Expert Testimony Regarding Child Witnesses: Does It Sensitize Jurors to Forensic Interview Quality?

Does expert testimony on forensic interviews with children help adults distinguish between poorly conducted and well-conducted interviews? This study evaluates the effects of social framework expert testimony regarding child witnesses in a case involving allegations of child sexual abuse. A 2 (Expert Testimony: present or absent) × 3 (Child Forensic Interview Quality: poor, typical, or good) × 2 (Child’s Age: 4- or 10-year-old) factorial design was used to examine whether expert testimony is prejudicial or beneficial to jurors (N = 463). The results revealed that, without expert testimony, mock jurors did not consider the forensic interview quality when reaching a verdict. However, with expert testimony, mock jurors were more likely to render guilty verdicts if the interview quality was good versus poor. Further expert testimony increased mock jurors’ knowledge about child witnesses. These findings suggest that expert testimony related to the impact of interview techniques on the reliability of children’s reports may assist fact-finders in evaluating child abuse cases.     

Predicting verdicts,adherence to judge's instructions,and assumptions about the disposition of the defendant in a case involving the insanity defense

Abstract

296 college students and jury eligible adults completed attitudinal measures and read a case summary of a murder trial involving the insanity defense. The case summary included opening and closing arguments, testimony from expert witnesses, and judge's instructions. Although broader legal attitudes (the PJAQ) predicted verdicts, the Insanity Defense Attitudes-Revised scale provided incremental predictive validity. Attitudes related to the insanity defense also predicted adherence to judge's instructions, whereas more general legal biases predicted a juror's willingness to change their verdict after being provided with accurate information about the defendant's disposition following the verdict. Importantly, misconceptions concerning the insanity defense impacted verdicts and many jurors made decisions that failed to adhere to the judge's instructions, though the nullification tendency does appear to vary as a function of pretrial juror attitudes. Implications for instructing jurors in insanity defense cases will be discussed.     

Considering forensic science: individual differences,opposing expert testimony and juror decision making

Two experimental studies examined the effect of opposing expert testimony on perceptions of the reliability of unvalidated forensic evidence (anthropometric facial comparison). In the first study argument skill and epistemological sophistication were included as measures of individual differences, whereas study two included scores on the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale. In both studies participants were assigned to groups who heard: (1) no expert testimony, (2) prosecution expert testimony, or (3) prosecution and opposing expert testimony. Opposing expert testimony affected verdict choice, but this effect was mediated by perceptions of reliability of the initial forensic expert's method. There was no evidence for an effect on verdict or reliability ratings by argument skill or epistemology. In the second experiment, the same mediation effect was found, however scores on one subscale from the FEEBS and age also affected both verdict and methodological reliability. It was concluded that opposing expert testimony may inform jurors, but perceptions of the reliability of forensic evidence affect verdict, and age and bias towards forensic science influence perceptions of forensic evidence. Future research should investigate individual differences that may affect perception or bias towards forensic sciences under varying conditions of scientific reliability.     

Expert Testimony of the Battered Person Syndrome, Defendant Gender, and Sexual Orientation in a Case of Duress: Evaluating Legal Decisions

The current study examined the utility of expert testimony of the battered person syndrome (BPS) in a case of duress and the extent to which defendant gender, defendant sexual orientation, and participant gender influence mock jury decisions in a case of duress. Participants (N?=?413) read a scenario based on U.S. v. Dixon (2006) and answered questions assessing verdict, guilt, sentence length, duress legal elements, and attributes typically ascribed to victims of abuse. Results showed heterosexual female defendants were assigned the lowest sentences and met more of the legal elements of duress (i.e., were coerced, more likely to be believed, and purchased a gun to prevent harm) and attributes (i.e., experienced severe abuse, learned helplessness) compared to other defendants. When mock jurors received expert testimony, they provided lower rates of guilt and sentencing for defendants. Results also showed the inclusion of BPS expert testimony increased ratings for many of the legal elements of duress and attributes typically associated with intimate partner violence. In addition, results suggested that while heterosexual female defendants are more likely to be believed in a case of duress, expert testimony of BPS is helpful to all defendants. Limitations and future directions for research and practice are discussed.     

Juror common understanding and the admissibility of rape trauma syndrome evidence in court

Expert testimony on rape trauma syndrome has been used in sexual assault cases to corroborate the victim's complaint and to educate the jury. One of the primary arguments against the admissibility of this testimony is that it is not helpful because most jurors are adequately informed about rape and rape victim behavior. To test this assumption, a Sexual Assault Questionnaire (SAQ) was administered to experts on rape and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and two nonexpert comparison groups. Results indicated that the nonexperts were not well informed on many rape-related issues and were significantly less knowledgeable than the expert groups. The data also showed considerable consensus among the experts about the current scientific database on rape trauma. The implications of these results for the use of expert psychological testimony on rape trauma syndrome in court are discussed.     

Comparing the effectiveness of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Henderson</Emphasis> instructions and expert testimony: Which safeguard improves jurors’ evaluations of eyewitness evidence?

Objectives

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently determined that jurors may not be able to effectively evaluate eyewitness evidence on their own. As a result, the Court proposed the use of judicial instructions to assist jurors (called Henderson instructions) and suggested the implementation of these instructions would reduce the need for expert testimony. We tested the efficacy of these instructions compared to alternative instructions and expert testimony.

Methods

We utilized a mock trial paradigm, randomly assigning 452 participants to 1 of 20 videotaped trial conditions that varied the quality of eyewitness evidence (both witnessing and identification conditions) and the type of safeguard presented during the mock trial.

Results

Jurors were sensitive to the quality of identification conditions on their own. Jurors were more likely to convict when identification conditions were good and less likely when identification conditions were poor. This relationship was mediated by eyewitness credibility ratings. Expert testimony resulted in skepticism by reducing the likelihood that jurors would convict regardless of the quality of witnessing and identification conditions. No variation of the instructions influenced verdicts.

Conclusions

While jurors were sensitive to the quality of identification conditions on their own, we observed no such effect for the quality of witnessing conditions, even with the aid of instructions and/or expert testimony. Both Henderson instructions and expert testimony may be insufficient for assisting jurors to effectively evaluate problematic witnessing conditions. Future research should examine the use of alternative safeguards.

     

Educating Jurors about Forensic Evidence: Using an Expert Witness and Judicial Instructions to Mitigate the Impact of Invalid Forensic Science Testimony

Invalid expert witness testimony that overstated the precision and accuracy of forensic science procedures has been highlighted as a common factor in many wrongful conviction cases. This study assessed the ability of an opposing expert witness and judicial instructions to mitigate the impact of invalid forensic science testimony. Participants (N = 155) acted as mock jurors in a sexual assault trial that contained both invalid forensic testimony regarding hair comparison evidence, and countering testimony from either a defense expert witness or judicial instructions. Results showed that the defense expert witness was successful in educating jurors regarding limitations in the initial expert's conclusions, leading to a greater number of not-guilty verdicts. The judicial instructions were shown to have no impact on verdict decisions. These findings suggest that providing opposing expert witnesses may be an effective safeguard against invalid forensic testimony in criminal trials.     

Expert Testimony Pertaining to Battered Woman Syndrome: Its Impact on Jurors' Decisions

Participants (N = 200) were presented with a criminal homicide trial involving a battered woman who had killed her abuser. Within the trial, both the response history (passive, active) and presence of expert testimony pertaining to battered woman syndrome (present, absent) were systematically varied. As well, half of the participants in each of these conditions were provided with a nullification instruction informing them that they were free to disregard the law and acquit should a strict application of the law result in an unjust verdict. Results indicated that, compared to the passive response condition, the mock jurors were no less receptive to the expert testimony in the active response condition. The impact of the testimony on participants' verdicts, however, was moderated by the nullification instruction. That is, although the presence of the testimony did result in greater verdict leniency, this only occurred when the mock jurors had been released from a strict application of the law. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

The importance of forensic evidence for decisions on criminal guilt

Recent studies have found that the general public perceives forensic evidence to be relatively inaccurate and to involve high levels of human judgement. This study examines how important the general public finds forensic evidence by comparing decisions on guilt and punishment in criminal cases that involve forensic versus eyewitness testimony evidence and examining whether a CSI effect exists. Specifically, this experimental survey study utilized a 2 (crime type: murder or rape) × 4 (evidence type: DNA, fingerprint, victim eyewitness testimony, or bystander eyewitness testimony) ? 1 (no victim testimony for murder scenario) design, yielding seven vignettes scenarios to which participants were randomly assigned. Results indicate that forensic evidence was associated with more guilty verdicts and higher confidence in a guilty verdict. Forensic evidence did not change the expected sentence length and did not generally affect the ideal sentence length. However, for rape, respondents believed that the defendant should receive a longer sentence when forensic evidence was presented but forensic evidence did not alter likely sentence that respondents expected the defendant to receive. The results of this study did not support a CSI effect. Overall, this study suggests that forensic evidence – particularly DNA – has a stronger influence during the verdict stage than the sentencing stage.     

Child witnesses and the confrontation clause

InMaryland v. Craig, the United States Supreme Court relied heavily on a brief prepared by a committee of the American Psychology-Law Society on behalf of the American Psychological Association (APA). The APA brief concluded that sexually abused children may be particularly vulnerable to distress in the legal process, especially when forced to confront the defendant face to face, and that such acute distress may be inconsistent with the state's interests in promotion of reliable testimony and child welfare. APA also argued that psychological theory and research provide foundations for individualized determination of the need for measures to protect children from face-to-face confrontation. *** DIRECT SUPPORT *** AFE06051 00002     

The psychiatrist's guide to right and wrong: Part IV: The insanity defense and the Ultimate Issue Rule

In the wake of Hinckley, widespread public dissatisfaction with the role of psychiatrists in insanity defense litigation prompted Congress in 1984 to amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to prohibit psychiatric testimony on the ultimate legal issue of whether or not a defendant is insane. APA's Statement on the Insanity Defense served as the ably articulated premise for this evidentiary amendment. APA argued that in going beyond their psychiatric expertise by answering ultimate issue questions as to whether defendants are legally insane, experts are likely to confuse the jury and undermine public confidence in psychiatry. APA also asserted that there was an impermissible logical leap between scientific psychiatric inquiry and moral-legal conclusions on the ultimate issue of insanity. This article reviews the origins, history, and vicissitudes of the Ultimate Issue Rule and analyzes the Statement on the Insanity Defense from both a legal and psychiatric perspective on the issue of whether psychiatrists should answer the ultimate question in insanity cases. The analysis suggests that APA's conclusions are not supported on scientific or evidentiary grounds, but may be warranted as a policy consideration to safeguard the public image of psychiatry.     

The Impact of Negative Forensic Evidence on Mock Jurors’ Perceptions of a Trial of Drug-Facilitated Sexual Assault

Legal concerns with regard to the adverse impact of a negative toxicological screening for date-rape drugs in a case of drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) were the focus of a recent Canadian case (R. v. Alouache, 2003). To assess the impact of a negative forensic report, as well as the impact of expert testimony explaining the many factors that may contribute to a negative outcome, participants (N=171) received a written trial stimulus in which the forensic evidence (negative report, negative report plus expert testimony, no negative report and no expert testimony control) and the complainant's beverage consumption (alcohol, cola) were systematically varied. Results indicate that a negative finding in the absence of expert testimony produced greater verdict leniency and more favourable evaluations of the defendant's case. In contrast, no differences were found between the case in which the expert testified and a case in which the negative report and expert testimony were omitted.

---

     

The impact of battered woman syndrome evidence on jury decision processes

The impact of battered woman syndrome testimony on jury decision processes in trials of battered women who kill their abusers was investigated in two separate studies. It was hypothesized that the presence of the testimony would influence jurors' verdicts via its mediating effect on the jurors' interpretations of the battered woman's beliefs and actions and that its impact would vary as a function of the degree to which it was linked to the woman on trial. In Experiment I, subjects read a homicide trial involving a battered woman who had killed her husband. They received either no expert testimony (control), expert testimony presenting general research findings on the battered woman syndrome (general expert), or expert testimony in which the expert supplemented the general information with an opinion that the defendant fit the syndrome (specific expert). The presence of the specific expert, compared to the control, led to interpretations that were more consistent with the woman's account of what occurred; these interpretations, in turn, were related to more lenient verdicts. Experiment 2 investigated the effects of the testimony on small groups of deliberating jurors. Compared to the control condition, a moderate shift in verdicts from murder to manslaughter was found in both expert conditions. Content analyses of the deliberations, as well as postdeliberation judgments, indicated that the presence of the testimony led to interpretations that were more favorable to the battered woman's claim of self-defense.Preparation of this research, was supported in part by Fellowships from the Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Law and Social Science Program of Northwestern University. I. wish to thank Neil Vidmar and James Olson for their invaluable advice throughout all stages of the research, as well as Shari Diamond, Tom Tyler, Richard Lalonde, and Doug McCann for their helpful comments, on earlier drafts of the article. For their diligence and patience in coding the data, I would like to thank Cindi Chandler and Audi Grant.     

Trials of battered women who kill: the impact of alternative forms of expert evidence

The introduction of battered woman syndrome testimony in trials of battered women who have killed has stirred considerable debate within the psycholegal community. Much of the controversy stems from the testimony's focus on the woman's passivity, as well as its partrayal of a single profile of battered women. In light of these concerns, proposals to alter the content of the testimony (e.g., dropping the syndrome terminology, focus on battered women's social reality as opposed to their psychological state and reactions) have surfaced. In the present research both the woman's prior response history (passive, active) and the presence of expert testimony (battered woman syndrome, social agency, no expert control) were manipulated in a homicide trial involving a battered woman who had killed her abuser. Overall, participants, drawn from both a university (N=195) and a nonuniversity setting (N=202), rendered more lenient verdicts and provided more favorable evaluations of the defendant's claim of self defense in the presence of expert testimony (either form) compared to a no expert control. Further, these effects were more pronounced for the student than the nonstudent sample. Implications of these findings for the use of expert evidence pertaining to battered women are discussed.     

Short-term effects of restorative justice conferences on post-traumatic stress symptoms among robbery and burglary victims: a randomized controlled trial

Objectives

To examine the impact of face-to-face restorative justice conference (RJC) meetings led by police officers between crime victims and their offenders on victims’ post-traumatic stress symptoms.

Methods

Two trials conducted in London randomly assigned burglary or robbery cases with consenting victims and offenders to either a face-to-face restorative justice conference (RJC) in addition to conventional justice treatment or conventional treatment without a RJC. Post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) were measured with the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) within 1 month of treatment for 192 victims. We assessed the prevalence and severity of PTSS scores following treatment, using independent sample t tests and chi square statistics. We further measured the magnitude of the differences between the groups, using effect size analyses.

Results

Analyses show that PTSS scores are significantly lower among victims assigned to RJC in addition to criminal justice processing through the courts than to customary criminal justice processing alone. There are overall 49 % fewer victims with clinical levels of PTSS, and possible PTSD (IES-R?≥?25). Main treatment effects are significant (t?=?2.069; p?Conclusions Findings suggest that restorative justice conferences reduce clinical levels of PTSS and possibly PTSD in a short-term follow-up assessment. Future research should include longer follow-up, larger and more stratified samples, and financial data to account for the cost benefit implications of RJ conferences compared to ordinary PTSS treatments.     

Adaptability and cohesion: Implications for understanding the violence-prone system

Most research on physical abuse in relationships has been conducted from the perspective of the individual. Data compiled on couples have been mostly aggregate in nature. The present study examines physical violence at the level of the relationship from the perspective of both individuals involved. Using the Circumplex Model of Family Functioning as the conceptual framework, 75 intact couples in a counseling agency completed the Conflict Tactics Scale and the FACES III inventory at intake. The purpose of the research was to define characteristics of violent couples in terms of adaptability and cohesion in the relationship as measured by the self-report questionnaires. Findings suggest that violent couples are significantly more rigid on the adaptability dimension of FACES III. However, contrary to suggestions that violent couples are enmeshed, the present results showed that they were significantly more disengaged as measured by FACES III. Implications of the findings for therapeutic intervention of violent couples is discussed.     

Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions?

Critics of the civil jury system question whether jurors can adequately evaluate complex expert testimony. Based on current models of research in persuasion, we hypothesized that when expert testimony is complex, factors other than content will influence persuasion. Participants, serving as mock jurors, watched a videotaped trial in which two scientists provided evidence on whether PCBs could have caused a plaintiff's illness. The complexity of the expert's testimony and the strength of the expert's credentials were varied in a 2×2 factorial design. After watching the videotape, mock jurors rendered a verdict and completed a number of attitude measures related to the trial. Overall, consistent with our prediction, we found that jurors were more persuaded by a highly expert witness than by a less expert witness, but only when the testimony was highly complex. When the testimony was less complex, jurors relied primarily on the content of that testimony, and witness credentials had little impact on the persuasiveness of the message.     

Factors predicting verdicts in cases where battered women kill their husbands

This study tested factors influencing verdicts in legal cases involving battered women who kill their husbands. A total of 388 college students (213 females and 175 males) read a fictitious but prototypical legal case. Subjects received one of three stories varying the level of force used by the husband against the wife before she killed him. Half of the subjects received courtroom testimony regarding the Battered Woman Syndrome. One-half received judge's instructions ofnot guilty by reason of selfdefense (NGRSD), and the other half receivednot guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) instructions. Subjects decided on a verdict and completed a questionnaire including demographics, reasons for their verdicts, and relevant attitudinal measures. Judge's instructions were most predictive of verdicts, with NGRSD being more likely to produce not guilty verdicts. Verdicts were also influenced by the subject's view of the severity of the past beatings, the testimony of the expert witness, the subject's feelings about the woman using a weapon, race of the subject, the subject's own history of abuse, attitudes toward abuse in relationships, and the subject's belief that people are responsible even if provoked. The preference the subjects showed for NGRSD belies the commonly held belief that impaired mental defenses in these cases would be more likely to yield not guilty verdicts. Situational aspects of the case rather than long-standing attitudes of subjects appeared to be better predictors of verdicts.     

Technology transfer: An overview as related to LDCs

The Technology Transfer issue has aroused much controversy in the last two decades among management researchers. This paper attempts to discuss the problems of Technology Transfer, the debate on this issue and some of the theories concerned. It also presents a suggested theoretical framework to assist the LDCs in determining need for, and receiving of, new technology.