The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 363-374

  Levett, Lora M ^a   Kovera, Margaret Bull ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Experts; Juries; Scientific evidence

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEGAL EVIDENCE; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NORMAL HUMAN; RELIABILITY; VALIDATION PROCESS; WITNESS;

EXPERT TESTIMONY; HUMANS;

EID: 47149113969     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-007-9113-9     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Barlow v. State, (1998). 270 Ga 54.
2. Birnbaum, M. H. (2004). Human research and data collection via the internet. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 803-832.
3. Brekke, N., & Borgida, E. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 372-386.
4. Bruck, M., & Ceci, S. J. (1995). Amicus brief for the case of State of New Jersey v. Michaels presented by committee of concerned social scientists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1(2), 272-322.
5. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
6. 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.
7. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-251). New York: Guilford Press.
8. Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A., & Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20(4), 379-394.
9. Cooper, J., & Neuhaus I. (2000). The hired gun effect: Use of pay, credentials, and frequency of testifying as peripheral decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 149-171.
10. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1990a). Nonadversarial methods for sensitizing jurors to eyewitness evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 20, 1197-1207.
12. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990b). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14(2), 185-191.
13. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). 113 S. Ct. 2786.
14. Devenport, J. L., & Cutler, B. L. (2004). Impact of defense-only and opposing eyewitness experts on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 569-576.
15. DeWitt, J. S., Richardson, J. T., & Warner, L. G. (1997). Novel scientific evidence and controversial cases: A social psychological examination. Law and Psychology Review, 21, 1-23.
16. Frye v. United States, (1923). 54 App.D. C. 46, 293 F.1013.
17. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, (1997). 522 U. S. 136.
18. Gilovich, T., Vallone, R., & Tversky, A. (1985). The hot hand in basketball: On the misperception of random sequences. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 295-314.
19. Greene, E., Downey, C., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (1999). Juror decisions about damages in employment discrimination cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17(1), 107-121.
20. Griffith, J. D., Libkuman, T. M., & Poole, D. A. (1998). Repressed memories: The effects of expert testimony on mock jurors' decision making. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 16(1), 5-23.
21. Groscup, J., & Penrod, S. D. (2002). Jury instructions effects on juror assessments of scientific reliability. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, San Antonio, TX.
22. Hooper, L. L., Cecil, J. S., & Willging, T. E. (2001). Assessing causation in breast implant litigation: The role of science panels. Law and Contemporary Problems, 64, 139-189.
23. Jasanoff, S. (1993). What judges should know about the sociology of science. Judicature, 77(2), 77-82.
24. Jasanoff, S. (1995). Science at the bar: Law, science, and technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430-454.
26. Kovera, M. B., Levy, R. J., Borgida, E., & Penrod, S. D. (1994). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: Effects of expert evidence type and cross examination. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 653-674.
27. Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2000). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 574-586.
28. Kovera, M. B., McAuliff, B. D., & Hebert, K. S. (1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence: Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 362-375.
29. Krantz, J. H., & Dalal, R. (2000). Validity of web-based psychological research. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the internet (pp. 35-60). San Diego: Academic.
30. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, (1999). 526 U.S. 137.
31. Leichtman, M. D., & Ceci, S. J. (1995). The effects of stereotypes and suggestions on preschoolers' reports. Developmental Psychology, 31, 568-578.
32. Leippe, M. R. (1995). The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 1, 909-959.
33. Leippe, M. R., Eisenstadt, D., Rauch, S. M., & Seib, H. M. (2004). Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors' need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 524-541.
34. Lehman, D. R., Lempert, R. O., & Nisbett, R. E. (1988). The effects of graduate training on reasoning: Formal discipline and thinking about everyday-life events. American Psychologist, 43(6), 431-442.
35. Lyon, T. D. (1999). The new wave in children's suggestibility research: A critique. Cornell Law Review, 84, 1004-1087.
36. McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (in press-a). Estimating the effects of misleading information on witness accuracy: Can experts tell jurors something they don't already know? Applied Cognitive Psychology.
37. McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (in press-b). Juror sensitivity to methodological flaws in psychological science. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
38. McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). Methodological issues in child suggestibility research. In B. L. Bottoms & J. A. Quas (Co-Chairs), Situational and individual sources of variability in children's suggestibility and false memories. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Redondo Beach, CA.
39. McAuliff, B. D., Nicholson, E., & Ravanshenas, D. (2007). Hypothetically speaking, can expert testimony improve jurors' understanding of developmental differences in suggestibility? In B. D. McAuliff & D. Ravanshenas (Co-Chairs), Giving away developmental psychology in court: Can expert testimony on suggestibility and child abuse improve jurors' decisions? Symposium presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, MA.
40. McAuliff, B. D., Samis, A. Vargas, J., & Gonzalez, K. (2006). May we suggest a hypothetical? Expert testimony in witness suggestibility cases. In L. Levett (Chair), Juror decision making about expert evidence. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, St. Petersburg, FL.
41. Nisbett, R. E. (1993). Rules for reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42. Pavel v. Hollins, (2001). 261 F. 3d 210.
43. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-203). New York: Academic Press.
44. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998) Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of social psychology (pp. 323-390). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
45. Raitz, A., Greene, E., Goodman, J., & Loftus, E. F. (1990). Determining damages: The influence of expert testimony on jurors' decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 14(4), 385-395.
46. Schuller, R. A., & Cripps, J. (1998). Expert evidence pertaining to battered women: The impact of gender of expert and timing of testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 17-31.
47. State of Ohio v. Gersin, (1996). 76 Ohio St.3d 491.
48. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 105-110.
49. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
50. Welker, M. (2001). Email surveys: Non-response figures reflected. In U. D. Reips, & M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Dimensions of internet science (pp. 231-238). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers.
51. Wingate, P. H., & Thornton, G. C. III (2004). Industrial/ organizational psychology and the federal judiciary: Expert witness testimony and the Daubert standards. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 97-114.