The Experts below are selected from a list of 324 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Daniel B Wright - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Expert Testimony regarding child witnesses does it sensitize jurors to forensic interview quality
Law and Human Behavior, 2011Co-Authors: Julie A. Buck, Kamala London, Daniel B WrightAbstract:Does Expert Testimony on forensic interviews with children help adults distinguish between poorly conducted and well-conducted interviews? This study evaluates the effects of social framework Expert Testimony regarding child witnesses in a case involving allegations of child sexual abuse. A 2 (Expert Testimony: present or absent) × 3 (Child Forensic Interview Quality: poor, typical, or good) × 2 (Child’s Age: 4- or 10-year-old) factorial design was used to examine whether Expert Testimony is prejudicial or beneficial to jurors (N = 463). The results revealed that, without Expert Testimony, mock jurors did not consider the forensic interview quality when reaching a verdict. However, with Expert Testimony, mock jurors were more likely to render guilty verdicts if the interview quality was good versus poor. Further Expert Testimony increased mock jurors’ knowledge about child witnesses. These findings suggest that Expert Testimony related to the impact of interview techniques on the reliability of children’s reports may assist fact-finders in evaluating child abuse cases.
Steven D. Penrod - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparing the effectiveness of Henderson instructions and Expert Testimony: Which safeguard improves jurors’ evaluations of eyewitness evidence?
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2017Co-Authors: Angela M. Jones, Amanda N. Bergold, Marlee Kind Dillon, Steven D. PenrodAbstract:Objectives The New Jersey Supreme Court recently determined that jurors may not be able to effectively evaluate eyewitness evidence on their own. As a result, the Court proposed the use of judicial instructions to assist jurors (called Henderson instructions) and suggested the implementation of these instructions would reduce the need for Expert Testimony. We tested the efficacy of these instructions compared to alternative instructions and Expert Testimony. Methods We utilized a mock trial paradigm, randomly assigning 452 participants to 1 of 20 videotaped trial conditions that varied the quality of eyewitness evidence (both witnessing and identification conditions) and the type of safeguard presented during the mock trial. Results Jurors were sensitive to the quality of identification conditions on their own. Jurors were more likely to convict when identification conditions were good and less likely when identification conditions were poor. This relationship was mediated by eyewitness credibility ratings. Expert Testimony resulted in skepticism by reducing the likelihood that jurors would convict regardless of the quality of witnessing and identification conditions. No variation of the instructions influenced verdicts. Conclusions While jurors were sensitive to the quality of identification conditions on their own, we observed no such effect for the quality of witnessing conditions, even with the aid of instructions and/or Expert Testimony. Both Henderson instructions and Expert Testimony may be insufficient for assisting jurors to effectively evaluate problematic witnessing conditions. Future research should examine the use of alternative safeguards.
-
comparing the effectiveness of henderson instructions and Expert Testimony which safeguard improves jurors evaluations of eyewitness evidence
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2017Co-Authors: Angela M. Jones, Amanda N. Bergold, Marlee Kind Dillon, Steven D. PenrodAbstract:Objectives The New Jersey Supreme Court recently determined that jurors may not be able to effectively evaluate eyewitness evidence on their own. As a result, the Court proposed the use of judicial instructions to assist jurors (called Henderson instructions) and suggested the implementation of these instructions would reduce the need for Expert Testimony. We tested the efficacy of these instructions compared to alternative instructions and Expert Testimony.
-
Can Expert Testimony Sensitize Jurors to Coercive Interrogation Tactics
Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 2016Co-Authors: Angela M. Jones, Steven D. PenrodAbstract:ABSTRACTLay knowledge concerning false confession risk factors appears to be insufficient to safeguard against wrongful convictions, and research on false confession Expert Testimony has not led to a clear understanding of its impact on juror decision making. Thus, the current study sought to clarify whether Expert Testimony can induce sensitivity to a wide variety of false confession risk factors. Furthermore, jurors bring a variety of predispositions into the courtroom that may shape the way they view evidence. Yet, little research has evaluated the impact of individual differences in cases involving confession evidence. The current study assessed 330 participants’ self-reported likelihood of falsely confessing. These participants subsequently read an abbreviated criminal trial transcript where the defendant confessed to committing murder, but later recanted. We varied police use of four psychologically coercive interrogation techniques as well as the presence of Expert Testimony during the trial. Gener...
David A Kravitz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
how effective are the cross examination and Expert Testimony safeguards jurors perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures
Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002Co-Authors: Jennifer L Devenport, Brian L Cutler, Veronica Stinson, David A KravitzAbstract:: Mock jurors (N = 800) viewed a videotaped trial that included information about a lineup identification procedure. Suggestiveness of the eyewitness identification procedure varied in terms of foil, instruction, and presentation biases. Expert Testimony regarding the factors that influence lineup suggestiveness was also manipulated. Criteria included juror ratings of lineup suggestiveness and fairness, ratings of defendant culpability, and verdicts. Jurors were sensitive to foil bias but only minimally sensitive to instruction and presentation biases. Expert Testimony enhanced juror sensitivity only to instruction bias. These results have implications for the effectiveness of cross-examination and Expert Testimony as safeguards against erroneous convictions resulting from mistaken identifications.
Alan P. Block - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Rape trauma syndrome as scientific Expert Testimony
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1990Co-Authors: Alan P. BlockAbstract:Behavioral science studies conducted on rape victims reveal a posttraumatic stress disorder which follows the attack known as rape trauma syndrome. Evidence of rape trauma syndrome can be very useful in explaining the behavior of rape victims. Rape trauma syndrome can help corroborate the victim's assertion of lack of consent and also help the jury understand the typical reactions of rape victims. Courts have held that Expert Testimony of rape trauma syndrome is admissible as evidence of (i) lack of consent, (ii) the amount of damages in civil suits, (iii) a defense to culpable behavior, and (iv) an explanation for behavior of the victim that is inconsistent with the claim of rape. Rape trauma syndrome meets the requirements for admissibility when it is used for the proper purpose and with adequate safeguards to prevent any unfair prejudice. Based on case precedent on the admissibility of rape trauma syndrome as scientific Expert Testimony, rape trauma syndrome should be admissible if (i) the evidence presented only shows the typical reactions to rape and does not make any legal conclusions as to whether the victim was raped, (ii) the Expert is qualified, (iii) a proper foundation is laid, (iv) liberal cross-examination of the Expert is allowed, and (v) the defense can introduce its own Expert Testimony on rape trauma syndrome.
Nancy Brekke - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Of juries and court-appointed Experts: The impact of nonadversarial versus adversarial Expert Testimony.
Law and Human Behavior, 1991Co-Authors: Nancy Brekke, Peter J. Enko, Gail Clavet, Eric SeelauAbstract:The impact of court-appointed (nonadversarial) Expert Testimony was examined in a jury simulation experiment. A total of 686 registered voters (540 deliberating jurors and 146 nondeliberating alternates) watched a videotaped reenactment of a rape trial in which various aspects of Expert Testimony were manipulated in a 2(type: rape trauma syndrome vs. polygraph) x 2(mode of presentation: adversarial vs. nonadversarial) x 2(content: one-sided vs. balanced) between-subjects factorial design with an independent no-Expert control group. Results indicated that jurors did not accord more weight to nonadversarial Expert Testimony, nor did nonadversarial Expert Testimony negatively affect evaluations of trial fairness or judge competence. Deliberating jurors, however, were less responsive to the content of nonadversarial Expert Testimony than to the content of adversarial Expert Testimony. Possible mediating mechanisms and implications are discussed.
-
The Impact of Nonadversarial versus Adversarial Expert Testimony
1991Co-Authors: Nancy Brekke, Peter J. Enko, Gail Clavet, Eric SeelautAbstract:The impact of court-appointed (nonadversarial) Expert Testimony was examined in a jury simulation experiment. A total of 686 registered voters (540 deliberating jurors and 146 nondeliberating alternates) watched a videotaped reenactment of a rape trial in which various aspects of Expert Testimony were manipulated in a 2(type: rape trauma syndrome vs. polygraph) x 2(mode of presentation: adversarial vs. nonadversarial) x 2(content: one-sided vs. balanced) between-subjects factorial design with an independent no-Expert control group. Results indicated that jurors did not accord more weight to nonadversarial Expert Testimony, nor did nonadversarial Expert Testimony negatively affect evaluations of trial fairness or judge competence. Deliberating jurors, however, were less responsive to the content of nonadversarial Expert Testimony than to the content of adversarial Expert Testimony. Possible mediating mechanisms and implications are discussed. In the controversy regarding Expert Testimony in court, concerns have been voiced about the potential detrimental effects of the adversary system itself on juror evaluations of scientific evidence. A large body of research on procedural justice has demonstrated the superiority of adversarial procedures in many areas
