Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Psychologists serve as expert witnesses in criminal and civil cases and testify about a wide range of clinical, cognitive, developmental, industrial-organizational, biological, and social psychological topics. We review the topics about which psychologists offer testimony, the rules governing the admissibility of expert testimony, and contemporary research on expert testimony. With respect to the latter, we review research concerning the need for, appropriateness of, and effect of expert testimony. We discuss research pertaining to admissibility issues, including the effect of changes in admissibility criteria on admissibility decisions and judge and juror sensitivity to the quality of scientific psychological research. Because judges and jurors lack sensitivity to variations in expert evidence quality and common safeguards do not appear to increase sensitivity to research flaws, additional research is needed to identify methods of assisting fact finders who must evaluate expert testimony.

Keywords

expert testimony psychology and law forensic psychology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cooke

D.J.

Michie

(2010). Limitations of diagnostic precision and predictive utility in the individual case: A challenge for forensic practice. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 259–274.

Cutler

B.L.

(Ed.). (2009). Expert testimony on the psychology of eyewitness identification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. , 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).

Federal Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates . (1975). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.

Flowe

H.D.

Finklea

K.M.

Ebbesen

E.B.

(2009). Limitations on expert psychological testimony on eyewitness identification. In Cutler

B.L.

(Ed.), Expert testimony on the Psychology of eyewitness identification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Frye v. United States , 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923).

Gatowski

S.I.

Dobbin

S.A.

Richardson

J.T.

Ginsburg

G.P.

Merlino

M.L.

Dahir

(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.

Groscup

J.L.

Penrod

S.D.

Studebaker

C.A.

Huss

M.T.

O’Neil

K.M.

(2002). The effects of Daubert on the admissibility of expert testimony in state and federal criminal cases. Psychology. Public Policy, and Law, 8, 339–372.

Kovera

M.B.

Gresham

A.W.

Borgida

Gray

Regan

P.C.

(1997). Does expert testimony inform or influence juror decision-making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 178–191.

10.

Kovera

M.B.

McAuliff

B.D.

(2000). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 574–586.

11.

Kovera

M.B.

McAuliff

B.D.

Hebert

K.S.

(1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence: Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362–375.

12.

Krauss

Sales

B.D.

(2001). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision-making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 267–310.

13.

Levett

L.M.

Kovera

M.B.

(2008). The effectiveness of educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence using an opposing witness. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 363–374.

14.

Levett

L.M.

Kovera

M.B.

(2009). Psychological mediators of the effects of opposing expert testimony on juror decisions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 124–148.

15.

McAuliff

B.D.

Kovera

M.B.

Nunez

(2009). Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science?. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 247–257.

16.

McQuiston-Surrett

Saks

M.J.

(2009). The testimony of forensic identification science: What expert witnesses say and what fact finders hear. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 436–453.

17.

Murrie

D.C.

Boccaccini

M.T.

Johnson

J.T.

Janke

(2008). Does interrater (dis)agreement on Psychopathy Checklist scores in sexual violent predator trials suggest partisan allegiance in forensic evaluations?. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 352–362.

18.

Perez

D.A.

(2010). The (in)admissibility of false confession expert testimony. Touro Law Review, 26, 23–74.

19.

Schuller

Hastings

(1996). Trials of battered women who kill: The impact of alternative forms of expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 167–187.

20.

Skeem

Douglas

Lilienfeld

(Eds.). (2009). Psychological science in the courtroom: Consensus and controversies. New York, NY: Guilford.

Expert Psychological Testimony

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References