Expert Psychological Testimony in the United States: A New Playing Field? 1This paper is based in part on material presented at greater length in , and .

1995 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven D. Penrod ◽  
Solomon M. Fulero ◽  
Brian L. Cutler
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Eyewitness Identification ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Eyewitness Testimony ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
Psychological Testimony

This paper examines the legal and scientific aspects of expert psychological testimony in the United States and discusses the possible implications for such testimony of a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court. We consider expert testimony on eyewitness identification issues as an illustration of the reaction of the courts to, particularly, novel scientific evidence offered in adversarial settings. First, an historical perspective on the use of expert testimony is traced with particular attention to the criteria that state and federal courts have used in determining whether to admit expert testimony. We then examine the new Supreme Court decision and discuss its implications for the use of expert eyewitness testimony. We conclude by illustrating how eyewitness research and research on jury decisionmaking is likely to assume new importance in light of new expert evidence criteria.

United States Supreme Court Rules on Expert Testimony

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 95 (6) ◽  
pp. 934-936 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary N. McAbee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Us Supreme Court

Many medical and legal commentators have expressed concern about the validity of scientific evidence that is proffered by expert witnesses at depositions and in courts of law.1,2 The sparse research that is available on the testimony of medical expert witnesses suggests that it is frequently flawed and erroneous.3 On June 28, 1993, the United States (US) Supreme Court ruled on the proper standard for admissibility of scientific evidence in the courtroom.4 Although the ruling establishes guidelines that are binding only in federal courts, it is expected that many state courts will follow the Court's ruling. This commentary reviews the Court's guidelines for admissibility of expert testimony, and expresses concern about their applicability in future cases involving scientific testimony.

The Geriatric Witness

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simha Ravven ◽  
Howard Zonana
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Eyewitness Identification ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Eyewitness Testimony ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Witness Testimony

Witness testimony of the elderly is a topic of growing importance in U.S. courts. Because the number and proportion of older persons in the United States is growing, it is likely that more elderly people will be called on to provide witness testimony. This chapter examines the types of challenges specific to the geriatric witness in the courtroom. It reviews the elements of competency to serve as a witness in federal and state courts; challenges facing elderly witnesses, including neurocognitive disorders and sensory impairments; and the literature on perceptions of credibility and the geriatric witness and the ability of individuals with dementia to testify meaningfully. Case law pertaining to protection of elderly witnesses, specifically Crawford v. Washington and United States v. Campbell, are discussed as they relate to the geriatric witness. The 2011 New Jersey Supreme Court decision of State v. Henderson is examined as well. This decision addresses the science of memory as it relates to eyewitness testimony. Henderson led to revisions of admission of eyewitness identification evidence and juror instructions. The elderly expert witness is also discussed.

In Defense of the Supreme Court Decision in Alvarez-Machain

1992 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 736-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malvina Halberstam
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Drug Enforcement ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Suspects ◽  
The Media

In United States v. Alvarez-Machain, the Supreme Court sustained the jurisdiction of a U.S. court to try a Mexican national, charged with various counts of conspiracy, kidnaping and the murder of a U.S. drug enforcement agent in Mexico, even though his presence in the United States was the result of abduction rather than extradition pursuant to the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico. The Court did not hold, as widely reported in the media, that the Treaty permits abduction, that abduction is legal, or that the United States had a right to kidnap criminal suspects abroad. On the contrary, the Court acknowledged that the abduction may have been a violation of international law. It stated, “Respondent and his amici may be correct that respondent’s abduction was ’shocking’ and that it may be in violation of general international law principles.”

Supreme Court Decision Making on Insanity Acquittees Does not Depend on Research Conducted by the Behavioral Science Community: Jones v. United States

1984 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 507-525
Author(s):  
Winsor C. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Behavioral Science ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Social Judgments ◽  
Offense Severity ◽  
Insanity Acquittees

The United States Supreme Court's decision making on the Jones v. United States issue of an insanity acquit tee's disposition, when his mental hospitalization exceeds his maximum prison sentence if convicted, is analyzed from the perspective of relevant behavioral science research. The Court's “common sense” that insanity acquittal reflects a likelihood of remaining mentally ill and in need of treatment is not sustained by the available empirical evidence. The Court's assertion of no necessary correlation between acquittee offense severity and length of recovery is also belied by the available research. The Supreme Court has ratified social judgments concerning insanity acquittees rather than utilizing available behavioral research to make more rational policy determinations. The statistically insignificant insanity acquittal disposition could be assessed from a more informed perspective.

The Argument about Ethics, Fairness, or Right and Wrong

1988 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 367-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Sawyer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Appellate Court ◽  
Student Paper ◽  
The Supreme Court

Four of the five issues normally involved in an argument of policy can be persuasively argued on the basis of facts. However, the fourth issue, that of fairness, might better be argued by following the organizational plan of an appellate court decision. The Supreme Court decision in Teminello vs. the United States is offered as an example. The practicality of this plan is illustrated with a student paper.

Sabbatino Resurrected: The Act of State Doctrine in the Revised Restatement of U.S. Foreign Relations Law

1985 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malvina Halberstam
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
The Supreme Court

Among the more controversial provisions of the Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised), are the sections dealing with the act of state doctrine in Tentative Draft No. 4. Section 428 provides: “Subject to §429, courts in the United States will refrain from examining the validity of an act of a foreign state taken in its sovereign capacity within the state’s own territory.” This provision, of course, is based on the Supreme Court decision in Sabbatino. The Court there stated, “the Judicial Branch will not examine the validity of a taking of property within its own territory by a foreign sovereign government” even if it is alleged that the taking is contrary to international law.

scholarly journals Third Party Consent Searches Following the Search and Surveillance Act

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 447
Author(s):  
Sam McMullan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Living Arrangements ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court

Many New Zealanders live in shared living arrangements. The result of this is that reasonable expectations of privacy are becoming more limited. State officials may conduct a lawful search where a person consents to such a search if that person has the authority to consent. Where people live in shared living arrangements, several people may have authority to consent to a search of the same property. This article explores the extent of a third party's power to consent to property searches where more than one person has authority to consent to a search under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. It argues that the question of reasonable expectations of privacy should not be assessed by reference to property rights. It also considers the concept of "apparent" authority which has arisen in New Zealand from the Court of Appeal's decision in R v Bradley as well as the concept of a present and objecting occupant which has arisen in the United States in the Supreme Court decision of Georgia v Randolph.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document