Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The author summarises the empirical research on robust adult witnesses and argues that consideration may need to be given to extending the reforms of cross-examination initiated in R v Barker beyond vulnerable witnesses.

Keywords

Non-vulnerable witnesses cross-examination courtroom questioning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bentham

(1826) Rationale of Judicial Evidence. Vol. 3. London: Hunt & Clarke.

Clare

Gudjonnsson

(1993) Interrogative suggestibility, confabulation & acquiescence in people with mild learning disabilities. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 32: 295–301.

Cunningham

(2009) Emergency physicians as expert witnesses: ‘From frontline wise to courtroom woes’. Emergency Medicine Australasia 21(6): 503–509.

Cunningham

Weiland

(2009) Current level of training, experience and perceptions of emergency physicians as expert witnesses: A pilot study. Emergency Medicine Australasia 21(6): 497–502.

Cutler

Findlay

Moore

(2014) Interrogations and false confessions: A psychological perspective. Canadian Criminal Law Review 18: 153–170.

Daniello

(2014) Testimony through a live link in the perspective of the right to confront witnesses. Criminal Law Review 2014: 189–206.

Doctors for Sexual Abuse Care Executive (2012) Submission to the Law Commission. Auckland: DSAC.

DuCann

(1993) The Art of the Advocate. 2nd ed. London: Penguin.

Duff

Farmer

Marshall

. (2005) The Trial on Trial. Vol. 3. Oxford: Hart.

10.

Edmond

(2012) Is reliability sufficient? The Law Commission and expert evidence in international and interdisciplinary perspective: Part 1. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 16(1): 30–65.

11.

Eichelbaum

(ed.) (1999) Mauet’s Fundamentals of Trial Techniques. Auckland: Oxford University Press.

12.

Ellison

(2001) The Adversarial Trial and the Vulnerable Witness. Oxford: OUP.

13.

Ellison

Munro

(2009) Turning mirrors into windows? Assessing the impact of (mock) juror education in rape trials. British Journal of Criminology 49: 363.

14.

Ellison

Wheatcroft

(2010) Could you ask me that in a different way please? Criminal Law Review 2010(11): 823–839.

15.

Finn

MacDonald

Tinsley

(2011) Identifying and qualifying the decision-maker: The case for specialisation. In: MacDonald

Tinsley

(eds) From ‘Real Rape’ to Real Justice: Prosecuting Rape in New Zealand. Wellington: Victoria University Press, 239–240.

16.

Gibson

(1988) Criminal Law Evidence, Practice and Procedure. Toronto: Carswell.

17.

Hanna

Davies

Crothers

. (2011) Questioning child witnesses in New Zealand’s criminal justice system: Is cross-examination fair? Psychiatry, Psychology & Law 19(4): 530–546.

18.

Henderson

(2001a) Cross-examination: A Critical Examination. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Cambridge University, UK.

19.

Henderson

(2001b) Persuading and controlling: Mapping the theory of cross-examination in relation to children. In: Westcott

Davies

Bull

(eds) Children’s Testimony: Psychological Research and Forensic Practice. Chichester: Wiley.

20.

Henderson

(2012) Alternative routes: Other jurisdictions on the slow road to best evidence. In: Spencer

Lamb

(eds) Children and Cross-examination: Time to Change the Rules? Oxford: Hart, 58–59.

21.

Henderson

(2014) All the proper protections: the Court of Appeal rewrites the rules for the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses.Criminal Law Review 2014: 93–108.

22.

Henderson

(forthcoming a) Communicative competence. Criminal Law Review.

23.

Henderson

(forthcoming b) Taking control of cross-examination: Judges, advocates and intermediaries discuss the judicial management of the cross-examination of vulnerable people. Criminal Law Review.

24.

Henderson

(forthcoming c) Theoretically speaking. Criminal Law Review.

25.

Henderson

Seymour

(2013) Expert Witnesses Under Adversarial Examination. Available at:http://www.lawfoundation.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Final-Research-Report-Henderson-Seymour-Expert-Witnesses-Under-Examination.pdf (accessed 29 December 2014).

26.

Hobbs

(2002) Tipping the scales of justice: deconstructing an expert’s testimony on cross-examination. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 15: 411–424.

27.

Hyam

(1995) Advocacy Skills. 3rd ed. London: Blackstone Press.

28.

Ivković

Hans

(2003) Juror’s evaluations of expert testimony: Judging the messenger and the message. Law and Social Inquiry 28: 441–482.

29.

Jack

Zajac

(2014) The effect of age and reminders on witnesses’ responses to cross-examination-style questioning. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 3: 1–6.

30.

Judge, The Rt Hon The Lord (2013) The Evidence of Child Victims: the Next Stage. Bar Council Annual Law Reform Lecture, 21 November. Available at: http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media/241783/annual_law_reform_lecture_rt_hon_the_lord_judge_speech_2013.pdf (accessed 19 August 2014).

31.

Kassin

Gudjonsson

(2004) The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and the issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 5(2): 33–67.

32.

Kebbell

Johnson

(2000) Lawyers’ questioning: The effects of confusing questions on witness confidence and accuracy. Law and Human Behaviour 24(6): 629–641.

33.

Kebbell

Evans

Johnson

(2010) The influence of lawyers’ questions on witness accuracy, confidence, and reaction times and on mock jurors’ interpretation of witness accuracy. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 7: 262.

34.

Klemfuss

Quas

Lyon

(2014) Attorneys’ questions and children’s productivity in child sexual abuse criminal trials. Applied Cognitive Psychology 28(5): 780–788.

35.

Kovera

Levy

Borgida

. (1994) Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: Effects of expert evidence type and cross-examination. Law and Human Behavior 18: 653.

36.

Kovera

McAuliff

Herbert

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

37.

Kovera

Russano

McAuliff

(2002) Assessment of the commonsense psychology underlying Daubert: Legal decision-makers’ abilities to evaluate expert evidence in hostile work environment cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 8(2): 180–200.

38.

Law Commission (1997) Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Hearsay and Related Topics. Available at http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc245_evidence_in_criminal_proceedings_hearsay_and_related_topics.pdf (accessed 29 December 2014).

39.

Lawry

(1996) Cross-examining the truthful witness: The ideal within the central moral tradition of lawyering. Dickinson Law Review 100: 563–586.

40.

Leveson

(2009) Speech to Bond Solon Annual Expert Witness Conference. Expert Witness Institute Annual Conference, London.

41.

Loftus

(1996) Eyewitness Testimony. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

42.

Loftus

Doyle

(1997) Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal. 3rd ed. Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Law Publishing.

43.

Luban

(1988) Lawyers and Justice: An Ethical Study. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

44.

Luban

(1993) Are criminal defenders different? Michigan Law Review 91: 1729.

45.

MacDonald

Tinsley

(eds) (2011) From ‘Real Rape’ to Real Justice: Prosecuting Rape in New Zealand. Wellington: Victoria University Press.

46.

McQuiston-Surrett

Saks

(2009) The testimony of forensic identification science: What expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear. Law and Human Behavior 33(5): 436–453.

47.

Mausip

Herrero

(2013) ‘What would you say if you were guilty?’ Suspects’ strategies during a hypothetical behavior analysis interview concerning a serious crime. Applied Cognitive Psychology 27: 60.

48.

Newman

(2006) Giving a performance. CN Feb: 109.

49.

New Zealand Law Commission (1999) Total Recall? The Reliability of Witness Testimony. Evidence Miscellaneous Paper 13. Wellington: Law Commission.

50.

Nidiry

(1996) Restraining adversarial excess in closing argument. Columbia Law Review 96: 1299.

51.

O’Hagen

(1993) When seeing is not believing: The case or eyewitness expert testimony. Georgetown Law Journal 81: 741–742; NZLC [61].

52.

O’Neill

Zajac

(2013) The role of repeated interviewing in children’s responses to cross-examination-style questioning. British Journal of Psychology 104(1): 14–38.

53.

Paley

(2002) The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund (reprinted from London, 1785).

54.

Plotnikoff

Woolfson

(2012) Kicking and screaming: the slow road to best evidence. In: Spencer

Lamb

(eds) Children and Cross-examination: Time to Change the Rules? Oxford: Hart, ch. 2.

55.

Rares

(2012) Using the ‘hot tub’: how concurrent expert evidence aids understanding issues. Civil Justice Quarterly 31(1): 30.

56.

Redmayne

(2005) Theorising jury reform. In: Duff

Farmer

Marshall

. (eds) (2005) The Trial on Trial. Vol. 2. Oxford: Hart, 99–116.

57.

Rhode

(1985) Ethical perspectives on legal practice. Stanford Law Rev 37: 589.

58.

Roper

Shewan

(2002) Compliance and eyewitness testimony: Do eyewitnesses comply with misleading ‘expert pressure’ during investigative interviewing? Legal & Criminological Psychology 7: 155–163.

59.

Sanders

(2003) The merits of the paternalistic justification for restrictions on the admissibility of expert evidence. Seton Hall Law Review 33: 881.

60.

Seymour

Blackwell

Thorburn

(eds) (2011) Psychology and the Law in Aotearoa New Zealand. Wellington: New Zealand Psychological Society.

61.

Simon

(1993) The ethics of criminal defence. Michigan Law Review 91: 1703–1743.

62.

Snooks

Eastwood

Barron

(2014) The next stage in the evolution of interrogations: The PEACE model. Canadian Criminal Law Review 18: 219.

63.

Spencer

(2012) Conclusion. In: Spencer

Lamb

(eds) Children and Cross-examination: Time to Change the Rules? Oxford: Hart.

64.

Spencer

Flin

(1993) The Evidence of Children. 2nd ed. London: Blackstone.

65.

Stone

(1995) Cross-examination in Criminal Trials. 2nd ed. London: Butterworths.

66.

Strömwall

Granhag

(2003) How to detect deception? Arresting the beliefs of police officers, prosecutors and judges. Psychology, Crime and Law 9(1): 19–36.

67.

Thomas

(2010) Are Juries Fair? Ministry of Justice Research Series 1/10 February. Available at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/are-juries-fair-research.pdf (accessed 29 December 2014).

68.

Valentine

Maras

(2011) The effect of cross-examination on the accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology 25(4): 554–561.

69.

Vrij

Mann

(2006) Criteria-based content analysis: An empirical test of its underlying processes. Psychology, Crime and Law 12: 337–349.

70.

Wheatcroft

Ellison

(2012) Evidence in court: Witness preparation and cross-examination style effects on adult witness accuracy. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 30: 821.

71.

Wheatcroft

Woods

(2010) Effectiveness of witness preparation and cross-examination non-directive and directive leading question styles on witness accuracy and confidence. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 14: 187–207.

72.

Wheatcroft

Wagstaff

Kebbell

(2004) The influence of courtroom questioning style on actual and perceived eyewitness confidence and accuracy. Legal and Criminological Psychology 9: 83–101.

73.

Young

Cameron

Tinsley

(1999) Juries in Criminal Trials: Part Two: A Summary of Research Findings. Preliminary Paper 37, Vol. 2. Wellington: Law Commission.

74.

Zajac

Cannan

(2009) Cross-examination of sexual assault complainants: A developmental comparison. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 16: S36–54.

75.

Zajac

Hayne

(2003) I don’t think that’s what really happened: The effect of cross-examination on the accuracy of children’s reports. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 9(3): 187–195.

76.

Zajac

Hayne

(2006) The negative effect of cross-examination style questioning on children’s accuracy: Older children are not immune. Applied Cognitive Psychology 20(1): 3–16.

Bigger fish to fry

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References