On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research.

In light of recent advances, this study updated a prio

Amicus Brief: Kumho Tire v. Carmichael

This brief addresses the issue of jury performance and jury responses to expert testimony. It reviews and summaries a substantial body of research evidence about jury behavior that has been produced over the past quarter century. The great weight of that evidence challenges the view that jurors abdicate their responsibilities as fact finders when faced with expert evidence or that they are pro-plaintiff, anti-defendant, and anti-business. The Petitioners and amici on behalf of petitioners make a number of overlapping, but empirically unsupported, assertions about jury behavior in response to expert testimony, namely that juries are frequently incapable of critically evaluation expert testimony, are easily confused, give inordinate weight to expert testimony, are awed by science, defer to the opinions of unreliable experts, and, implicitly, that in civil trials juries tilt in favor of plaintiffs and against corporations

The defense lawyer’s plea recommendation: Disentangling the influences of perceived guilt and probability of conviction.

In light of theory and research suggesting that plea decisions are made in the “Shadow of Trial,” we examined the extent to which defense attorneys’ plea recommendations are driven by their beliefs in the defendant’s guilt or innocence and by estimates of the probability-of-conviction at trial. In two studies, participants read a case file containing a police report; a defendant’s written confession or denial; a motion and ruling to suppress evidence (an inculpatory confession in Study 1; an exculpatory eyewitness in Study 2) that was granted or denied; defense counsel’s interview notes in which the defendant proclaimed innocence or not; and the terms of a plea offer. Participants then made a plea recommendation and indicated their beliefs regarding the defendant’s guilt and likely trial verdict. Consistent across both studies, the recommendation to accept a plea offer was driven more by the perceived probability of conviction than by perceptions of factual guilt or innocence. Indicative of this pattern, inculpatory and exculpatory evidence affected plea recommendations only when ruled admissible. The defendant’s assertions of innocence to defense counsel also had little effect. Overall, these results suggest attorneys base their plea recommendations largely on pragmatic considerations. Policy implications are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved

Déjà vu all over again: Elliott's critique of eyewitness experts

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/45312/1/10979_2005_Article_BF01499016.pd