SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE RESEARCH GROUP
Faculty
|
|
The use of scientific information
and expert testimony in the legal system |
|
|
How legal decision-makers evaluate
scientific evidence, the effects of voir dire and jury selection on jury
decisions, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assessing the impact of changes in
evidence law on the use of experts during trial, the impact of expert
testimony on jury decisionmaking |
Students
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caroline Crocker |
Ryan Copple |
|
Jennifer Tallon |
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.
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, 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.
Kassin, S. M. (2008). Confession evidence: Commonsense myths and
misconceptions. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 35, 1309-1322
Kassin, S. M. (2008). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and
implications for reform. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17,
249-253.
Kassin, S. M. (2008). Expert testimony on the psychology of confessions: A pyramidal framework of the relevant science. In Borgida, Eugene (Ed); Fiske, Susan T. (Ed), Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom. (pp. 195-218). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
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.
Levett, L. M., & Kovera,
M. B. (2008). The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating
jurors about unreliable expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 363-374.
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
O'Connor, M. (2007). Expert Testimony in Sexual Harassment Cases: Its Scope, Limits, and Effectiveness. In Costanzo, Mark (Ed); Krauss, Daniel (Ed); Pezdek, Kathy (Ed), Expert psychological testimony for the courts. (pp. 119-148). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
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).
Margaret
Bull Kovera and Lora M. Levett National Science Foundation SBE#
0453197 (2005-2006) Title: Educating the jury about junk science
through an opposing expert witness Amount: $12,820
Margaret
Bull Kovera National Science Foundation SBE# 9711225 (1997-2000) Title: Reasoning
about scientific evidence: The effects of heuristic cues, evidence quality, and
reasoning ability. Amount: $110,772