Psychologists have made considerable progress in several distinct areas of empirical work about eyewitness identifications. A number of commentors have questioned what a psychologist may contribute in a case in which eyewitness testimony is the major evidence identifying the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime charged.
A review of case law reveals that admissibility of expert testimony on eyewitness identification, like that of other social framework testimony, has been fraught with legal confusion, while reports of disagreement among research scientists have been exaggerated. DOIĪ considerable number of psychological studies on non statistical heuristics, such as the base rate fallacy, predict the susceptibility of laypersons to make biased generalizations and judgments concerning memory performance. These elements include: (a) an evidence-based interview framework, (b) opportunities for skill development, (c) quality assurance for interviewer and organizational performance, and (d) a reliable method of recording verbal evidence. The chapter is structured around four main elements that are essential for promoting good interviewing. Based on our understanding of current research on investigative interviewing as well as international police interviewer training practices, we provide an overview of key criteria for evidence-based practice along with a list of common limitations that inhibit adherence to best interviewing practice. The long-standing gap between best practice interview technique - as taught in training curricula - and actual practice in the field is a dominant theme in contemporary interviewing research. This chapter provides an overview of police organizational approaches to enhancing the quality of evidence obtained from adult and child victims of sexual assault, and reviews the degree to which actual organizational strategies are aligned with the guidance on what constitutes recommended (ideal) practice. The chapter concludes with recommendations for future research.
Uc berkeley homicide and assault qarc trial#
However, no experimental research to date has demonstrated an association between uses of special measures and trial outcomes. Although witnesses reported positive experiences with these measures, juries may perceive evidence as less credible when presented in a prerecorded investigative interview or via CCTV compared to live, face-to-face testimony in court. In Australia, the most commonly used measures are CCTV and prerecorded investigative interviews, which is consistent with international research findings. This chapter reviews studies on special measures to determine (a) the prevalence of special measure use in Australian jurisdictions (b) the effectiveness of special measures and (c) the influence of special measures on conviction rates in CSA cases. They include closed-circuit television (CCTV) and prerecorded investigative interviews. Special measures are alternative modes of evidence presentation by vulnerable witnesses, such as child and adult complainants in child sexual assault (CSA) cases. Bachelor of Arts, University of Witwatersrand.Doctor of Philosophy, University of Washington.
Professor Goodman-Delahunty works internationally as an expert consultant in relation to human memory, jury behaviour, and child and adult sexual assault. Professor Goodman-Delahunty has led international research projects and produced important recommendations for justice reform on topics such as sexual harassment, police interrogations, questioning processes, legal interpreting, and assessments of psychological injuries. She was an Administrative Judge for the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a mediator with JAMS. Before moving to an academic appointment in Australia, she practiced law for 20 years in the private and public sectors. Appointed a Fellow of the American Psychological Association in 1996, she was Editor of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. She was a Visiting Professor i n China, England, Hong Kong, India, and Japan. She has secured over $9 million in research funding and published over 200 scholarly articles and books. Trained in Law and Cognitive Psychology, she conducts transdisciplinary empirical studies to promote evidence-based practice to enhance justice.
Jane Goodman-Delahunty is a Professor of the University of Newcastle Law School and a Member of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
0 kommentar(er)
