Personal values and the value of expert testimony

Psychologists who routinely offer expert testimony to the courts about the problems of eyewitness testimony demonstrate an unwarranted degree of faith in experimental psychology. Although progress in the field ultimately depends on laboratory research, the extrapolation of laboratory research to the real world is fraught with difficulties. Among the difficulties are the following: Laboratory studies are typically not designed with ecological validity in mind, they involve fixed effects statistical designs, they do not tell us how individuals (as opposed to mean values) behave under various experimental conditions. Presentation of such studies as relevant to the specific conditions of a court case entails a significant misrepresentation of the results of the research.     

专家证言的概念性挑战

本文重点考察了专家知识与案件审理模式之间的关系。总体而言,案件审理是一种教育性活动,其间,事实认定者应能够理解、处理和思考证据,并得出理性的结论。这一过程反映了审理中准确事实认定的根本重要性,若没有准确的事实认定,权利和义务便是空谈。专家证据通常涉及一种遵从性而非教育性的诉讼程序模式,从这一点上来说其有悖于常规的审判理想状态。本文讨论了这一发展过程、其形成原因及其后果。若要实现审判的理想状态,那么替代性措施（即所有证据应以教育性模式呈现）则更为优越。如果证据无法以此种方式（教育性模式）呈现,那么在审理过程中通过证据所展现的待证事项便无法与常规的审判理想状态保持一致。     

Two conjectures about the issue of expert testimony

This article responds to concerns about expert testimony in experimental psychology by conjectur that disagreements about the propriety of the testimony are camouflaged arguments about the strength of psychological knowledge. Differences between proponents and opponents of expert testimony are about the state of psychological knowledge and certainty, rather than about the proper standard for psychologists to use when deciding whether to testify. A second conjecture is stimulated by the assumption that laypersons generally overvalue eyewitness testimony and that expert psychological testimony is a required corrective. The truth of this assumption rests on the debatable assertions that eyewitness identifications, without more, are potent sole determinants of trial outcome, and that lay juries need instruction from experimental psychologists about aspects of human behavior of which the jurors are definitive producers and consumers. One need not resolve these debates in order to understand that psychologists should not rely on the legal community to set the psychologists' standards for expert testimony. And psychologists, in considering their role as courtroom experts, should guard against a self-serving critique of the acumen of lay juries.     

Legal principles governing expert testimony by experimental psychologists

With increasing frequency, experimental psychologists are called upon to present their research findings and theories in a courtroom. This article reviews the general evidentiary standards regarding such expert testimony, with a specific emphasis on how those principles have been applied in the context of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identifications. A comprehensive review of the judicial decisions in this area reveals that there has recently been a significant shift in the courts' receptivity toward such testimony. Many courts now believe that psychological research on human perception and memory has progressed to the point that the expert's testimony may be considered both reliable enough and helpful enough to the jury to justify its adminssion in the appropriate case. The author concludes with a discussion of several developments that would help to allay the judicial system's historical concerns over the admission of such expert psychological testimony.     

The presentation of expert testimony via live audio-visual communication

As part of a national effort to improve efficiency in court procedures, the American Bar Association has recommended, on the basis of a number of pilot studies, increased use of current audio-visual technology, such as telephone and live video communication, to eliminate delays caused by unavailability of participants in both civil and criminal procedures. Although these recommendations were made to facilitate court proceedings, and for the convenience of attorneys and judges, they also have the potential to save significant time for clinical expert witnesses as well. The author reviews the studies of telephone testimony that were done by the American Bar Association and other legal research groups, as well as the experience in one state forensic evaluation and treatment center. He also reviewed the case law on the issue of remote testimony. He then presents data from a national survey of state attorneys general concerning the admissibility of testimony via audio-visual means, including video depositions. Finally, he concludes that the option to testify by telephone provides a significant savings in precious clinical time for forensic clinicians in public facilities, and urges that such clinicians work actively to convince courts and/or legislatures in states that do not permit such testimony (currently the majority), to consider accepting it, to improve the effective use of scarce clinical resources in public facilities.     

测谎鉴定意见的应用现状及证据效力研究

测谎技术(polygraph)经过一个多世纪的发展,目前在多个领域都有不同程度的应用,但我国法律尚未对测谎鉴定意见的法律地位做出明确规定.本文简要介绍了测谎技术的历史发展,分析了测谎鉴定意见的证据属性及其信度、效度,并总结了将测谎鉴定意见作为证据使用还存在的几个问题:1.测谎专业人员培养滞后,测试人员水平参差不齐,从业资格认证与管理缺乏统一的规范;2.对于测谎鉴定的应用范围、测试主体、启动程序等缺乏法律依据;3、测谎鉴定意见的假阳性率无法消除,盲目认定其证据效力存在风险.最后针对问题提出了对策与建议,相信通过不断的努力,可以使测谎技术更为科学、有效、规范地服务于我国的司法实践.     

Psychiatric expert testimony on aggressive offenders in juvenile court proceedings

The empirical study presented concerns juvenile court cases (aggressive offences) in West Berlin during which the offenders (N = 94) were subject to psychiatric expert testimony (1975-1982). The conditional factors determining forensic-psychiatric testimony are examined and the investigation shows, with the aid of discriminant analysis, that differences in the form of the expertise given are best explained by the variable 'convention-orientation'. Ratings on the quality of psychiatric letters (N = 49) were based on the semantic differential technique. Employing factor analysis, three independent aspects determining the quality of expert opinion are revealed, namely the factors 'cogency of message', role-conception', and 'recipient-orientation'.     

河南省刑事案件司法精神病学鉴定案例的随访研究

目的研究司法精神病学鉴定后各方对结论及处理的看法及社会影响等随访因素。方法作者通过通信函调、电话随访和登门拜访等三种方法,用自编调查表对208例鉴定案例分别向委托机关、被鉴定人本人或家属、受害人本人或家属进行随访。结果被鉴定人受教育年限平均为4.84年,以30岁左右已婚男性农民居多。暴力犯罪(129例占83.77%)远较非暴力犯罪(25例占16.23%)为多,前者又尤以杀人(44例占28.57%)为最常见。本资料再鉴定率为2.93%。被鉴定人及其家属对34例无责任能力的处理意见认为恰当的占76.47%,对判为无罪释放的28例,认为处理恰当的占71.43%,认为不恰当的占10.7%。对就医者几乎全都满意,对判刑或关押的认为恰当与不恰当者各占43.18%。受害人目前现状为死亡7例,残废10例,恢复健康10例。被鉴定人及其家属的意见与司法机关认为案件引起的社会影响似乎无关。被司法机关无罪释放的41例(26.62%)被鉴定人中,再杀人2例(4.87%),放火2例(4.87%),盗窃2例(4.87%),回归社会后有破坏行为但尚未构成犯罪者3例(7.31%)。结论建议政府有关部门尽快建立违法犯罪精神病人的监管和医疗机构。