Lay knowledge of eyewitness issues: A Canadian evaluation

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 301-326

  Read, J Don ^a   Desmarais, Sarah L ^a  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANADA; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; KNOWLEDGE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; WITNESS;

EID: 66149143172     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1459     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Alonzo, J., & Lane, S. (2006). Saying versus judging: Assessing juror knowledge of eyewitness memory. Paper presentation at the Meetings of the American Psychology-Law Society, St. Petersburg, FL.
2. Benton, T. P., McDonnell, S., Ross, D., Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, E. (2007). Has eyewitness testimony research penetrated the American legal system? A synthesis of case history, juror knowledge, and expert testimony. In D. W. Ross, R. C. L. Lindsay, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Volume 2: Memory for people (pp. 453-500). New Jersey: Erlbaum.
3. Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges, and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 115-130.
4. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. Deffenbacher, K. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behaviour? Law and Human Behavior, 6, 15-30.
6. Desmarais, S. L., Price, H. L., & Read, J. D. (in press). "Objection Your Honor, Television is not the relevant authority!" Crime drama portrayals of eyewitness issues. Psychology, Crime, and Law.
7. Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Hartwig, M. (2005). Eyewitness testimony: Tracing the beliefs of Swedish legal professionals. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 709-727.
8. Hope, L., Memon, A., Houston, K. A., & Read, J. D. (2008). Do we need eyewitness expert testimony? A preliminary examination of the methodological considerations in evaluating juror 'commonsense'. Manuscript in preparation.
9. Kassin, S. M., & Barndollar, K. A. (1992). The psychology of eyewitness testimony: A comparison of experts and prospective jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1241-1249.
10. Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, V. L. (1989). The "general acceptance" of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 44, 1089-1098.
11. Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research. American Psychologist, 56, 405-416.
12. Lane, S., Groft, S., Roussel, C., & Alonzo, J. (2007). Beliefs about eyewitness memory: Differences among judges, jurors, and jury-eligible college students. Poster presentation at the "Off the Witness Stand Conference", John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY.
13. Lane, S., Groft, S., & Alonzo, J. (2008). What judges know and what jurors know: Consistency of beliefs about eyewitness memory. Paper presentation at the American Psychology-Law Society Meetings, Jacksonville, FL.
14. Leippe, M. R. (1995). The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 909-959.
15. Leippe, M. R., & Eisenstadt, D. (2007). Eyewitness confidence and the confidence-accuracy relationship in memory for people. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. W. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology: Volume 2: Memory for people (pp. 377-426). New Jersey: Erlbaum.
16. Lindsay, R. C. L., MacDonald, P., & McGarry, S. (1990). Perspectives on the role of the eyewitness expert. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 8, 457-464.
17. Martire, K., & Kemp, R. (2007). Quantifying the expertise of an eyewitness expert. Paper presentation at the meetings of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition (SARMAC), Lewiston, Maine.
18. McConkey, K. M., & Roche, S. M. (1989). Knowledge of eyewitness memory. Australian Psychologist, 24, 377-384.
19. Mitchell, T. L., & Haw, R.M. (2008). What we know: A survey comparison of community and expert opinion. Unpublished manuscript.
20. Noon, E., & Hollin, C. R. (1987). Lay knowledge of eyewitness behaviour: A British survey. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 143-153.
21. R. v. Mohan, (1994). 2 S.C.R. 9.
22. Schmechel, R. S., O'Toole, T. P., Easterly, C., & Loftus, E. F. (2006). Beyond the ken? Testing jurors' understanding of eyewitness reliability evidence. Jurimetrics, 46, 177-214.
23. Steusser, L. (2005). Experts on eyewitness identification: I just don't see it. International Commentary on Evidence, 3, Article 2.
24. Wise, R. A., Pawlenko, N. B., Meyer, D., & Safer, M. A. (2007). A survey of defense attorneys' knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony. The Champion, 31, 18-27, 33.
25. Wise, R. A., & Safer, M. A. (2004). What US judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 427-443.
26. Yarmey, A. D. (2001). Expert testimony: Does eyewitness memory research have probative value for the courts? Canadian Psychology, 42, 92-100.
27. Yarmey, A. D., & Jones, H. P. T. (1983). Chapter 2: Is the psychology of eyewitness identification a matter of common sense? In S. M. A. Lloyd-Bostock, & B. R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence (pp. 13-40). Toronto: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.