Interpreting Intercepted Communication: A Sui Generis Translational Activity

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique - Legal wiretapping has gained importance in law enforcement along with the development of...     

Intoxicated eyewitnesses: Better than their reputation?

According to law enforcement, many witnesses are intoxicated either at the time of the crime, the interview, or both (Evans et al., Public Policy Law 15(3):194-221, 2009). However, no study to date has examined whether intoxicated witnesses' recall is different from sober witnesses' and whether they are more vulnerable to misinformation using an ecologically valid experimental design. Intoxicated, placebo, and sober witnesses observed a live, staged theft, overheard subsequent misinformation about the theft, and took part in an investigative interview. Participants generally believed they witnessed a real crime and experienced a real interview. Intoxicated witnesses were not different from placebo or sober witnesses in the number of accurate details, inaccurate details, or "don't know" answers reported. All the participants demonstrated a misinformation effect, but there were no differences between intoxication levels: Intoxicated participants were not more susceptible to misinformation than sober or placebo participants. Results are discussed in the light of their theoretical and applied relevance.     

The Network of Law Reviews: Citation Cartels,Scientific Communities,and Journal Rankings

Research evaluation is increasingly influenced by quantitative data. We focus on the influential Web of Science Journal Citation Reports (JCR) ranking of law journals and critically assess its methodology. In particular, we consider the existence and impact of a tacit citation cartel between US law reviews. A study of 45 US student‐edited (SE) and 45 peer‐reviewed (PR) journals included in the category of Law in the JCR revealed that PR and SE journals are more inclined to cite members of their own class and that this phenomenon is more pronounced in SE generalist journals, reflecting tacit cartelistic behavior generated by deeply entrenched institutional practices. Because US SE journals produce more citations than PR journals, the fact that their citations are directed almost exclusively to SE journals elevates their scores and distorts the journals' ranking and can consequently undermine the flow and creation of ideas. We discuss policy measures that can counter the adverse effects of this situation.     

Who Speaks for Women? Print Media Portrayals of Feminist and Conservative Women's Advocacy

Feminists have frequently accused media outlets of not giving them enough coverage and/or portraying them negatively. Conversely, conservative women have argued that media suffer from liberal biases. While some studies have addressed the larger question of media and ideological prejudices, none have examined how media report women's activism in comparative terms. Since feminist and conservative women's organizations vie with one another over who represents women's interests, how media portray them has implications for how well they achieve this goal. Using data gathered from four major national newspapers, this study analyzes how print journalists depict feminist and conservative women's activism over a 14-year span. In so doing, it provides information about frequency of media coverage, as well as how advocates are labeled, on which issues they are getting visibility, and whether or not media present feminist and conservative women's organizations as being in direct conflict with each other. Implications for understanding women's political efforts, broadly speaking, are also explored.     

An evaluation of procedures for assessing competency to stand trial

In a field experiment involving 120 defendants at Bridgewater State Hospital in Massachusetts, the authors evaluated three instruments for assessing competency to stand trial: the Competency Screening Test (CST), Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI), and Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI). The CST (a paper-and-pencil test) was administered by a research assistant and scored by trained graduate students. Lawyers, psychologists, and social workers were recruited and trained in the use of the other instruments, then assigned as individuals (CAI) or teams (IFI) to conduct interviews and assess subjects. The performance of the project interviewers was compared against two yardsticks: (1) actual decisions reached by the regular Bridgewater staff, and (2) a consensus of two nationally respected experts who reviewed the cases and formed independent competency judgments. Both the CAI and IFI performed well under these conditions, indicating that one-time interviews by well-trained persons can lead to accurate competency decisions in the majority of cases. The authors conclude that hospitalization for competency assessment is rarely necessary.     

Quality of Laypersons' Assessment of Forensically Relevant Stimuli,

The current study examined the potential for cognitive bias in lay examiners' comparisons of footwear impressions within the technical review process while addressing limitations of previous research. Prior research has found inconsistent results regarding the extent to which cognitive bias may influence forensic comparisons, often asking non-experts to review forensic stimuli above their competency level. Furthermore, past research has largely ignored the potential for cognitive bias during the technical review process. In collaboration with the Miami-Dade Police Department's Forensic Services Bureau, we examined the effects of previous examiners' level of experience and prior knowledge of the previous examiner's decision on the technical review stage of footwear impression stimuli. Before lay examiners were presented with pairs of known match and nonmatch footwear impressions, they were either told that an expert or a novice had previously examined them and determined them to be either a match, nonmatch, or inconclusive (plus a no-information condition). Participants then evaluated each pair of footwear impressions to make their own determinations of match, nonmatch, or inconclusive. Results support the technical review process for all decision types, as known nonmatch stimuli were generally more difficult for lay examiners to assess than known match stimuli. Knowledge of a prior examiner's decision and status was observed only when the prior decision was inconclusive, suggesting the need for inclusion of inconclusive decisions in future research examining cognitive bias in forensic examination.