Giving psychology away to lawyers

The Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology: Volume II: Memory for People

Volumn 2, Issue , 2007, Pages 573-582

  Doyle, James M ^a  

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 53849127744     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203936368-31     Document Type: Chapter

References (21)

1. Amsterdam, A., & Bruner, J. (2000). Minding the law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
2. Bershoff, D. N. (1993). Preparing for two cultures: Education in law and psychology, in R. Roesch & S. D. Hart (Eds.), Psychology and law: The state of the discipline. New York: Plenum.
3. Buckhout, R., (1975). Nearly 2000 witnesses can be wrong. Social Action and the Law, 2, 7.
4. Burns, R. (1999). The lawfulness of the American trial. American Criminal Law Review, 38, 205.
5. Cutler, B., & Penrod, S. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology and the law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Daubert v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 79 (1993).
7. Downing v. United States, 753 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir. 1985).
8. Doyle, J. M. (2005). True witness: Cops, courts, science, and the battle against misidentification. New York: Palgrave.
9. Judges, D. (2000). Two cheers for the Department of Justice’s Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Arkansas Law Review, 53, 21.
10. Loftus, E. F. (1983). Science is not golden. American Psychologist, 65, 564-572.
11. McCloskey, M., & Egeth, H. (1986). The experimental psychologist in court: The ethics of expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 1-13.
12. Miller, G. (1969). Psychology as a means of promoting human welfare. American Psychologist, 24, 1063.
13. Munsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. New York: McClure.
14. National Institute of Justice, Technical Working Group on Eyewitness Evidence (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement.
15. Patenaude, K. (2003, October). Improving eyewitness identification. Law Enforcement Technology, 178.
16. Pennington, R., & Hastie, L. (1991). Cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cardozo Law Review, 519.
17. United States v. Hall, 165 F.3d 1095 (7th Cir. 1999).
18. Wells, G. (1978). Applied eyewitness testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 330.
19. Wells, G., Fulero, S., Malpass, R., Turtle, J., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581-598.
20. Wigmore, J. H. (1909). Professor Muensterberg and the psychology of testimony: Being a report of the case of Cokestone v. Muensterberg. Illinois Law Review, 3, 399.
21. Wigmore, J. H. (1937). The science of judicial proof (3d ed.). Boston: Little, Brown & Co.