PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “EXPERT TESTIMONY”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed2002

How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures.

Mock jurors (N = 800) viewed a videotaped trial that included information about a lineup identification procedure. Suggestiveness of the eyewitness identification procedure varied in terms of foil, instruction, and presentation biases. Expert testimony regarding the factors that influence lineup suggestiveness was also manipulated. Criteria included juror ratings of lineup suggestiveness and fairness, ratings of defendant culpability, and verdicts. Jurors were sensitive to foil bias but only minimally sensitive to instruction and presentation biases. Expert testimony enhanced juror sensitivity only to instruction bias. These results have implications for the effectiveness of cross-examination and expert testimony as safeguards against erroneous convictions resulting from mistaken identifications.

Crime↗
PubMed1979

[Expertise in prosthetics--expert testimony in the courts].

Expert opinions are usually requested by the courts when the dentist is the plaintiff. The patient must provide the dentist with an opportunity to rectify possible defects. The assessment is based on whether or not the prerequisites necessary for successful treatment were present at the time of insertion. The number of lawsuits involving bridgework is increasing.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗
PubMed1990

Rape trauma syndrome as scientific expert testimony.

Behavioral science studies conducted on rape victims reveal a posttraumatic stress disorder which follows the attack known as rape trauma syndrome. Evidence of rape trauma syndrome can be very useful in explaining the behavior of rape victims. Rape trauma syndrome can help corroborate the victim's assertion of lack of consent and also help the jury understand the typical reactions of rape victims. Courts have held that expert testimony of rape trauma syndrome is admissible as evidence of (i) lack of consent, (ii) the amount of damages in civil suits, (iii) a defense to culpable behavior, and (iv) an explanation for behavior of the victim that is inconsistent with the claim of rape. Rape trauma syndrome meets the requirements for admissibility when it is used for the proper purpose and with adequate safeguards to prevent any unfair prejudice. Based on case precedent on the admissibility of rape trauma syndrome as scientific expert testimony, rape trauma syndrome should be admissible if (i) the evidence presented only shows the typical reactions to rape and does not make any legal conclusions as to whether the victim was raped, (ii) the expert is qualified, (iii) a proper foundation is laid, (iv) liberal cross-examination of the expert is allowed, and (v) the defense can introduce its own expert testimony on rape trauma syndrome.

Expert Testimony↗
PubMed2005

Commentary: expert testimony as a potential asset in defense of capital sentencing cases.

Montgomery et al. have documented the extent to which jurors apparently do and do not rely on expert testimony regarding dangerousness and mental illness. This article reviews some of the methodological issues raised by their findings and argues that their results have potential value for appellate defense counsel in appealing death sentences in which trial counsel failed to introduce expert testimony on mental illness.

Capital Punishment↗
PubMed2002

Expert testimony pertaining to battered woman syndrome: its impact on jurors' decisions.

Participants (N = 200) were presented with a criminal homicide trial involving a battered woman who had killed her abuser. Within the trial, both the response history (passive, active) and presence of expert testimony pertaining to battered woman syndrome (present, absent) were systematically varied. As well, half of the participants in each of these conditions were provided with a nullification instruction informing them that they were free to disregard the law and acquit should a strict application of the law result in an unjust verdict. Results indicated that, compared to the passive response condition, the mock jurors were no less receptive to the expert testimony in the active response condition. The impact of the testimony on participants' verdicts, however, was moderated by the nullification instruction. That is, although the presence of the testimony did result in greater verdict leniency, this only occurred when the mock jurors had been released from a strict application of the law. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Adult↗