Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction Chapters
- Part II Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
- Part III Trial Phase Decision-Making
- 20 Social Cognition of Jury Decision-Making
- 21 Beliefs About Juror Decision-Making and the Jury Process
- 22 Deciphering Directives
- 23 Decisions Surrounding the Use of Expert Testimony
- 24 Legal and Extralegal Factors that Affect Jurors’ Decisions
- 25 Decisions Regarding Insanity
- 26 Decision-Making in the Shadow of Evidence Law
- 27 Decision-Making in Contested Divorce Child Custody Cases
- Part IV Postconviction Phase Decisions
- Part V Other Legal Decision-Making
- Part VI Perspectives from the Field
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
23 - Decisions Surrounding the Use of Expert Testimony
from Part III - Trial Phase Decision-Making
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2024
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction Chapters
- Part II Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
- Part III Trial Phase Decision-Making
- 20 Social Cognition of Jury Decision-Making
- 21 Beliefs About Juror Decision-Making and the Jury Process
- 22 Deciphering Directives
- 23 Decisions Surrounding the Use of Expert Testimony
- 24 Legal and Extralegal Factors that Affect Jurors’ Decisions
- 25 Decisions Regarding Insanity
- 26 Decision-Making in the Shadow of Evidence Law
- 27 Decision-Making in Contested Divorce Child Custody Cases
- Part IV Postconviction Phase Decisions
- Part V Other Legal Decision-Making
- Part VI Perspectives from the Field
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
The use of expert psychological testimony by the courts involves a series of decisions. The initial decision involves an attorney or judge seeking out an expert to provide testimony. The second set of decisions – usually made by the expert in consultation with the attorney – concerns whether the potential testimony will be helpful or harmful to the case. A third set of decisions – made by the judge in a specific case – concerns the admissibility and scope of expert testimony at trial. If the testimony is admitted at trial, a final decision involves how much or how little weight jurors give the expert testimony while arriving at a verdict. These decisions are strongly shaped by the adversarial system. Drawing on empirical research and their experiences as expert witnesses, the authors explore how these decisions are made. Relevant research is reviewed, particularly on the content and impact of expert psychological testimony. New directions for research are discussed.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 355 - 364Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
American Psychological Association [APA]. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology, American Psychologist, 68, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029889.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association [APA]. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://apa.org/ethics/code/.Google Scholar
Blackwell, S., & Seymour, F. (2015) Expert evidence and jurors’ views on expert witnesses. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(5), 673–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1063181.Google Scholar
Chorn, A. C., & Kovera, M. B. (2019). Variations in reliability and validity do not influence judge, attorney, and mock juror decisions about psychological expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 43(6), 542–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000345.Google Scholar
Costanzo, M., Blandón-Gitlin, I., & Davis, D. (2016). The purpose, content, and effects of expert testimony on interrogations and confessions. In Bornstein, B. H. and Miller, M. K. (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (pp. 141–178). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43083-6_5.Google Scholar
Cutler, B., & Krauss, D. (2023). Expert psychological testimony. In DeMatteo, D. & Scherr, K. C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of psychology and law (pp. 56–68). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197649138.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14(2), 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01062972.Google Scholar
Dahir, V. B., Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., et al. (2005). Judicial application of Daubert to psychological syndrome and profile evidence: A research note. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(1), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.62.Google Scholar
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579 (1993).Google Scholar
Dhami, M. K., & Belton, I. K. (2017). On getting inside the judge’s mind. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(2), 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000115.Google Scholar
Eastwood, J., & Caldwell, J. (2015). Educating jurors about forensic evidence: Using an expert witness and judicial instructions to mitigate the impact of invalid forensic science testimony. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(6), 1523–1528. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12832.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Federal Rules of Evidence. (1975). www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/federal_rules_of_evidence_-_december_2020_0.pdf.Google Scholar
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).Google Scholar
Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Richardson, J. T., et al. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 433–458. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012899030937.Google Scholar
General Electric v. Joiner, 522 US 136 (1997).Google Scholar
Gkotsi, G. M., Gasser, J., & Moulin, V. (2019). Neuroimaging in criminal trials and the role of psychiatrist expert witnesses: A case study. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 65, 101359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.05.007.Google Scholar
Konecni, V., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1982). An analysis of the sentencing decision. In Konecni, V. & Ebbesen, E. (Eds.), The criminal justice system (pp. 177–194). W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff, B. (2000). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 574–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.574.Google Scholar
Legal Information Institute (2021a). Notes of Advisory Committee on proposed rules, Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses. https://law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702.Google Scholar
Legal Information Institute (2021b). Standard of care. www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standard_of_care.Google Scholar
McAuliff, B. D., & Duckworth, T. D. (2010). I spy with my little eye: Jurors’ detection of internal validity threats in expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 489–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010–9219-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Nuñez, G. (2009). Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science? Law and Human Behavior, 33, 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9133-0.Google Scholar
Means, R. F., Heller, L. D., & Janofsky, J. S. (2012). Transferring juvenile defendants from adult to juvenile court: How Maryland forensic evaluators and judges reach their decisions. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 40(3), 333–340.Google Scholar
Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., et al. (2018). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (4th ed.). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, G., & Garrett, B. L. (2021). Battling to a draw: Defense expert rebuttal can neutralize prosecution fingerprint evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35, 976–987. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3824.Google Scholar
NBC News. (2021). First Chauvin trial juror to speak out about deliberations. https://nbcnews.com/news/us-news/first-chauvin-trial-juror-speak-out-about-deliberations-evidence-was-n1265627.Google Scholar
Neal, T. M., Slobogin, C., Saks, M. J., Faigman, D. L., & Geisinger, K. F. (2019). Psychological assessments in legal contexts: Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20, 134–163. http://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619888860.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K., MacCoun, R. J., & Darley, J. M. (2010). Multiple constraint satisfaction in judging. In Klein, D. E. & Mitchell, G. (Eds.), The psychology of judicial decision making (pp. 27–39). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367584.003.0002.Google Scholar
Shapiro, D. L., Mixon, L., Jackson, M., & Shook, J. (2015). Psychological expert witness testimony and judicial decision-making trends. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 43, 149–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.020.Google Scholar
Vidmar, N. (2011). The psychology of trial judging, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410397283.Google Scholar
Wells, G. L., Kovera, M. B., Douglass, A. B., et al. (2020). Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 44(1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000359.Google Scholar
Young, G., & Goodman‑Delahunty, J. (2021). Revisiting Daubert: Judicial gatekeeping and expert ethics in court. Psychological Injury and Law, 14, 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-021-09428-8.Google Scholar