Expert psychological testimony

Current Directions in Psychological Science

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 53-57

  Cutler, Brian L ^a   Kovera, Margaret Bull ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ONTARIO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Canada)

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

Author keywords

expert testimony; forensic psychology; psychology and law

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952092126     PISSN: 09637214     EISSN: 14678721     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963721410388802     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Costanzo, M., Krauss, D., & Pezdek, K. (Eds.). (2007). Expert psychological testimony for the courts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Reviews issues surrounding expert psychological testimony on a wide variety of topics.
2. Cutler, B. L. (Editor) (2009). (See References). A recently published comprehensive review of research addressing the need for, admissibility of, and effects of expert psychological testimony on eyewitness identification.
3. Kovera, M.B., & McAuliff. B.D. (2000). (See References). A sample study examining judges' abilities to evaluate scientific research in the context of admissibility decisions.
4. Skeem, J., Douglas, K. & Lilienfeld, S. (Eds.). (2009). (See References). Reviews consensus and controversies about a wide range of forensic psychology topics about which expert psychologists often testify.
5. Cooke, D.J., & Michie, C. (2010). Limitations of diagnostic precision and predictive utility in the individual case: A challenge for forensic practice. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 259-274.
6. Cutler, B.L. (Ed.). (2009). Expert testimony on the psychology of eyewitness identification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
7. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).
8. Federal Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates. (1975). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
9. Flowe, H.D., Finklea, K.M., & Ebbesen, E.B. (2009). Limitations on expert psychological testimony on eyewitness identification. In B.L. Cutler (Ed.), Expert testimony on the Psychology of eyewitness identification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
10. Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923).
11. Gatowski, S.I., Dobbin, S.A., Richardson, J.T., Ginsburg, G.P., Merlino, M.L., & Dahir, V. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 433-458.
12. Groscup, J.L., Penrod, S.D., Studebaker, C.A., Huss, M.T., & O'Neil, K.M. (2002). The effects of Daubert on the admissibility of expert testimony in state and federal criminal cases. Psychology. Public Policy, and Law, 8, 339-372.
13. Kovera, M.B., Gresham, A.W., Borgida, E., Gray, E., & Regan, P.C. (1997). Does expert testimony inform or influence juror decision-making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 178-191.
14. 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, 574-586.
15. 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, 362-375.
16. Krauss, D., & Sales, B.D. (2001). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision-making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 267-310.
17. Levett, L.M., & Kovera, M.B. (2008). The effectiveness of educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence using an opposing witness. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 363-374.
18. Levett, L.M., & Kovera, M.B. (2009). Psychological mediators of the effects of opposing expert testimony on juror decisions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 124-148.
19. McAuliff, B.D., Kovera, M.B., & Nunez, G. (2009). Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science? Law and Human Behavior, 33, 247-257.
20. McQuiston-Surrett, D., & Saks, M.J. (2009). The testimony of forensic identification science: What expert witnesses say and what fact finders hear. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 436-453.
21. Murrie, D.C., Boccaccini, M.T., Johnson, J.T., & Janke, C. (2008). Does interrater (dis)agreement on Psychopathy Checklist scores in sexual violent predator trials suggest partisan allegiance in forensic evaluations? Law and Human Behavior, 32, 352-362.
22. Perez, D.A. (2010). The (in)admissibility of false confession expert testimony. Touro Law Review, 26, 23-74.
23. Schuller, R., & Hastings, P. (1996). Trials of battered women who kill: The impact of alternative forms of expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 167-187.
24. Skeem, J., Douglas, K. & Lilienfeld, S. (Eds.). (2009). Psychological science in the courtroom: Consensus and controversies. New York, NY: Guilford.