SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE RESEARCH GROUP

Faculty

Maureen O’Connor	The use of scientific information and expert testimony in the legal system		Michael Leippe
Mark Fondacaro			Chitra Raghavan
Jennifer Groscup	Jurors' use of expert testimony, the potential of legal safeguards to improve jurors' understanding of expert testimony, and the effects of expert characteristics on jurors		Margaret Bull Kovera	How legal decision-makers evaluate scientific evidence, the effects of voir dire and jury selection on jury decisions,
Saul Kassin			Steve Penrod	Assessing the impact of changes in evidence law on the use of experts during trial, the impact of expert testimony on jury decisionmaking

Students

Publications 1997-Present

Copple, R., Torkildson, J., & Kovera, M. B. (in press). Expert psychological testimony: Admissibility standards. In B. L. Cutler (Ed.), The encyclopedia of psychology and law. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eisenstadt, D., Leippe, M. R., Rivers, J. A., & Stambush, M. (2003). Counterattitudinal advocacy on a matter of prejudice:  Effects of commitment, distraction, and personal importance.  Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2123-2152.

Groscup, J. (2004). Judicial decision making in the aftermath of Daubert and Kumho. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 4, 57-66.

Greene, E., Chopra, S., Kovera, M. B., Penrod, S. D., Rose, V. G., Schuller, R., & Studebaker., C.  (2002). Jurors and juries: A review of the field.  In J. Ogloff (Ed.), Taking psychology and law into the 21st century. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. 

Groscup, J, Penrod, S., Huss, M., Studebaker, C., & O'Neil, K. (2002). The effects of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals on the admissibility of expert testimony in state and federal criminal cases. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 8, 339-372.

Groscup, J. (2004). Judicial decision making in the aftermath of Daubert and Kumho. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 4, 57-66.

Groscup, J, Penrod, S., Huss, M., Studebaker, C., & O'Neil, K. (2002). The effects of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals on the admissibility of expert testimony in state and federal criminal cases. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 8, 339-372.

Groscup, J., & Penrod, S. (2003).  Experts in criminal cases: Police versus psychologists, Seton Hall Law Review, 33, 1141-1165., APA Monitor, 38(7), 58.

Gutek, B.A., O’Connor, M., Melançon, R., Geer, T., Done, R., & Stockdale, M. (1999). The utility of the reasonable woman legal standard in hostile environment sexual harassment cases: A multimethod, multistudy examination. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 5, 596-629. Article reprinted in: Lefcourt, C.H., & Moriarty, J.C. (Eds.). (2001). Women and the Law, Release #15. St. Paul, MN: West Group.

Kassin, S. M. (2006). Judging eyewitnesses, confessions, informants, and alibis: What is wrong with juries, and can they do better? In A. Heaton-Armstrong, E. Shepherd, G. Gudjonsson, & D. Wolchover, (Eds.), Witness Testimony: Psychological, Investigative and Evidential Perspectives (pp. 639-673). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leippe, M. R., Eisenstadt, D. E., Rauch, S. M., & Seib, H. (2004) Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors’ need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 524-541.

Kassin, S.M., & Dunn, M. (1997). Computer-animated displays and the jury: Facilitative and prejudicial effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 269-281.

Kovera, M. B. & Borgida, E. (1998).  Expert scientific testimony on child witnesses in the age of Daubert.  In S. J. Ceci & H. Hembrooke (Eds.), Expert witnesses in child abuse cases: What can and should be said in court (p. 185-215).  Washington, DC:  American Psychological Association.

Kovera, M. B. (2008).  Applying social psychology to law.  In R. Baumeister and B. Bushman (Eds), Social Psychology and Human Nature (pp. C1-C16).  Belmont, CA:  Wadsworth. 

Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff. B. D.  (2000).  The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers?  Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 574-586. 

Kovera, M. B., Gresham, A. W., Borgida, E., Gray, E., & Regan, P. C. (1997).  Does expert testimony inform or influence juror decision-making?  A social cognitive analysis.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 178-191. 

Kovera, M. B., McAuliff, B. D., & Hebert, K. S. (1999).  Reasoning about scientific evidence: Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362-375.

Kovera, M. B., Russano, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2002). Assessment of the commonsense psychology underlying Daubert:  Legal decision makers’ abilities to evaluate expert evidence in hostile work environment cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 180-200.

 Leippe, M. R. (1994).  The appraisal of eyewitness testimony.  In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.),  Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 385-418). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Leippe, M. R. (1995).  The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 909-959.

Leippe, M. R., Eisenstadt, D. E., Rauch, S. M., & Seib, H. (2004) Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors’ need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 524-541.

Leippe, M. R., Manion, A. P., & Romanczyk, A. (1992).  Eyewitness persuasion:  How and how well do factfinders judge the accuracy of adults' and children's memory reports?  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 181-197.

Levett, L. M., & Kovera, M. B. (in press). The effectiveness of educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence using an opposing witness. Law and Human Behavior.

Levett, L. M., Danielsen, E. M, & Kovera, M. B., Cutler, B. L. (2005).  Juror decision making.  In N. Brewer & K. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 365-406).  New York: Guilford. 

McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (2006). Estimating the effects of misleading information on witness accuracy: Can experts tell jurors something they don’t already know? Applied Cognitive Psychology.

McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (in press). Juror Need for Cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.

McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B.  (in press).  Estimating the effects of misleading information on witness accuracy: Can experts tell jurors something they don’t already know?  Applied Cognitive Psychology.   

McAuliff, B. D., Nemeth, R. J., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S.D. (2003). Juror decision-making in the 21st century: confronting science and technology in court. In D. Carson & R. Bull (Eds.), Handbook of psychology in legal contexts (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley

Penrod, S. & Heuer, L.B. (1997). Tweaking commonsense: Assessing Aids to Jury Decision Making. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 3, 259-284., 3, 338-361.

Penrod, S. & Heuer, L.B. (1998). Improving group performance: The case of the jury. In R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E. J. Posavac, F. B. Bryant, Y. Suarez-Balacazar, E. Henderson-King & J. Meyers, Theory and Research on Small Groups. Plenum: New York.

Robbennolt, J., Groscup, J. & Penrod, S. & Heuer, L. (2006). Evaluating and assisting jury competence in civil and criminal cases. In I. Weiner & A. Hess (ed.), Handbook of Forensic Psychology (3rd Ed.). New York: Wiley.

Robbennolt, J., Penrod, S. & Heuer, L. (1999). Assessing and Aiding Jury Competence. In I. Weiner & A. Hess (ed.), Handbook of Forensic Psychology (2nd Ed.). New York: Wiley.

van Koppen, P.J., & Penrod, S.D. (2002). Adversarial or Inquisitorial: Comparing Systems. In van Koppen, P.J., & Penrod, S.D. (Eds.). Adversarial versus inquisitorial justice: Psychological perspectives on criminal justice systems. New York: Plenum.

van Koppen, P.J., & Penrod, S.D. (2002). The John Wayne and Judge Dee Versions of Justice. In van Koppen, P.J., & Penrod, S.D. (Eds.). Adversarial versus inquisitorial justice: Psychological perspectives on criminal justice systems. New York: Plenum.

van Koppen, P.J., & Penrod, S.D. (Eds.). (2002). Adversarial versus inquisitorial justice: Psychological perspectives on criminal justice systems. New York: Plenum.

Vidmar, N., Lempert, R. O., Diamond, S. S., Hans, V. P., Landsman, S., MacCoun, R., Sanders, J., Hosch, H. M., Kassin, S., Galanter, M., Eisenberg, T., Daniels, S., Greene, E., Martin, J., Penrod , S., Richardson, J., Heuer, L., Horowitz, I. (2000). Amicus brief: Kumho Tire v. Carmichael. Law & Human Behavior. 24, 387-400

Research Grants

Penrod, S. D. National Science Foundation, A Continuing Empirical Analysis of the Admissibility of Expert Testimony: Investigating the Effects of Kumho Tire v. Carmichael. ($102,307, 01/15/00 - 09/15/02).

Penrod, S. D. National Science Foundation, A Scientific Examination of the Admissibility of Scientific Expert Testimony Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. ($78,000, Sept 1997-March 1999).