Margaret Bull Kovera

Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis

The authors examined whether expert testimony serves an educational or a persuasive function. Participants watched a simulated sexual abuse trial in which the child witness had been prepared for her testimony (i.e., she was calm, composed, and confident) or unprepared (i.e., emotional, confused, and uncertain). The trial contained different levels of expert testimony: none, standard (i.e., a summary of the research), repetitive (i.e., standard testimony plus a 2nd summary of the research), or concrete (i.e., standard testimony plus a hypothetical scenario linking the research to the case facts) testimony. Repetitive testimony bolstered the childs testimony, whereas concrete and standard testimony did not. Concrete testimony sensitized jurors to behavioral correlates of sexual victimization; standard and repetitive testimony desensitized jurors to these correlates. Implications for the use of procedural innovations in sexual abuse trials are discussed.

Reasoning about scientific evidence: effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case.

This study examined whether participants were sensitive to variations in the quality of an experiment discussed by an expert witness and whether they used heuristic cues when evaluating the expert evidence. In the context of a hostile work environment case, different versions of the expert testimony varied the presence of heuristic cues (i.e., whether the experts research was generally accepted or ecologically valid) and evidence quality (i.e., the construct validity of the experts research). Men who heard expert testimony were more likely to find that the plaintiffs workplace was hostile than were men who did not hear the expert testimony; expert testimony did not influence womens liability judgments. Heuristic cues influenced participant evaluations of the expert testimony validity, but evidence quality did not. Cross-examination did not increase juror sensitivity to evidence quality. Implications for science in the legal system are discussed.

Identification of computer-generated facial composites

Two studies examined the effectiveness of the Mac-a-Mug Pro, a computerized facial composite production system. In the first study, college freshmen prepared from memory composites of other students and faculty from their former high schools. Other students who had attended the same high schools could not recognize the composites of either students or faculty members when the composites of individuals known to them (n = 10) were mixed with composites of a large number (n = 40) of strangers. Neither preparer familiarity with the target, preparer-assessed composite quality, nor viewer familiarity predicted composite recognition. Study 2 indicated that naive witnesses who viewed the composites could not select the people depicted in the composites from photo lineups (1 target and 4 foils). The results raise questions about the efficacy of composite systems as tools to promote recognition of suspects in criminal contexts.

Children, Social Science, and the Law

1. Children, law, social science, and policy: an introduction to the issues Bette L. Bottoms, Margaret Bull Kovera and Bradley D. McAuliff Part I. Childrens Rights, Their Capabilities, and Societys Responsibilities to Children: 2. The personal responsibility and work opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996: what will it mean for children? Brian Wilcox, Rebecca A. Colman and Jennifer M. Wyatt 3. Advocacy for childrens rights Mark Small and Susan P. Limber 4. Childrens rights and their capacities Melinda Schmidt and N. Dickon Reppucci 5. Childrens legal representation in civil litigation Ann M. Haralambie, Ann Nicholson Haralambie and Kari L. Nysse Part II. Children and Family Change: 6. Termination of parental rights to free children for adoption: conflicts between parents, children, and the state Jeffrey Haugaard and Rosemary J. Avery 7. Child custody at the crossroads: issues for a new century Charlene E. Depner 8. Children of lesbian and gay parents: research, law, and policy Charlotte J. Patterson, Megan Fulcher and Jennifer Wainwright Part III. Juvenile Aggression and Juvenile Justice: 9. Juvenile transfer to adult court: how can developmental and child psychology inform policy decision making? Randall T. Salekin 10. Youth violence: correlates, interventions and legal implications Carrie S. Fried and N. Dickon Reppucci 11. Capacity, competence, and the juvenile defendant: implications for research and policy Jennifer Woolard Part IV. Children as Victims and Witnesses: 12. The effects of community violence on children and adolescents: intervention and social policy Steve L. Berman, Wendy K. Silverman and William Kurtines 13. Preventing child abuse and neglect Mia McFarlane and Murray Levine 14. Childrens eyewitness memory: true disclosures and false reports Jennifer M. Schaaf, Kristen Weede Alexander, Gail S. Goodman, Simona Ghetti and Robin Edelstein 15. Expert testimony on the suggestibility of children: does it fit? Thomas D. Lyon 16. The status of evidentiary and procedural innovations in Child Abuse Proceedings Bradley D. McAuliff and Margaret Bull Kovera Part V. Conclusions and Future Decisions: 17. Starting a new generation of research Gary Melton 18. What will it take to bring child-focused law, policy, and research into the 21st century? Concluding thoughts Howard Davidson.

Expert Psychological Testimony

Psychologists serve as expert witnesses in criminal and civil cases and testify about a wide range of clinical, cognitive, developmental, industrial-organizational, biological, and social psychological topics. We review the topics about which psychologists offer testimony, the rules governing the admissibility of expert testimony, and contemporary research on expert testimony. With respect to the latter, we review research concerning the need for, appropriateness of, and effect of expert testimony. We discuss research pertaining to admissibility issues, including the effect of changes in admissibility criteria on admissibility decisions and judge and juror sensitivity to the quality of scientific psychological research. Because judges and jurors lack sensitivity to variations in expert evidence quality and common safeguards do not appear to increase sensitivity to research flaws, additional research is needed to identify methods of assisting fact finders who must evaluate expert testimony.

Do Jurors Get What They Expect? Traditional versus Alternative Forms of Children's Testimony.

Abstract This study examined prospective jurors’ expectancies for the verbal and nonverbal behavior of a child testifying in a sexual abuse case. Community members (N =261) reporting for jury duty completed a survey in which they described their expectancies for how a child alleging sexual abuse would appear when testifying and their beliefs about discerning childrens truthfulness, testimony stress, and fairness to trial parties. Within this survey, we varied the childs age (5, 10, or 15 years old), type of abuse alleged (vaginal fondling or penetration), and whether the abuse actually occurred (yes, no) between participants across five different testimony conditions (traditional live in-court, support person present, closed-circuit television, preparation, and videotape) within each participant. Participants expected a child providing traditional testimony to be more nervous, tearful, and fidgety; less confident, cooperative, and fluent; and to maintain less eye contact and provide shorter responses than when the child provided alternative forms of testimony. Participants believed it was easiest to determine a childs truthfulness and fairest to the defendant when the child testified live in court, but that this form of testimony was the most stressful and unfair to the child. Expectancies and beliefs differed within the alternative forms of testimony as well. Negative evaluations of childrens alternative testimony may be the result of expectancy violation; namely, jurors expect differences in childrens verbal and nonverbal behavior as a result of accommodation, but those differences actually do not occur.

The Effects of Rehabilitative Voir Dire on Juror Bias and Decision Making

During voir dire, judges frequently attempt to “rehabilitate” venirepersons who express an inability to be impartial. Venirepersons who agree to ignore their biases and base their verdict on the evidence and the law are eligible for jury service. In Experiment 1, biased and unbiased mock jurors participated in either a standard or rehabilitative voir dire conducted by a judge and watched a trial video. Rehabilitation influenced insanity defense attitudes and perceptions of the defendant’s mental state, and decreased scaled guilt judgments compared to standard questioning. Although rehabilitation is intended to correct for partiality among biased jurors, rehabilitation similarly influenced biased and unbiased jurors. Experiment 2 found that watching rehabilitation did not influence jurors’ perceptions of the judge’s personal beliefs about the case.

The Effects of British and American Trial Procedures on the Quality of Juror Decision-Making

Compared to American trial procedures, British procedures provide a less distracting environment in which jurors can process trial evidence. Relying on theories of persuasion, it was predicted that jurors viewing British procedures would be less affected by extra-evidentiary cues and would be more sensitive to evidence strength variations than jurors in American trials. Participants (N = 245) viewed a mock trial in which trial procedure, judges nonverbal behavior, and evidence strength were varied. Participants judged the British procedures to be more civil and fair than American procedures but were less likely to find for the plaintiff. Although jurors recalled more trial facts when they viewed British procedures, they were not more sensitive to variations in evidence strength. There was some evidence that British procedures may increase the influence of judges nonverbal behavior on juror judgments. The relative benefits of different trial procedures are discussed.

Identifying Juror Bias: Moving from Assessment and Prediction to a New Generation of Jury Selection Research

One of the behavioral assumptions made by the legal system that has attracted attention is the notion that jurors can make decisions which are free from bias. In an attempt to ensure that seated juries are comprised of jurors who are free from bias, venirepersons (i.e., potential jurors) are interviewed in a pretrial procedure called voir dire. During this procedure, venirepersons respond to questions that are designed to elicit responses that will allow judges and attorneys to evaluate whether they may have knowledge or biases that would interfere with the duty to evaluate the evidence fairly and make decisions that comport with the law. In this chapter, the psychological assumptions of legal actors about the identification of venireperson bias during voir dire, and the extent to which the process results in the removal of problematic jurors from jury service, are reviewed. The empirical literature from the first generation of jury selection research was devoted to identifying traits or developing attitudinal measures that predict juror verdicts. The chapter contains a review of several studies that represent a new generation of jury selection research that moves beyond mere prediction of venirepersons’ verdict inclinations to an evaluation of the extent to which social cognitive and social influence processes interfere with judges’ and attorneys’ abilities to effectively exercise challenges to venirepersons’ potential jury service.

Systematic Jury Selection

Jury selection takes place during voir dire, the pretrial proceeding during which the judge and attorneys question potential jurors with the aim of identifying venire members who are unfit for jury service. Jury “selection” is a bit of a misnomer as attorneys do not choose individuals to serve on the jury; instead jurors who are unable to remain impartial are deselected from jury service. Voir dire proceedings may take different forms depending on the jurisdiction. Many states have adopted very limited voir dire in which the judge poses questions to venire members. In extended voir dire, questioning is conducted by the judge and both attorneys (Jones, 1987). The judge holds discretion over the content and length of questioning. The manner of questioning during voir dire can also vary; although questioning is frequently conducted in open court, in some circumstances the judge may choose to question venirepersons individually (for a discussion of limited vs. extended voir dire, see Johnson & Haney, 1994).