Perspectives on the role of the eyewitness expert

Extensive controversy over the appropriate application of expert knowledge regarding issues of eyewitness accuracy led to a conference and a special issue of taw and Human Behavior in 1986. Arguments were presented both in support of and against the eyewitness researcher as expert testifier. The cur...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Behavioral sciences & the law 1990-09, Vol.8 (4), p.457-464
Main Authors: Lindsay, R. C. L., MacDonald, Paula, McGarry, Susan
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Extensive controversy over the appropriate application of expert knowledge regarding issues of eyewitness accuracy led to a conference and a special issue of taw and Human Behavior in 1986. Arguments were presented both in support of and against the eyewitness researcher as expert testifier. The current research explored the views of the general public (N = 50), defense attorneys (N = 14), and prosecutors (N = 10) with regard to the use of eyewitness expertise in each of four roles (court‐appointed expert, consultant, researcher, expert tesdfier for the defense). Extensive differences of opinion were found across both samples and expert roles. In general, prosecutors held significantly more negative views of the usefulness of expert witnesses for the defense than did the public or defense attorneys. The role of court‐appointed expert was viewed positively by all three groups and may present a useful alternative to the battles of experts that may result from current practices.
ISSN:0735-3936
1099-0798
DOI:10.1002/bsl.2370080411