NCJ Number
101657
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 10 Issue: 1-2 Dated: (June 1986) Pages: 101-115
Date Published
1986
Length
15 pages
Annotation
An analysis of the ethical issues faced by experimental psychologists serving as expert witnesses concludes that although certainty about scientific results never exists, the judge and jury can benefit from experts' interpretations of results.
Abstract
Experimental psychologists must consider two interrelated issues. The first issue is the selectivity to be used in describing psychological research to a judge or jury. The second issue is the adequacy of the basis for a statement made in expert testimony. Literature on eyewitness testimony and identification of persons of one race by persons of another race illustrate these issues. Neither researchers nor expert witnesses should overstate their conclusions. Eyewitness testimony has been described as unreliable, for example. However, it is now known that such testimony can be highly reliable under certain conditions. Statements about research results should be made carefully. The accuracy of court decisions should not be the only standard for determining the benefits of expert testimony, however. Experts are also useful in helping the triers of fact understand their reasons for having made the ultimate decision. The courts have the responsibility for making full use of the reasoned but probabilistic knowledge of the experimental psychologist. 68 references. (Author abstract modified)