Psychological evidence in court legal developments in england and the united states

Psychology, Crime & Law

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 1994, Pages 261-268

  Colman, A M ^a   Mackay, R D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

admissibility; expert evidence; expert testimony; fundamental attribution error; helping behaviour; obedience

Indexed keywords

EID: 84963482940     PISSN: 1068316X     EISSN: 14772744     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10683169508411961     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Becker, E. R. and Orenstein, A. (1992) The Federal Rules of Evidence after sixteen years: The effect of “plain meaning” jurisprudence, the need for an advisory committee on the rules of evidence, and suggestions for selective revision of the rules. George Washington Law Review. 60, 857–914.
2. Black, B. (1988) A unified theory of scientific evidence. Ford Law Review, 56, 595–695.
3. Blass, T. (1991) Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 398-413.
4. Colman, A. M. and Mackay, R. D. (1993) Legal issues surrounding the admissibility of expert psychological and psychiatric testimony. In N. K. Clark and G. M. Stephenson (eds), Children, evidence and procedure (Issues in Criminological and Legal Psychology, No. 20, pp. 46–50). Leicester The British Psychological Society.
5. Cross, R. and Tapper, C. (1990) Cross on evidence (7th ed.). London: Butterworths.
6. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 s. Ct. 2786.
7. Federal Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates. (1975) St. Paul, MN: West.
8. Frye v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 1013 (D.C. Cir 1923).
9. Gianelli, P. C. (1980) The admissibility of novel scientific evidence: Frye v. United States, a half-century later. Columbia Law Review, 80, 1197–1250.
10. Green, M. D. (1992) Expert witnesses and sufficiency of evidence in toxic substances litigation: The legacy of Agent Orange and Bendectin litigation. Northwestern University Law Review, 86, 643–699.
11. Imwinkelried, E. J. (1990) The evolution of the American test for the admissibility of scientific evidence. Medicine, Science and the Law, 30, 60–64.
12. Imwinkelried, E. J. (1992) Attempts to limit the scope of the Frye standard for the admission of scientific evidence: Confronting the real cost of the general acceptance test. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10, 441–452.
13. Kircher, J. C. and Raskin, D. C. (1992) Polygraph techniques: History, controversies, and prospects. In P. Suedfeld and P. Tetlock (eds), Psychology and social policy (pp. 295–308). New York: Hemisphere.
14. Latané, B. and Darley, J. M. (1970) The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
15. Latané, B. and Naida, S. (1981) Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 308–324.
16. Learned Hand. (1901). Historical and practical considerations regarding expert testimony. Harvard Law Review, 15. 40–58.
17. Mackay, R. D. and Colman, A. M. (1991) Excluding expert evidence: A tale of ordinary folk and common experience. Criminal Law Review, 800–810.
18. Milgram, S. (1974) Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.
19. R. v. Chard (1972) Criminal Appeal Reports, 56, 268–271.
20. R. v. Sally Lorraine Emery (and Another) (1992) Criminal Appeal Reports (Sentencing), 14, 394–400.
21. R. v. Turner (1975) Law Reports, Queen's Bench (Court of Appeal), 834–843.
22. Ross, L. (1977) ‘The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (ed). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173–220.
23. Webster, D. M. (1993) Motivated augmentation and reduction of the overattribution bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 261 -271.