Psychological Contributions to Evaluating Witness Testimony

Beyond Common Sense: Psychological Science in the Courtroom

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 353-365

  Diamond, Shari Seidman ^a,b  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Death sentences; Dna evidence; Expert testimony; False identifications; Witness testimony

Indexed keywords

EID: 82955226762     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9780470696422.ch19     Document Type: Chapter

References (26)

1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
2. Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations, Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-571.
3. Doyle, J. M. (2005). True witness. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
4. Harris, M. J., & Rosenthal, M. (1985). Mediation of interpersonal expectancy effects: 31 Meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin 97, 363-386.
5. Haw, R. M., & Fisher, R. P. (2004). Effects of administrator-witness contact on eyewitness identification accuracy, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1106-1112.
6. Kassin, S. M. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: The fifth rule, Law and Human Behavior, 22, 649-653.
7. Kemp, R. J., Pike, G. E., & Brace, N. A. (2001). Video-based identification procedures: Combining best practice and practical requirements when designing identification systems, Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 802-808.
8. Klobucher, A., & Caligiuri, H. L. (2005). Protecting the innocent/convicting the guilty: Hennepin County's pilot project in blind sequential eyewitness identification, William Mitchell Law Review, 32, 1-26.
9. Klobucher, A., Steblay, N., & Caligiuri, H. L. (2006). Improving eyewitness identifications: Hennepin County's blind sequential lineup pilot project, The Cardozo Public Law, Policy, and Ethics Journal, 4, 381-413.
10. McQuiston-Surrett, D., Malpass, R. S., & Tredoux, C. G. (2006). Sequential vs. simultaneous lineups: A review of methods, data, and theory. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 12, 137-169.
11. Mecklenburg, S. H. (2006, March). Report to the legislature of the state of Illinois: The Illinois pilot program on sequential double-blind identification procedures. www.chicagopolice.org/IL%20Pilot%20on%20Eyewitness%20ID.pdf.
12. Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 3-35.
13. National Research Council (1992). DNA technology in forensic science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
14. National Research Council (1996). The evaluation of forensic DNA evidence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
15. Phillips, M. R., McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Double-blind photoarrray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 940-951.
16. State v. McKinney, 74 S.W.3d 291 (Tenn.), cert denied, 537 U.S. 926 (2002).
17. Steblay, N. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon-focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 413-424.
18. Steblay, N. (2006, May 3). Observations on the Illinois lineup data. www.nacdl.org/sl_docs.nsf/freeform/eyeID_attachments/$FILE/Steblay-IL_Observations.pdf.
19. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentation: A meta-analytic comparison, Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459-473.
20. U.S. Department of Justice (1999). Office of Justice Programs, Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. National Institute of Justice.
21. U.S. v. Hines, 55 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D. Mass.) (1999).
22. U.S. v. Norwood, 939 F. Supp. 1132 (D. N.J.); aff'd 142 F.3d 430 (3rd Cir. 1998) (1996).
23. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness testimony research: System variables and estimator variables, Journal of Personal & Social Psychology, 36, 1546-1557.
24. Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research, American Psychologist, 55, 581-598.
25. Wright, D. B., & McDaid, A. J. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables: Using data from real line-ups, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75-84.
26. Zernike, K. (2006, April 19). Study fuels debate over police lineups, New York Times, p. 1.