Expert Testimony and Juror Decisions: The Impact of Expert Trustworthiness

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer T. Perillo ◽  
Margaret Bull Kovera
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
The Impact

Reports

2019 ◽  
pp. 445-458
Author(s):  
Karen Postal
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Report Writing ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Free Language ◽  
The Way

Many neuropsychologists, attorneys, and judges see report writing as an important foundation for productive expert testimony. This chapter addresses ways in which our reports affect our testimony, and conversely, how experience testifying transforms the way we write our reports. As emphasized throughout this book, we can create access to our expert knowledge by using clear, vivid, jargon-free language on the witness stand when we communicate with attorneys from the first contacts in the case. This chapter extends that recommendation to our reports as well. Using clear, accessible language can make a difference in the impact of our reports in forensic settings.

scholarly journals The Admissibility of Scientific Expert Evidence Under Indonesian Criminal Justice System

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 152
Author(s):  
Wanodyo Sulistyani
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Process Reliability ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
The Impact

In many cases, such as corruption and forestry-related crimes, an expert has a significant role in explaining the impact of the crime. For instance, scientific expert evidence is required to disclose about the ecological destruction that occurred due to the defendant's criminal activities. In practices, the issue with scientific expert evidence is supposed to be about its admissibility in court. For this issue, the U.S. Court applies Rules of Evidence in considering the admissibility of scientific expert evidence at trial. Those are some requirements (prong test) to be met before expert testimony is admissible. In contrast, the Indonesian Criminal Procedural Law (KUHAP) or other laws do not set any prong test for presenting specialist scientific evidence to be acceptable. Lack of such proof may impact criminal justice process reliability and place expert under vulnerable position. Therefore, this paper will explore the issue on scientific expert evidence under Indonesian criminal law as well as its consequences and impacts for the Indonesian criminal justice process.

scholarly journals Testing the waters: An investigation of the impact of hot tubbing on experts from referral through testimony

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Torkildson Perillo ◽  
Anthony Perillo ◽  
Nikoleta M Despodova ◽  
Margaret Bull Kovera
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Cognitive Dissonance ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Time Points ◽  
Expert Report ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Evidence Review ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

Objective: The present research examined whether concurrent expert testimony, or hot tubbing, is able to reduce adversarial allegiance compared to traditional adversarial expert testimony. Hypotheses: We expected concurrent experts would display less adversarial allegiance over the course of a mock criminal responsibility evaluation, with case opinions converging between prosecution and defense witnesses. We expected adversarial experts would display escalating adversarial allegiance with increasingly divergent case opinions and that court-appointed experts’ opinions would remain stable over the evaluation. We also expected concurrent expert witnesses would produce more balanced expert reports and testimony than would adversarial experts. Method: Clinicians and advanced clinical doctoral students (N = 103) completed criminal responsibility evaluation training before conducting a mock criminal responsibility evaluation for the prosecution, defense, or the court. Half of the partisan experts followed traditional adversarial procedures and half followed a concurrent testimony process. Participants provided case perceptions at three time points: after initial evidence review, after completing expert report(s), and after testifying. Case perceptions included a dichotomous responsibility judgment, strength of responsibility ratings, and a cognitive dissonance measure. Results: Concurrent testimony did not eliminate adversarial allegiance. For perceptions of responsibility, there was no significant difference between adversarial and concurrent experts (ηp2 = .001), nor any change in participants’ ratings over time (ηp2 = .03); however, prosecution experts – across testimony types – rated the defendant as significantly more responsible compared to defense experts (ηp2 = .80). Concurrent and adversarial experts did not differ in the information provided in their expert reports and minimally differed in testimony content.Conclusions: Partisan experts showed adversarial allegiance regardless of expert testimony method, and we observed no attenuation of this bias over the course of the evaluation.

scholarly journals The Impact of Expert Testimony in Trials of Battered Women Who Kill

2004 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Regina A. Schuller ◽  
Blake M. Mckimmie ◽  
Teresa Janz
Keyword(s):  
Battered Women ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Women Who Kill ◽  
The Impact

Neuropsychiatry in the criminal courts

2020 ◽  
pp. 507-518
Author(s):  
Nigel Eastman ◽  
Norman A. Poole ◽  
Michael D. Kopelman
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Legal Process ◽  
Ethical Implications ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Mapping Exercise

Given neuropsychiatric expertise can be called upon at any stage of the criminal legal process, there exists a range of criminal legal constructs on which an expert might be invited to offer an opinion, each with its own distinct mapping exercise. This chapter outlines the law as it relates to both psychiatry and neuropsychiatry, before going on to describe the practicalities of a forensic neuropsychiatric assessment. Finally, the manner in which the expert’s neuropsychiatric findings relate to the validity of a case are explored such as a defendant’s fitness to plead, their potential to malinger, or their mental capacity for intent at the time of the offence. Due to the impact such expert testimony can make on the course of the trial, a significant history of practice and a strong understanding of the ethical implications are necessary.

Confession Evidence: The Impact of Expert Testimony on Jurors' Decisions

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lina M. Papadopoulos ◽  
Sheen Chen ◽  
Rhona Slaughter ◽  
Iris Blandon-Gitlin
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Confession Evidence ◽  
The Impact
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document