Ulf Stridbeck

Theory and practice in interviewing young children: A study of Norwegian police interviews 1985–2002

Abstract Has the increased public and professional awareness of the challenges of interviewing children in forensic contexts led to changes and improvements in police interviewing practices? A representative sample (n=91) of police interviews conducted during the period of 1985–2002 from a large Norwegian police district was analysed. The results indicated that interviewer strategies have improved; there was a decrease in the use of suggestive, yes/no and option-posing questions and this decrease was accompanied by a comparable increase in the use of cued recall questions. The frequency of open-ended invitations was low and did not change much over time. Factors that might have led to the observed changes are briefly discussed.

What judges know about eyewitness testimony: A comparison of Norwegian and US judges

Abstract We surveyed 157 Norwegian judges about their knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony, and compared their answers to a prior survey of 160 US judges. Although the Norwegian judges were somewhat more knowledgeable than the US judges, both groups had limited knowledge of eyewitness testimony. The Norwegian judges, like the US judges, frequently differed from eyewitness experts in their responses to such important issues as whether eyewitness confidence is related to identification accuracy at trial and what is the best method for conducting identification procedures. As was true for the US judges, more knowledgeable Norwegian judges had many of the beliefs that may be necessary for reducing and mitigating the effects of eyewitness error. The results suggest that increasing judges’ knowledge of eyewitness testimony may be an important component of the solution to eyewitness error.

The truth and nothing but the truth: court-appointed forensic experts’ experience with testifying and their perceptions of legal actors in criminal courts

We examined forensic psychiatric experts’ experiences in providing court testimony and their cooperation with legal professionals, with 147 forensic psychiatric experts (psychologists and psychiatrists) responding to an online survey. Most experts reported that they liked their work, and were satisfied with their cooperation with the court, though their worst fear was that they themselves may commit errors. The experts reported that the most relevant questions in court came from the judges, followed by questions from the prosecutors. Leading and aggressively formulated questions were most often characterized as poor and irrelevant types of questions, particularly when they come from attorneys. Most experts preferred structured and prepared practitioners, while only 35% of the experts used special presentation techniques themselves to deliver their testimonies in court, thereby leaving a clear potential for an improvement in communication.