Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/american-psychological-association/the-testimony-of-forensic-identification-science-what-expert-witnesses-fI96t2D0uB
References (70)
-
(1991)
The use of expert witnesses in American courts -
Mark Costanzo, D. Krauss, K. Pezdek (2007)
Expert Psychological Testimony for the Courts -
JJ Koehler (1996)
On conveying the probative value of DNA evidence: Frequencies, likelihood ratios, and error ratesUniversity of Colorado Law Review, 67
-
S. Diamond, Jonathan Casper, C. Heiert, Anna Marshall (1996)
Juror reactions to attorneys at trialJournal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 87
-
Y. Lee (2000)
An Empirical Assessment -
C. Guthrie, J. Rachlinski, Andrew Wistrich (2001)
Inside the Judicial MindCornell Law Review, 86
-
SA Zabell (2005)
Fingerprint evidenceJournal of Law and Policy, 13
-
B. McAuliff, M. Kovera, Gabriel Nunez (2009)
Can Jurors Recognize Missing Control Groups, Confounds, and Experimenter Bias in Psychological Science?Law and Human Behavior, 33
-
DL Faigman, AJ Baglioni (1998)
Bayes’ theorem in the trial process: Instructing jurors on the value of statistical evidenceLaw and Human Behavior, 12
-
H. Pinkus (1963)
Fingerprints, palms and soles: an introduction to dermatoglyphics.JAMA, 183
-
B. Smith, Steven Penrod, Amy Otto, R. Park (1996)
Jurors' use of probabilistic evidenceLaw and Human Behavior, 20
-
WC Thompson, E Schumann (1987)
Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutor’s fallacy and the defense attorney’s fallacyLaw and Human Behavior, 11
-
S Cole (2001)
Suspect identities: A history of fingerprinting and criminal identification -
B. Gaudette, ES Keeping (1974)
An attempt at determining probabilities in human scalp hair comparison.Journal of forensic sciences, 19 3
-
W. Thompson, S. Cole (2007)
Psychological Aspects of Forensic Identification Evidence -
David Faigman, A. Baglioni (1988)
Bayes' theorem in the trial processLaw and Human Behavior, 12
-
S. Lindsey, R. Hertwig, G. Gigerenzer (2003)
Communicating statistical DNA evidence, 43
-
M. Saks, J. Koehler (2005)
The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification ScienceScience, 309
-
B. McAuliff, M. Kovera (2008)
Juror need for cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidenceJournal of Applied Social Psychology, 38
-
J. Schklar, S. Diamond (1999)
Juror Reactions to DNA Evidence: Errors and ExpectanciesLaw and Human Behavior, 23
-
G. Wells (1986)
Expert psychological testimonyLaw and Human Behavior, 10
-
A. Moenssens (2007)
Scientific Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases -
E. Cheng, David Faigman, M. Saks, J. Sanders (2006)
Modern scientific evidence : the law and science of expert testimony -
W. Thompson (2002)
The Daubert/Kumho Implications of Observer Effects in Forensic Science: Hidden Problems of Expectation and SuggestionSocial Science Research Network
-
I. Dror, David Charlton (2006)
Why Experts Make Errors -
N. Brekke, E. Borgida (1988)
Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55
-
(2007)
The general assumptions and -
W. Thompson (1989)
Are Juries Competent to Evaluate Statistical EvidenceLaw and contemporary problems, 52
-
B. Bornstein (1999)
The Ecological Validity of Jury Simulations: Is the Jury Still Out?Law and Human Behavior, 23
-
(1994)
An empirical examination of the uses of expert witnesses in the courts — Part II : A three city study -
D. Krauss, B. Sales (2001)
The Effects Of Clinical And Scientific Expert Testimony On Juror Decision Making In Capital SentencingPsychology, Public Policy and Law, 7
-
M. Kovera, B. McAuliff (2000)
The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: are judges effective gatekeepers?The Journal of applied psychology, 85 4
-
BI Rowe (1997)
A possible solution for the problem of juries slighting nonscientific evidence: A Bayesian-like judicial instructionAmerican Journal of Criminal Law, 24
-
Na Na (1950)
Histopathology of the SkinThe American Journal of the Medical Sciences
-
J. Koehler (1996)
On Conveying the Probative Value of DNA Evidence: Frequencies, Likelihood Ratios and Error RatesInnovation Law & Policy eJournal
-
J. Sita, B. Found, D. Rogers (2002)
Forensic handwriting examiners' expertise for signature comparison.Journal of forensic sciences, 47 5
-
U. Hoffrage, S. Lindsey, R. Hertwig, G. Gigerenzer (2000)
Medicine. Communicating statistical information.Science, 290 5500
-
M. Mulekar (2008)
Weight-of Evidence for Forensic DNA ProfilesTechnometrics, 50
-
M. Martínez (2004)
American Journal of Criminal Law -
D. Risinger, Mark Denbeaux, M. Saks (1989)
Exorcism of Ignorance as a Proxy for Rational Knowledge: The Lessons of Handwriting Identification ExpertiseUniversity of Pennsylvania Law Review, 137
-
DL Faigman, DH Kaye, MJ Saks, J Sanders, EK Cheng (2007)
Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (2006–2007 ed.) -
MB Kovera, RJ Levy, E Borgida, SD Penrod (1994)
Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: Effects of expert evidence type and cross-examinationLaw and Human Behavior, 18
-
M. Houck, B. Budowle (2002)
Correlation of microscopic and mitochondrial DNA hair comparisons.Journal of forensic sciences, 47 5
-
(2004)
Thinking about low - probability events : An exemplar cuing theory -
Dale Nance, S. Morris (2002)
An Empirical Assessment of Presentation Formats for Trace Evidence with a Relatively Large and Quantifiable Random Match Probability -
Lora Levett, M. Kovera (2008)
The Effectiveness of Opposing Expert Witnesses for Educating Jurors about Unreliable Expert EvidenceLaw and Human Behavior, 32
-
DM Risinger, MJ Saks, R Rosenthal, WC Thompson (2002)
The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden problems of expectation and suggestionUniversity of California Law Review, 90
-
D. McQuiston-Surrett, M. Saks (2008)
Communicating opinion evidence in the forensic identification sciences: Accuracy and impactHastings Law Journal, 59
-
William Thompsont, Edward Schumannt (1987)
The Prosecutor's Fallacy and the Defense Attorney's Fallacy* -
T. Wilson, Elizabeth Dunn (2004)
Self-knowledge: its limits, value, and potential for improvement.Annual review of psychology, 55
-
B. Gaudette (1976)
Probabilities and human pubic hair comparisons.Journal of forensic sciences, 21 3
-
R. Nisbett, T. Wilson (1977)
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.Psychological Review, 84
-
M. Saks, J. Koehler (2008)
The Individualization Fallacy in Forensic Science EvidenceVanderbilt Law Review, 61
-
U. Hoffrage, S. Lindsey, R. Hertwig, G. Gigerenzer (2000)
Communicating Statistical InformationScience, 290
-
(1992)
Jurors’ comprehension and assessment -
J Goodman (1992)
Jurors’ comprehension and assessment of probabilistic evidenceThe American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 16
-
G. Wells (1992)
Naked Statistical Evidence of Liability: Is Subjective Probability Enough?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62
-
(1997)
A possible solution for the problem of juries -
Dale Nance, S. Morris (2005)
Juror Understanding of DNA Evidence: An Empirical Assessment of Presentation Formats for Trace Evidence with a Relatively Small Random‐Match ProbabilityThe Journal of Legal Studies, 34
-
M. Kovera, B. McAuliff, K. Hebert (1999)
Reasoning about scientific evidence: effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case.The Journal of applied psychology, 84 3
-
M. Kovera, April Gresham, Eugene Borgida, Ellen Gray, Pamela Regan (1997)
Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis.The Journal of applied psychology, 82 1
-
J. Koehler (2001)
When Are People Persuaded By DNA Match Statistics?Law and Human Behavior, 25
-
J. González-Rodríguez, P. Rose, D. Ramos, D. Toledano, J. Ortega-Garcia (2007)
Emulating DNA: Rigorous Quantification of Evidential Weight in Transparent and Testable Forensic Speaker RecognitionIEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 15
-
Stephan Landsman, R. Rakos (1994)
A preliminary inquiry into the effect of potentially biasing information on judges and jurors in civil litigationBehavioral Sciences & The Law, 12
-
Jim Dwyer, Peter Neufeld, Barry Scheck (2000)
Actual Innocence : Five Days to Execution and Other Dispatches from the Wrongly Convicted -
B. Gaudette (1978)
Some Further Thoughts on Probabilities and Human Hair ComparisonsJournal of Forensic Sciences, 23
-
S. Cole (2001)
Suspect Identities -
H. Bernstein, D. Horowitz, David Lange, H. Powell, Melvin Shimm, J. Weistart, R. Danner, Claire Germain, B. Baccari, Lisa Eichhorn, James Farrin, K. Cashion, Steven Chabinsky, Thomas Contois, James Glenister, Stephen Armitage, J. Cannon, C. Connolly, David Dabbs, Katherine Flanagan, P. Franklin, Donald Nielsen, Christopher Hart, Charles North, William O'Neil, Jane Schaefer, Eric Lieberman, Janet Moore, A. Walsh, Raymond Wierciszewski (1990)
LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS -
I. Dror, David Charlton, Ailsa Péron (2006)
Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications.Forensic science international, 156 1
-
M. Kovera, R. Levy, E. Borgida
Effects of Expert Evidence Type and Cross-Examination*
- Publisher
- American Psychological Association
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2009 American Psychological Association
- ISSN
- 0147-7307
- eISSN
- 1573-661X
- DOI
- 10.1007/s10979-008-9169-1
- pmid
- 19259800
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
This research examined how variations in the presentation of forensic science information affect factfinders’ judgments in a trial. Participants read a summary of a murder case, the critical testimony being the results of a microscopic hair comparison given by a forensic expert. Across two experiments we manipulated how the expert expressed his results, whether he gave an explicit conclusion concerning identity of the hair, and whether the limitations of forensic science were expressed during trial. Qualitative testimony was more damaging to the defense than quantitative testimony, conclusion testimony increased the defendant’s culpability ratings when findings were presented quantitatively, and expressing limitations of forensic science had no appreciable effect. Results are discussed in terms of factfinders’ interpretation of forensic identification evidence.
Journal
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Oct 4, 2009