Expert witnesses: Perceptions of eligible jurors

American Journal of Forensic Psychology

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 23-39

  Griffith, James D ^a   Hart, C Lanier ^b   Frigo, Caroline ^c   Hoscheck, DeAnn ^c   Householder, Kristin ^c   Harkins, Joe ^c  

^a SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b EAST CENTRAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; BALLISTICS; COURT; DNA DETERMINATION; EXPERIENCE; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; FINGER DERMATOGLYPHICS; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMAN; HYPNOSIS; LEGAL ASPECT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERCEPTION; RESEARCH; SKILL;

EID: 28044434910     PISSN: 07331290     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Simon RJ: The Jury and the Defense of Insanity. Boston, Little, Brown and Company 1967
2. Morton J: Experts. Journal of Criminal Law 2004; 68:177-179
3. Gross SR, Syverud KD: Getting to no: a study of settlement negotiations and the selection of cases for trial. Michigan Law Review 1991; 90:319
4. Federal Rules of Evidence 702
5. Shuman DW, Greenberg SA: The expert witness, the adversary system, and the voice of reason: reconciling impartiality and advocacy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 2003; 34:219-224
6. Shuman DW, Greenberg SA: The role of ethical norms in the admissibility of expert testimony. Division 1998; 37:4-43
7. Milunsky A: Lies, damned lies, and medical experts: the abrogation of responsibility by specialty organizations and a call for action. Journal of Child Neurology 2003; 18:413-419
8. Cooper J, Bennett EA, Sukel HL: Complex scientific testimony: how do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior 1996; 20:379-394
9. Slobogin C: The admissibility of behavioral science information in criminal trials: from primitivism to Daubert to voice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 1991; 5:100-119
10. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 1993; 509 U.S., 113 S.Ct. 2786
11. Kovera MB, McAuliff BD: The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology 2000; 85:574-586
12. Frolik LA: Science, common sense, and the determination of mental capacity. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 1999; 5:41-58
13. Raimo AM: Psychological challenges to eyewitness testimony. American Journal of Forensic Psychology 1987; 1:23-36
14. Rachlin S: From impartial expert to adversary in the wake of Ake. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law 1988; 16:25-33
15. Allan A, Louw DA: The ultimate opinion rule and psychologists: a comparison of the expectations and experiences of South African lawyers. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 1997; 15:307-320
16. Melton GB; Petrila J; Poythress NG: Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers. New York, Guilford Press 1987
17. Nash B: The psychologist as expert witness: a solicitor's view. Issues in Criminological and Legal Psychology 1982; 3:32-38
18. Dix GE, Poythress NG: Propriety of medical dominance of forensic mental health practice: the empirical evidence. Arizona Law Review 1981; 23:961-989
19. Yarmey AD, Popiel PK: Judged value of medical versus psychological expert witnesses. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 1988; 11:195-204
20. Stone AA: The insanity defense on trial. Hospital and Community Psychiatry 1982; 33:636-640
21. Hollien H: The expert witness: ethics and responsibilities. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1990; 35:1414-1423
22. Bank SC, Poythress NG: The elements of persuasion in expert testimony. Journal of Psychiatry and Law 1982; 10:173-178
23. Leippe MR: The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 1995; 1:909-959
24. Leippe MR, Eisenstadt D, Rauch SM, Seib JM: Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors' need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts. Journal of Applied Psychology 2004; 89:524-541
25. Bornstein BH: The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors' liability verdicts. Psychology, Crime and Law 2004; 10:429-446
26. Lindsay RCL, MacDonald P, McGarry S: Perspectives on the role of the eyewitness expert. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 1990; 8:457-464
27. Boccaccini MT; Brodsky SL: Believability of expert and lay witnesses: implications for trial consultation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 2002; 33:384-388
28. Nietzel MT: Psychology applied to the legal system, in Psychology: Fields of Application. Edited by Stec AM, Bernstein DA. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999; 137-147
29. Memon A, Shuman DW: Juror perception of experts in civil disputes: the role of gender and race. Law and Psychology Review 1998; 22:179-197
30. Miller GH: Prohibiting psychiatric diagnosis in insanity trials with special reference to John W. Hinckley, Jr. Psychiatry 1986; 49:131-143
31. McKimmie BM, Newton CJ; Terry DJ: Jurors' responses to expert witness testimony: The effects of gender stereotypes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 2004; 7:131-143
32. Schuller RA, Terry D, McKimmie B: The impact of an expert's gender on jurors' decisions. Law and Psychology Review 2001; 25:59-79
33. Griffith JD, Libkuman TM, Dodd JD, Shafir Z, Dickinson JJ: The effects of expert testimony on mock jurors' decision making and memory. American Journal of Forensic Psychology 2002; 20:69-80
34. Griffith JD, Libkuman TM, Kazen J, Shafir Z: Repressed memories in the courtroom: trial characteristics affecting mock jurors' decision making. American Journal of Forensic Psychology 1999; 17:5-24
35. Vindice V: Expert witness testimony by psychologists: a survey of judges, jurors and lawyers. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 1998; 58(10-B):56-59
36. Cooper J, Nuehaus IM: The "hired gun" effect: Assessing the effect of pay, frequency of testifying, and credentials on the perception of expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior 2000; 24:149-171
37. Grove WM, Barden, RC: Protecting the integrity of the legal system: the admissibility of testimony from mental health experts under Daubert/Kumho analyses. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 1999; 5:224-242