Perspectives on the role of the eyewitness expert

Extensive controversy over the appropriate application of expert knowledge regarding issues of eyewitness accuracy led to a conference and a special issue of taw and Human Behavior in 1986. Arguments were presented both in support of and against the eyewitness researcher as expert testifier. The current research explored the views of the general public (N = 50), defense attorneys (N = 14), and prosecutors (N = 10) with regard to the use of eyewitness expertise in each of four roles (court-appointed expert, consultant, researcher, expert tesdfier for the defense). Extensive differences of opinion were found across both samples and expert roles. In general, prosecutors held significantly more negative views of the usefulness of expert witnesses for the defense than did the public or defense attorneys. The role of court-appointed expert was viewed positively by all three groups and may present a useful alternative to the battles of experts that may result from current practices. Language: en

[1]  E. Ebbesen,et al.  Courtroom testimony by psychologists on eyewitness identification issues , 1986 .

[2]  R. G. Pachella.  Personal values and the value of expert testimony , 1986 .

[3]  R. Buckhout.  Personal values and expert testimony , 1986 .

[4]  R. Kargon.  Expert testimony in historical perspective , 1986 .

[5]  H. Egeth,et al.  The experimental psychologist in court , 1986 .

[6]  G. Wells.  Expert psychological testimony , 1986 .

[7]  J. Brigham,et al.  Opinions of attorneys and law enforcement personnel on the accuracy of eyewitnes identifications , 1983 .

[8]  H. Egeth,et al.  A time to speak, or a time to keep silence? , 1983 .

[9]  E. Loftus.  Silence is not golden. , 1983 .

[10]  E. Loftus.  Whose Shadow Is Crooked? Comment. , 1983 .

[11]  Howard E. Egeth,et al.  Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury? , 1983 .

[12]  K. Deffenbacher,et al.  Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? , 1982 .

[13]  P. Lincoln.  Blood Group Evidence for the Defence , 1980, Medicine, science, and the law.

[14]  B. D. Gaudette.  Some Further Thoughts on Probabilities and Human Hair Comparisons , 1978 .

[15]  L M Robbins,et al.  The individuality of human footprints. , 1978, Journal of forensic sciences.

[16]  S. Baxter,et al.  The Identification of Saliva in Stains in Forensic Casework , 1975, Medicine, science, and the law.

[17]  P. Baxter.  Classification and Measurement in Forensic Handwriting Comparisons , 1973, Medicine, science, and the law.

[18]  Duane T. DeVore.  Bite Marks for Identification?—A Preliminary Report , 1971, Medicine, science, and the law.

[19]  W. Stern.  Abstracts of lectures on the psychology of testimony and on the study of individuality. , 1910 .

[20]  Hugo Münsterberg,et al.  On the Witness Stand , 1908 .

[21]  Y Tsuchihashi,et al.  Studies on personal identification by means of lip prints. , 1974, Forensic science.

[22]  L. C. Nickolls,et al.  The scientific investigation of crime , 1956 .