The corroboration requirement in child sex abuse cases

The sharp rise in reports of child abuse has led to efforts to protect children in family courts in child protective proceedings. Hearsay evidence of a child's prior statements may be admitted in child protective proceedings, but such evidence is legally insufficient to support an adjudication of abuse without corroborative evidence. Courts have admitted expert psychological, psychiatric or social work testimony about the child sex abuse syndrome as sufficient corroborative evidence. The testimony is called “validation” testimony. The scientific basis for such validation testimony in the absence of a disclosure by the child is very weak. Courts have also tended to accept the most minimal evidence as corroboration of the child's out-of-court statements, including other hearsay evidence. The socially valuable policy of protecting children by admitting weak evidence, such as validation testimony, or other hearsay, should be reviewed to ensure the evidence meets criteria of reliability in order to minimize erroneous determinations.     

Juror Need for Cognition and Sensitivity to Methodological Flaws in Expert Evidence1

This study examined whether need for cognition (NC) moderated jurors' sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence. Jurors read a sexual harassment trial summary in which the plaintiff's expert presented a study that varied in ecological validity, general acceptance, and internal validity. High NC jurors found the defendant liable more often and evaluated expert evidence quality more favorably when the expert's study was internally valid vs. missing a control group; low NC jurors did not. Ecological validity and general acceptance did not affect jurors' judgments. Ratings of expert and plaintiff credibility, plaintiff trustworthiness, and expert evidence quality were positively correlated with verdict. Theoretical implications for the scientific reasoning literature and practical implications for trials containing psychological science are discussed.     

Maternal conceptions of the parenting role and mother–child collaborative behaviours in at-risk context

This study investigated to what extent mothers' conceptions of the parenting role drive mother–child collaborative behaviour as well as expert ratings on maternal practices. It also investigated whether there is any direct link between mother and child behaviours and expert ratings. Self-report measures for maternal conceptions and observed mother–child behaviours in the shopping task were obtained from a sample of 75 at-risk mothers with a child 8 to 12 years old. Social workers reported on mothers' negligent, coercive and resilient practices. Structural equation models showed that high power conception had a negative influence on mother and child's collaborative efforts, whereas reciprocity and parental support conceptions had a positive influence. Reciprocity, low power and parental support schemas consistently predicted experts' view on maternal practices. However, only mother's passivity predicted negatively expert ratings on resilient practice, indicating that expert views were mostly derived from mothers' reflections on their parenting role. Results suggested ways for improving experts' assessment of parental capacities and the use of intervention programmes to promote mothers' positive conceptions and actions.     

The influence of sex bias upon compliance with expert power

The present study evolved from the belief that sex bias influences the degree of expert power which the expert has in relation to the perceiver. Therefore, the influence of level of expertise, sex of the expert, sex of the influencee, and sex domination of the expert's occupation upon compliance was examined. Separate experiments were conducted for the male- and female-dominated occupations. Subjects' degree of compliance was measured by their responses to three recommendations contained in an in-basket. The three-way analyses of variance revealed that only expertise significantly affected subjects' degree of compliance. Results are discussed in terms of the presence of outside recognition of competence and legitimate power.     

A qualitative analysis of mock jurors' deliberations of linkage analysis evidence

Evidence about a suspect's behavioural similarity across a series of crimes has been presented in legal proceedings in at least three different countries. Its admission as expert evidence, whilst still rare, is becoming more common thus it is important for us to understand how such evidence is received by jurors and legal professionals. This article reports on a qualitative analysis of mock jurors' deliberations about expert linkage analysis evidence. Three groups of mock jurors (N = 20) were presented with the prosecution's linkage analysis evidence from the USA State v. Fortin I murder trial and expert evidence for the defence constructed for the purposes of the study. Each group was asked to deliberate and reach a verdict. Deliberations were video‐recorded and subject to thematic content analysis. The themes that emerged were varied. Analysis suggested that the mock jurors were cautious of the expert evidence of behavioural similarity. In some cases they were sceptical of the expert. They articulated a preference that expert opinion be supported using statistics. Additional themes included jurors having misconceptions concerning what is typical offender behaviour during rape which suggests there is a need for expert linkage analysis evidence regarding behavioural similarities and the relative frequencies of crime scene behaviours. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The lawyer and the forensic expert: Boundaries of ethical practice

The role of attorneys in relationship to mental health experts is examined. Issues which are discussed include the necessity of expert testimony, selection of the expert, and the data underlying the expert opinion. In addition, the attorneys' responsibilities in presenting the mental health expert in court is discussed with reference to different elements of the trial process.     

Use and abuse of mental health experts in child custody determinations

Changes in standards for child custody determinations have resulted in an increased demand for mental health professionals to serve as expert witnesses. However, the entry of mental health professionals into custody disputes has been met with harsh criticism of the value of their contributions. Critics have generally pointed to the absence of substantive requirements for who may serve as an expert mental health witness, the ambiguities inherent in the best interests standard, the weak scientific basis for psychology and psychiatry, and the questionable measurement techniques employed by mental health professionals as reasons for increased regulation of forensic mental health services. This article critically reviews these concerns and proposes a regulatory model that addresses the salient issues.     

Jurors' Decisions in Trials of Battered Women Who Kill: The Role of Prior Beliefs and Expert Testimony1

The present research explored the influence of four factors on mock jurors' decisions in a homicide trial involving a battered woman who killed her abusive husband: (a) jurors' preexisting beliefs about wife abuse, (b) the presence of expert testimony on the battered woman syndrome, (c) jurors' beliefs in a just world, and (d) gender. Mock jurors listened to a trial involving a woman who had killed her abuser, which either contained expert testimony or did not, and then rendered various judgments about the case. Results indicated that those individuals who were more informed about the dynamics of abuse and those exposed to the expert testimony, compared to their respective counterparts, were more believing of the battered woman's account of what occurred. In general, weak believers in a just world were more lenient in their judgments, with verdicts of not guilty being associated with weaker beliefs in a just world than guilty verdicts. Weak believers in a just world also felt that the expert testimony applied more to the defendant than did strong believers. Finally, women who were weak believers in a just world were less likely to hold the defendant responsible for the events and to be more informed about the dynamics of abuse following the experiment.     

Of witches,madmen, and products liability: An historical survey of the use of expert testimony

The United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Daubert v. Mewell Dour Pharmaceutical Inc. has focused attention on judicial treatment of expert testimony. A survey of the development of the forensic use of such testimony helps to explain the salient characteristics of modem American practice. The survey, in the context of medical experts, discloses a several centuries long trend toward an adversarial approach that places selection, preparation, and presentation of expert witness testimony ever more completely in the hands of the litigants. This trend has been challenged since at least the 1800s by those desiring an inquisitorial alternative featuring court's witnesses or neutral panels of experts. These proposals have generally been rejected. Daubert represents a modest step in the direction of greater judicial control of the presentation of expert evidence but raises questions about the evenhandedness of heightened judicial scrutiny of proffered expert testimony.     

Development of an Expert Explanation: An Analysis of a Sequence of Subtraction Lessons

This article documents the teaching and learning that occurred during an 8-day unit on subtraction with regrouping in an expert teacher's second-grade classroom. Students in this study were found to be not only highly skilled in computation at the end of the sequence, but also to have, in some cases, unusual skill in solving problems beyond the range of instruction. Detailed analyses of the expert lessons that led to such high levels of student performance and understanding focused both on the explanations the teacher provided and on students' knowledge growth throughout the sequence. Two aspects of the teacher's explanations were analyzed: the subject-matter content and the explanational plan. Semantic nets were used to portray the teacher's subject-matter knowledge displayed in each lesson and were compared with corresponding nets of student knowledge for each day. All explanations were structurally analyzed to develop a network of goal states and action schemas, similar to other cognitive planning nets, that generated a model of an expert explanation. Student knowledge was traced by means of tests and interviews administered to a sample of 8 students before, during, and after instruction.     

Expertise,Domains, and the Consensual Assessment Technique

The Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) argues that the most valid judgments of the creativity are those of the combined opinions of experts in the field. Yet who exactly qualifies as an expert to evaluate a creative product such as a short story? This study examines both novice and expert judgments of student short fiction. Results indicate a need for caution in using non‐expert raters. Although there was only a small (but statistically significant) difference between experts' and novices' mean ratings, the correlation between the two sets of ratings was just .71. Experts were also far more consistent in their ratings compared to novices, whose level of inter‐rater reliability was potentially problematic.     

The admissibility of expert testimony regarding malingering and deception

This article discusses the legal admissibility of expert testimony and the ability of mental health professionals to detect malingering and deception among defendants. A legal analysis of the admissibility of expert testimony regarding malingering and deception in formal legal proceedings is presented. Some guidelines are provided to help mental health professionals and attorneys determine the admissibility of evidence they intend to introduce. Although psychologists and psychiatrists currently have a limited ability to identify accurately malingering and deception, expert testimony about the genuineness of a defendant's mental illness is likely to be held admissible for both practical and evidentiary reasons. In contrast, evidence about a witness' credibility is rarely admissible. In addition, psychologists are ethically obliged to recognize their limitations in making representations about their skills.     

Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis

This experiment examines the influence of expert psychological testimony on juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Experienced jurors and undergraduate mock jurors viewed versions of a videotaped trial, rated the credibility of the eyewitness and the strength of the prosecution's and defense's cases, and rendered verdicts. In the absence of expert testimony jurors were insensitive to eyewitness evidence. Expert testimony improved juror sensitivity to eyewitness evidence without making them more skeptical about the accuracy of the eyewitness identification. Few differences emerged between the experienced jurors and undergraduate mock jurors.     

Coordination Dynamics of the Horse-Rider System

The authors studied the interaction between rider and horse by measuring their ensemble motions in a trot sequence, comparing 1 expert and 1 novice rider. Whereas the novice's movements displayed transient departures from phase synchrony, the expert's motions were continuously phase-matched with those of the horse. The tight ensemble synchrony between the expert and the horse was accompanied by an increase in the temporal regularity of the oscillations of the trunk of the horse. Observed differences between expert and novice riders indicated that phase synchronization is by no means perfect but requires extended practice. Points of contact between horse and rider may haptically convey effective communication between them.     

When do children trust the expert? Benevolence information influences children's trust more than expertise

How do children use informant niceness, meanness, and expertise when choosing between informant claims and crediting informants with knowledge? In Experiment 1, preschoolers met two experts providing conflicting claims for which only one had relevant expertise. Five‐year‐olds endorsed the relevant expert's claim and credited him with knowledge more often than 3‐year‐olds. In Experiment 2, niceness/meanness information was added. Although children most strongly preferred the nice relevant expert, the children often chose the nice irrelevant expert when the relevant one was mean. In Experiment 3, a mean expert was paired with a nice non‐expert. Although this nice informant had no expertise, preschoolers continued to endorse his claims and credit him with knowledge. Also noteworthy, children in all three experiments seemed to struggle more to choose the relevant expert's claim than to credit him with knowledge. Together, these experiments demonstrate that niceness/meanness information can powerfully influence how children evaluate informants.