NCJ Number
101656
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 10 Issue: 1-2 Dated: (June 1986) Pages: 83-95
Date Published
1986
Length
13 pages
Annotation
Experimental psychologists should consider a variety of long-term effects that can result from the use of expert testimony rather than focusing only on the particular outcome of the trial in which the expert is considering testifying.
Abstract
Controversy exists regarding whether experimental psychologists should give expert testimony in court, particularly on the issue of eyewitness reliability. The empirical literature suggests that potential jurors do not have a good understanding of the variables influencing eyewitness accuracy. Thus, they cannot discriminate adequately between accurate and false eyewitness identification testimony. Experiments using expert testimony as a treatment variable, however, have not made a definitive case that expert testimony can benefit trial outcomes. The question of whether or not to give expert testimony must be broadened to consider not only the effects on verdicts but also the effects on several other factors. These factors are the process by which verdicts are reached, the practices of police in subsequent investigations, the practices of judges in subsequent cases, and the interaction between expert testimony and research activities. Table, 25 references. (Author abstract modified)