:139-89
48. Haack S. 2003. Defending Science - Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism. New York: Prometheus
49. Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 947 F.Supp. 1387 (D.Or. 1996)
50. Heilbrun K, Marczyk GR, DeMatteo D. 2002. Forensic Mental Health Assessment: A Case-book. New York: Oxford
51. Heller v. Shaw, 167 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 1999)
52. Ivkovi SK, Hans VP. 2003. Jurors' evaluations of expert testimony: judging the messenger and the message. Law Soc. Inq. 28:441-82
53. Jasanoff S. 1996. Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
54. Kassirer JP, Cecil JS. 2002. Inconsistency in evidentiary standards for medical testimony. JAMA 288:17-22
55. Kinports K. 2004. So much activity, so little change: a reply to the critics of battered women's self-defense. Saint Louis Univ. Public Law Rev. 23:155-91
56. Kumho Tire Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)
57. Levant R. 2003. The empirically-validated treatments movement: a practitioner per spective. http://www.drronaldlevant.com/ evtm.html
58. Lilienfeld SO. 2002. The scientific review of mental health practice: our raison d'etre. Sci. Rev. Ment. Health Pract. 1:5-10
59. Linz D, Donnerstein E, Land KC, McCall PL, Scott J, et al. 1991. Estimating community standards: the use of social science evidence in an obscenity prosecution. Public Opin. Q. 55:80-112
60. Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986)
61. Logerquist v. McVey, 1 P.3d 113 (2000)
62. Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990)
63. McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987)
64. McFall RM. 1991. Manifesto for a science of clinical psychology. Clin. Psychol. 44:75-88
65. Melton GB, Petrila J, Poythress NG, Slobogin C. 1997. Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers. New York: Guilford. 2nd ed.
66. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
67. Monahan J, Loftus EF. 1982. The psychology of law. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 33:441-75
68. Monahan J, Walker L. 1986. Social authority: obtaining, evaluating, and establishing social science in law. Univ. Penn. Law Rev. 134:477-517
69. Monahan J, Walker L. 2002. Social Science in Law: Cases and Materials. Westbury, NY: Foundation. 5th ed.
70. Montgomery County v. Microvote Corp., 320 F.3d 440 (3d Cir. 2003)
71. National Abortion Fed. v. Ashcroft, 2004 WL 574799 (S.D.N.Y. March 22, 2004)
72. National Research Council. 2003. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
73. Note. 20Q3. Reliable evaluation of expert testimony. Harvard Law Rev. 116:2142-63
74. Owen DG. 2002. A decade of Daubert. Denver Univ. Law Rev. 80:345-72
75. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
76. Poythress NG, Bonnie RJ, Monahan J, Otto R, Hoge SK. 2002. Adjudicative Competence: The MacArthur Studies. New York: Plenum
77. Raeder MS. 1996. The double-edged sword: admissibility of battered woman syndrome by and against batterers in cases implicating domestic violence. Colorado Law Rev. 67:789-816
78. Redding R. 2001. Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: the case for pluralism. Am. Psychol. 56:205-15
79. Risinger DM. 2002. Preliminary thoughts on a functional taxonomy of expertise for the post-Kumho world. See Faigman et al. 2002, 1:69-93
80. Risinger M, Saks M. 1996. Science and non-science in the courts: Daubert meets handwriting identification expertise. Iowa Law Rev. 82:21-74
81. Risinger MD, Saks MJ, Thompson WC. 2002. The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. Calif. Law Rev. 90:1-56
82. Sanders J. 1993. From science to evidence: the testimony on causation in the Bendectin cases. Stanford Law Rev. 46:1-86
83. Sanders J, Diamond SS, Vidmar N. 2002. Legal perceptions of science and expert knowledge. Psychol. Public Policy Law 8:139-53
84. Saks M. 1998. Merlin and Solomon: lessons from the law's formative encounters with forensic identification science. Hastings Law J. 49:1069-141
85. Seton Hall Symposium. 2003. Expert admissibility symposium: What is the question to which standards of reliability are to be applied? Seton Hall Law Rev. 34:1-388
86. Slobogin C. 2000. Doubts about Daubert: psychiatric anecdata as a case study. Wash. Lee Law Rev. 57:919-48
87. Turner v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Co., 338 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2003)
88. United States v. Hovvard, 117 F.Supp.2d 848 (S.D.Ind. 2000)
89. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000)
90. United States v. Roach, 296 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2002)
91. United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795 (2d Cir. 1990)
92. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1999)
93. Vidmar N, Diamond SS. 2001. Juries and expert evidence. Brooklyn Law Rev. 66:1121-80
94. Walker L, Monahan J. 1987. Social frame-works: a new use of social science in law. Virginia Law Rev. 73:559-98
95. Walker L, Monahan J. 1988. Social facts: scientific methodology as legal precedent. Calif. Law Rev. 76:877-96
96. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)
97. Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440 (2000)
98. Wells GL, Loftus EF. 2003. Eyewitness memory for people and events. In Handbook of Psychology. Vol. 11, Forensic Psychology, ed. AM Goldstein, pp. 149-60. New York: Wiley
99. Wells GL, Olson EA. 2003. Eyewitness testimony. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 54:277-95
100. Zemaitatis v. Innovasive Devices, Inc., 90 F.Supp.2d 631 (E.D.Pa. 2000)
101. Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Rogers Imports, Inc., 216 F.Supp. 670 (1963)