Expert Testimony Midterm

Module 2-6 (MC & SA)

how do the Judge’s goal and the Lawyer’s goal differ?

the lawer wants to win the case when the judge wants to get the truth

what are “triers of fact”?

The individuals or entities, such as judges or juries, who evaluate the evidence in a trial and make decisions based on that evidence.

it is important that expert witnesses _________ and not __________

educate; advocate

what is the job of an expert witness?

to help jurors and triers of fact understand relevant issues.

what does it mean that the judge is the gatekeeper?

It means the judge is responsible for determining the admissibility of evidence, including expert testimony, ensuring it meets legal standards before being presented to the jury.

[Possible SA] what were some examples of “junk science” talked about in class?

1. Phrenology: An outdated pseudoscience that claimed that intelligence and behavioural traits could be determined by the shape and contours of the skull.

2. Eugenics: A theory of selective breeding that was used to justify forced sterilization in the name of “improving the human race/ gene pool”

3. Microscopic Hair Analysis: The process of comparing hair from a crime scene to a hair sample taken from a suspect.

4. Bitemark Evidence: The process of comparing bite marks found at a crime scene/ on a victim to the dental impressions of a suspect (super super subjective)

which forensic ID procedure is believed to produce the most false positives out of any forensic identification procedure?

Bitemark evidence

what is the story of the case of Frye V. United States (1923). What did it establish?

James Alphonzo Frye was convicted of murder and his lawyers attempted to introduce evidence from a "lie detector" test based on systolic blood pressure readings (it was not allowed to be admitted as evidence)

Frye V. United States (1923) involved a legal case where the admissibility of polygraph test results was questioned. The court established the "Frye Standard," determining that scientific evidence must be generally accepted by the relevant scientific community to be admissible in court.

what is the prescident of general acceptance?

A legal standard established in Frye V. United States (1923) that requires scientific evidence to be generally accepted by the relevant scientific community for admissibility in court.

what are some problems with “general acceptance” being the only criterion for admissiblity?

• the science that the field generally accepts may be wrong (i.e. the major of the field may be incorrect)

• general acceptance is a slow process. it takes a while for cutting edge science to be generally accepted

• with the growth of science and its disciplines (and sub-disciplines) it becomes hard to know which “community” must be consulted to determine acceptance for admissibility

• changing externalities affect experts (concerns over expert bias so there are calls for stricter controls)

• changing externalities affecting the law (values of hte public/judges concern over jurors being too heavily swayed by expert witnesses, so there are calls for stricter controls)

what 4 overarching principles should judges use to guide the admissibility of evidence?

Judges should guide admissibility based on fairness, efficiency, truth, and justice.

[Possible SA] what is the Daubert criteria? what 4 factors make up the daubert criteria?

A legal standard for admissibility of scientific evidence and expert testimony established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993).

The four factors include:

1. testability or “falsifiability” of the technique

• The scientific method in question must be able to be disproved if given adequite data/contradictory observable findings.

  • (if such contradictory findings are provided, the theory must either be abandoned or modified to fit these results)

1. known error rates (doesn’t apply to all expert testimony)

• Known error rates refer to the documented frequency of inaccuracies in the scientific technique being evaluated. This factor helps determine the reliability of the method used in producing evidence.

  • note: if simply giving general context to the jurors about topics like coercion in confessions, it may not  be needed cuz you’re not making conclusions but just providing context.

1. peer review

• The peer review criterion refers to whether the scientific technique has undergone evaluation by other experts in the field. It assesses the credibility and reliability of the method based on scrutiny from qualified professionals.

1. general acceptance in the relevant scientific community

• the frye standard of general consenus in the scientific community

what types of expert testimony make exception to the daubert criteria?

Some forms of expert testimony, such as expert opinions based solely on experience, lay testimony, and certain types of specialized knowledge, may not require strict adherence to Daubert criteria and can be admissible based on relevance and helpfulness to the jury.

Clinical exceptions are noted for example. this may apply in custody issues for example 

[Possible Short Answer] What are the differences and similarities between the Frye and Daubert criteria?

Similarities:

• Both expand the role of the judge as the gatekeeper of expert testimony and add a criterion for the judge to consider

Differences:

• Daubert adds more criteria for the judge to consider (falsifiability/testability, known error rates, peer review, and general acceptance)

• Daubert is more focused on methodology than the consensus on the results*

• While both have room for discretion, Daubert is more flexible

do all Daubert Criterions and Mohan criterions have to be met for the expert testimony to be admissible?

No, not all Daubert (or Mohan) criteria must be met for expert testimony to be admissible. The judge has discretion to determine the relevance and reliability of the testimony based on a combination of criteria, assessing the overall scientific validity rather than strict adherence.

remember: the daubert criteria is done to establish scientific validity and reliability with the daubert standard. you don’t need all the criteria but you must have scientific validity and reliability established for the standard.

what is the Canadian Criteria for expert testimony? what criterions does it have and which one mainly differs from the Daubert criterion?

the Canadian criteria for expert testimony is the Mohan standard

this outlines 4 criterions for admissibility:

1. testimony must be relevant

2. testimony must be necessary to assit the trier of fact (Judges don’t want experts making judgements about things that jurors could make judgements about for themselves - i.e. common sense stuff)

3. testimony must not be in breach of an exclusionary rule (meaning that expert testimony can’t be prejudicial or telling the jury that one side is lying or someething like that)

4. testimony must be offered by a qualified expert

the 3rd criterion is the main differntiating criterion betweenthe Mohan standard and the Dabuert standard.

****(know this difference) how does the Daubert standard and the Dabuert Criteria differ? which 4 criterions are given for each?

The Daubert standard and the Daubert criteria differ primarily in their application and focus. The Daubert standard provides a framework for judges to assess the admissibility of expert testimony based on

1. that the evidence is relevant and additional

2. that the expert testimony assits the trier of fact beyond common knowledge,

3. that the testimony shows scietnific validility and reliability (Determined by the Daubert Criteria)

4. the fact that the evidence is provided by a qualified expert

while the criteria offer specific factors to consider. The four Daubert criteria include: 

1. testability

2. known error rates

3. peer review

4. general acceptance in the scientific community.

do more states use the Frye standard or the Daubert standard?

The majority of states use the Daubert standard for the admissibility of expert testimony. However, some states still adhere to the Frye standard, which emphasizes general acceptance in the scientific community.

What 3 cases make up the Daubert Trilogy? What did each case establish?

1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993):
   Established the standard for the admissibility of scientific expert testimony (AKA the daubert criteria).

2. Joiner v. General Electric Co. (1997):
   The General Electric Co. v. Joiner case established that trial courts have discretion to exclude expert testimony if there are significant gaps between the evidence and the expert's conclusion, and that appellate courts should review these decisions using an "abuse of discretion" standard, not a more stringent one. The ruling reinforced that expert testimony must have a reliable foundation, examining the link between the expert's reasoning and the scientific evidence presented

3. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999): established the judge as the gatekeeper for ALL expert testimony - not just scientific expert testimony (meaning for experts who are maybe engineers or professionals butn ot scientists)

with regards to the Daubert criteria, which criterions do Judges understand the best and the worst (Based on Gatowski et al., 2002 study)

Less than 10% of judges undersood:

1. testability or “falsifiaability” of the technique

2. known error rate

over 70% of judges understood;

3. peer review

4. generally accepted in the relevant scientific community

what 4 steps does an attorney go through when determining if an expert and their testimony will be useful to their case?

1. vet the expert - perhaps through a consultation but they need to make sure the expert can and WILL take your case

2. retainer - lay out whats being asked of the expert and establish a retainer/pay for the expert

3. get opinion early - it takes a long time for an expert witness to formulate their opinion and prepare for trial, so they must get their opinion early (this way too if the expert’s opinions go against the attorney’s case they can choose to drop the expert entirely)

4. prepare testimony - if the attorney agrees with the expert, they can begin to prepare their testimony for court.

in the context of expert testimony, what is the “ultimate issue”?

The "ultimate issue" refers to a question that the jury must answer, which often involves whether a party is liable or whether a certain standard of care was met. Expert witnesses can provide their opinions on these matters to assist the jury in understanding complex issues relevant to their decision-making.

BUT experts cannot testify to the ultimate issue

can experts testify to the ultimate issue?

No, experts cannot testify to the ultimate issue; they can only provide opinions to assist the jury.

what is “social framework evidence” testimony?

Social framework evidence is testimony that provides a contextual understanding of social situations, norms, or behaviors relevant to a case, helping the jury interpret evidence in light of broader societal factors.

[Possible SA] why might expert testimony be helpful on confessions/interrogations?

1. confessions are powerful evidence

• fundamental attribution error, the thought of “i’d never do that!” and the notion that confessions are inherently statements against the self.

2. it is not possible to reliably distinguish between true and false confessions

• 54% accurate (48% in cops, 59% in college students)

3. laypeople tend not to understand false confessions and the risk factors for them.

can you reliably distingish between true and false confessions?

no

what is the fundamental attribution error, and how does it affect confessions?

The fundamental attribution error is a cognitive bias where individuals overemphasize personal characteristics and ignore situational factors when explaining others' behavior. In the context of confessions, this bias can lead jurors to misinterpret a suspect's actions as indicative of guilt without considering the pressures or circumstances that may have influenced their confession.

[Potential SA] how can confessions corrupt other evidence?

there is also this idea that evidence is not independent of other evidence. this means that while the confession may be discredited, it’s existance (albeit coerced) still affects how jurors view other evidence

there is a notion that potentially exculpatory evidence is corrupted by a confession itself

on average how accurate are people at detecting deception or false confessions?

54%

however, many people are much more confidence that they’d be able to recognize false confessions or deception. this is dangerous.

how does the accuracy of detecting false confessions differ between police and college students?

college student accuracy: 59%

police accuracy: 48%

what is the reid technique? how many steps does it have?

The Reid Technique is an investigative method used for interviewing and interrogation, consisting of nine steps

does the science on false confessions pass the frye test?

The Frye test assesses the admissibility of scientific evidence, and the science on false confessions has generally been found to pass this test, as it relies on established psychological principles and empirical research.

• research is peer-reviewed (in psych, crximinology, law, etc..)

• comprehensive offical “white paper” of the american psychology-law society (The white paper of the American Psychology-Law Society is a comprehensive report that summarizes and reviews the research on forensic psychology issues, including false confessions, establishing guidelines and recommendations based on empirical findings.)

• multiple amicus briefs submitted to the US supreme court

• included in psych textbooks and courses

• resent servey of experts shows that they tend to agree

SO YES!

in 2018 experts were serveyed to see their consensus false confessions and if they’d be generally agreed upon by the community. how many agreed?

strong consensus - 80% agreed on 16/30 findings as being sufficiently reliable to present to court

(some notable things they agreed upon was the risk of age on false confesssions (youth) and how it increases suggestability)

what is contamination analysis done by expert witnesses?

the analysis of which details acctually originated from the supsect VS what details originated from interrogators and were potentially parroted back by the suspect.

[Potential SA] what personal risk factors for false confessiosn were talked about in class?

1. being a youth

• youth have a reward hypersensitivty and a risk insensitivity. additionally, they’re impuslive and suggestible. they also acquiesce to authority

1. having intellectual disability

• challenged in understanding their rights, impaired communication and social skills, susceptible to deception and misleading questions, suggestible

1. having mental illness

• challenged in understanding their rights, impulsive, decreased ability to withstand pressure and increased desire to please, suggestible

1. being subject to a temporary state like:

   1. extreme emotional disturbrance

   2. sleep deprivation

   3. intoxication and substance abuse

   4. drug withdrawl

[Potential SA] what are some situation risk factors for false confessions that we talked about in class?

1. lengthy interrogation - prolonged questioning can lead to fatigue and increased suggestibility. They can also decrease our self-regulation abilities hindering our ability to resist pressure and think straight.

2. coercive tactics - aggressive questioning and manipulation can create pressure to confess.

3. lack of legal representation - absence of an attorney can increase vulnerability to coercion.

4. highly emotional situations - stress from traumatic events can impair judgment.

5. Isolation & Setting - being alone in a high-pressure environment can lead to feelings of helplessness and increase compliance. (also note the time of the interrogation. if dragged out of bet at 3 AM to be interrogated, this can increase anxiety and perhaps contribute to sleep deprivation

what is the difference between “interviews” and “interrogations”. which uses the Reid technique?

Interviews are fact-finding conversations, while interrogations are confrontational and aimed at eliciting confessions. The Reid technique is primarily used in interrogations.

self-regulation is a __________

finite resource

what are some accusatory interrogation tactics?

telling the suspect that there are benefits to confessing, that refusing to confess is costly, and that denial of guilt is unfeasible.

minimization and maximization tactics are also used

what are minimization and maximization tactics that are used during police interrogations.

Minimization tactics downplay the severity of the crime or consequences, making the suspect feel more comfortable confessing. Maximization tactics exaggerate the potential punishments to pressure the suspect into admitting guilt.

what is a big factor when it comes to maximiztaion tactics in interrogations?

confrontation and emphasizing certainty

• “we know you did it. don’t tell me you didn’t, we know that you did it! I just need to know why you did it.”

besides maximisation and minimisation tactics, what are some ways interrogators apply social and psycholical leverage to obtain a confession?

• apply feelings of guilt and shame

• appeal to honor, morality, manhood, or religion

• impmly the loss of social status if they do not confess.

what is a common theme or tactic used within minimization tactis during interrogations?

the interrogator will try to get the suspect to blame someone else (the victim or co-accused)

• “yea, i would have robbed them too. they had it coming by wearing that watch outside!”

• “we know your friend is the ring-leader and you’re just following orders”

what is the “alternate question” within interrogations?

A technique where the interrogator presents the suspect with two choices, often to lead them to choose a path that implies guilt or confession. This strategy can create the illusion of control while guiding them toward admitting involvement.

it pits 2 options for the suspect

1. the version where they are a horrible monster

2. the minimized version where they save face and downplay the seriousness of hte crime

“are you a cold-blooded killer or just someone who made a mistake?”

• both options have the suspect accepting/admitting guilt

what are some legally prohibited tactics that would make a confession inadmissable?

• using physical abuse

• direct threats or promises 

• witholding sleep or other necessities (food or bathroom)

• refusing right to counsel

what are tactics that ARE legal, but are discouraged?

• using handcuffs or other restraints

• having your sidearm visible

• having the interrogation exceed 4 hours (exceeding 6 is often considered unacceptable)

• obstructing the view of the exist in non-custodial interrogations

• persuing a “black-out” theme "(suggesting to the suspect that the crime happened while they were blacked-out)

• using false evidence

• posing as the suspect’s advocate

what were examples of forensic identification evidence talked about in class?

1. DNA

2. latnet prints (fingerprints)

3. hair 

4. tool marks

5. footprints

6. ballistics

7. handwriting analysis

how and why does forensic identification evidence go wrong?

Forensic identification evidence can go wrong due to contamination, misinterpretation of results, human error, or reliance on outdated methodologies. These issues can lead to wrongful convictions and undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system.

with regards to forensic evidence (evidence used to make forensic identifications) what is the difference between class characteristics and individual characteristics?

class characteristics:

• broad characteristics that groups of people can have/be apart of (example: Blood type or bullet caliber)

individual characteristics:

• matches based on feaetures of the item that should be completely unique to that person/sample (example, tool prints or fingerprints - ALTHOUGH these are now debatable with modern science)

what types of source attributions exist? how do they differ from one another?

qualitative

• the two samples “probably have a common source”

• these are subjective judgements as there are no empirical standards on which to base such matches

match

• the samples “match” or “are consistent” and thus “could have a common source” (example: you could say that the shoe prints match as in the two prints are the same, but you CANNOT conclude that the two prints came from the very same shoe. just the same type of shoe)

match+stats

• the samples are consistent and could have come from the same source, and the examiner provides a probability of obtaining a match by random chance (example: DNA often falls into this as it states the probability of 2 individual people sharing the same DNA - meaning the odds of having that DNA be at the scene coming from a random chance/ different source.)

individualization

• this means that the samples have been “positively identified” as being from the same source “to the exclusion of all other persons/items being at the source”. this would mean there is no possible other outcome to exist that would cause such a sample to exist at the scene

• whether this is truly possible is debatable  (DNA theoretically has this possibility, but it would require their whole genome to be exposed)

what does someone look for when comparing DNA samples?

When comparing DNA samples, analysts look for matching genetic markers, alleles, and sequences. They assess the degree of similarity to determine potential relatedness or exclusion, often using statistical analysis to estimate the probability of a match occurring by random chance.

what are latent prints?

Latent prints are invisible fingerprint impressions left on surfaces from the natural oils and sweat of a person's skin, which can be developed and analyzed for identification purposes.

how accurate is latent print analysis?

it is a highly subjective process that is susceptible to error and bias. natural discrepancies will occur in the print, but it is hard to confidently say that these natural discrepancies are present and its not just discrepancies from the print not matching the suspect.

what is tool mark analysis? how does it work?

Tool mark analysis is the examination of the impressions left by tools on various surfaces to identify and compare toolmarks. It works by matching unique microscopic features of the marks created by tools to establish associations between the tool and the mark.

how scientifically backed is tool mark analysis?

matching of tool marks has little to no scientific validation behind it.

with regards to tool mark analysis, what classification of source analysis would be provided?

theoretically, individualization would exist (the tool would be truly individual due to microscopic wear and imperfections). however, there is little to no scientific validation behind tool mark analysis.

what is ballistics? what type of source attribution analysis would be possible with this?

The study of projectiles and firearms, focusing on the behavior of bullets and their trajectories, as well as their interactions with targets.

theoretically, individualization should be possible - BUT, there are no standards in making source attribtuions so subjetcivity comes into play. 

can 2 bullets show discrepancies from one another even when fired from the exact same gun?

yes. this is why individualization in tool mark analysis is only theroretically possible but liekly is not likely not possible in practice.

what is forensic ondontology? is it accurate?

Forensic odontontology is the study of dental records and bite marks for identification purposes in legal proceedings. It involves examining dental structures to provide evidence in cases of mass disasters, abuse, and unknown remains.

it is not very reliable, as it is believed to produce the highed amounts of false positives out of any forensic procedure

how long does it take for bitemarks to change on a victim’s skin?

it takes only 10 mins for bitemarks to start changing on a victims skin, so there WILL be descrepancies with the sample by the time it is gathered by a forensics team. this means likely the bite mark on the victim gathered would show descrepancies from dental impressions taken from the exact same source.

what types of cognitive biases and human errors occur for fornesic examiners?

• confirmation bias: (Confirmation bias is the tendency to favor information that confirms one’s preconceptions, leading to skewed analysis or interpretation of evidence.)

• tunnel vision (the tendency to search for and interpret evidence in a way that confirms pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses.)

what is the “harmless error rule”?

The "harmless error rule" is a legal doctrine that holds that certain errors or defects in a trial process do not warrant the reversal of a conviction if the overall outcome of the trial was not affected. This rule recognizes that procedural mistakes may not always compromise a defendant's right to a fair trial.

*basically where mistakes may be grounds for appeal are overlooked due to the ample amount of other strong evidence provided (BUT this assumes that the strong evidence is dependent from the errors which is often NOT the case!)

[Possible SA] what is the prosecutor’s fallacy? what is the defense attoryney’s fallacy? How do they differ?

Prosecutor’s fallacy:

• equating the random match probability with source probability (the probability that the matching items have a difference source)

1. assuming the person is innocent, what is the liklihood that this DNA would have been a match to the sample from the crime scene (random match probability)

2. assuming that the DNA is a match, what is the liklihood that the person is innocent? (source probability)

NO NOT EQUATE THESE. THEY ARE DIFFERENT

Defense Attoryney’s Fallacy:

• 2 DNA samples are matched on a characteristic found in 1% of the population - and that’s still a lot of people os it is irrelevant

• “you just said the odds of a random match are 1 in 10 million? Well in the US the population is al ittle over 320 million, which means thare are 32 people in the country that oculd match this DNA. So according to the DNA, the odds are actually 31 to 1 that the defendant is NOT the person who left the DNA at the scene. in other wods, there is a 97% chance hes NOT guilty!”

  • THIS IS WRONG!!!

what is the CSI effect? is it real

The "CSI effect" refers to the phenomenon where jurors' perceptions of forensic evidence are influenced by crime television shows, leading them to expect more scientific proof and to overestimate the reliability of forensic techniques in real court cases.

HOWEVER, its a yes and no kinda situation

• people who watch more crime shows do indeed have different expectations about what will be used in court, but there doesn’t seem to be an impact on this and verdicts. so it does exist, but it doesn’t seem to be impactful

approx 70% of wrongful convictions exhonerated by DNA evidence involved ____________________

mistaken eyewitness identification

what is the relationship between condifence and eyewitness accuracy?

they are weakly correlated. People may be confident and say stuff like “I could never forget his face” but that doesn’t mean they are any more accurate. correlation is +0.29 (weakly correlated)

are eyewitnesses and their testimony more likely to be used by the crown/prosecution or the defense?

mostly the defense.

who was Munsterberg? what did he suggest and how was it recieved?

he was a dude who suggested that psychology/psychologists had something useful to offer the legal community

he was NOT well recieved at the time, but is well recieved now

what are the 3 stages of memory?

Encoding, Storage, Retrieval.

how do recall and recognition memory differ? Which is more suggestible?

Recall involves retrieving information without cues, while recognition involves identifying previously encountered information. Recognition is generally more suggestible than recall as recoognition requires cues to generate memory.

what does “memory is reconstructive” mean?

It means that memories are not exact replicas of past events but are instead reconstructed during recall, which can lead to alterations and inaccuracies.

do most people believe that memory is reconstructuve?

no. 63% of people in a study agreed that memory worked like a video recording/camera. this is SCARY and untrue.

what are estimator variables and system variables? how do they differ?

Estimator variables are factors that influence the reliability of eyewitness testimony and occur outside the control of the justice system, such as lighting conditions and witness stress. In contrast, system variables are factors that can be manipulated by the legal system, such as the way information is presented to witnesses during interviews.

what are some juror fallacies?

Juror fallacies are misconceptions or biases that jurors may hold which can distort their judgment during a trial. Examples include the belief that eyewitness testimony is always reliable or that more evidence always equates to a stronger case.

are photo array lineups or physical lineups more common?

Photo array lineups are more common than physical lineups in modern criminal investigations. They allow for quicker and less intrusive identification of suspects.

how do simultaneious vs sequential lineups differ?

Simultaneous lineups present all suspects at once, allowing witnesses to compare them directly, while sequential lineups present suspects one at a time, reducing comparative judgment and minimizing false identifications.

which type of lineup uses relative judgement and which uses absolute judgement?

Simultaneous lineups use relative judgment, while sequential lineups use absolute judgment.

what is a showup?

A showup is a police procedure where a witness is presented with a single suspect to determine if they recognize them as the perpetrator of a crime. This method is often used shortly after the crime occurs. 

it is HIGHLY suggestive and not recommended to be used.

[Possible SA] what are some Estimator variables that affect eyewitness identification?

• lighting at the scene

• distance between witness and crime/criminal

• the use of a disguise/change of appearance by offender

• stress

• weapon effect

• cross-race/own-race bias

• familiarity between offender and witness

• age of witness

• retention interval (delay before questioning)

• attention during event

how does age affect eyewitness accuracy?

Age can impact eyewitness accuracy, with children and older adults often showing lower reliability in identification due to factors like suggestibility and cognitive decline.

kids acquisece more and have a greater social pressure to please

elderly/older adults have more metacognition about their memory which hinders them

what is the cross-race effect (own-race bias)?

• how it is more difficult for people to recognize faces of people that are outside of their racial group.

how large is the cross-race effect/own-race bias?

its not huge (but misidentification is 1.5 times more likely with this effect)

• but it is not consistent

[Possible SA] wha are some System variables that affect eyewitness identifications?

• lineup presentation (simultaneious vs sequential vs showup)

• how lineup is administrated (blind administration)

• lineup instruction (telling eyewitness that the lineup doesn’t have to be target present)

• foil/filler construction/selection

• post-identification feedback (if the officer told the witness “good job, you picked the right guy!”)

what are some good lineup instructions that should be provided?

Good lineup instructions inform eyewitnesses that the suspect may or may not be present in the lineup, ensuring they understand that they should only make a selection if they are confident. Also, once the selection process is over, the investigator should ask the winess tos tate in their own words how certain they are of their identification (This is really important)

what is a blind administration of a lineup?

A procedure where the officer conducting the lineup does not know who the suspect is, minimizing bias and influence on the eyewitness's identification.

fillers for a lineup should be selected based on ____________ and not _______________

similarity to the description of the suspect; similarity to the suspect themself

what is post identification feedback? what effect can it have?

Post-identification feedback is information given to an eyewitness after they have made an identification, which can influence their confidence in the accuracy of their identification. Such feedback can lead to an increased confidence level, even if the identification was incorrect, potentially impacting the reliability of their testimony.

how big should a lineup be? how does it differ between canada and the USA?

canada: 6-20 ppl (avg 11)

US: 5-12 ppl (avg 6)

what are serial identifications? how does this affect the “commitment effect”?

Serial identifications involve an eyewitness making multiple identifications of a suspect over time, which can strengthen their memory of the suspect. This can contribute to the "commitment effect," where the initial identification increases the likelihood of subsequent identifications being consistent, regardless of accuracy.

which 4 factors were found do decrase mistaken identifications but not decrease hits/ correct IDs?

1. blind lineups

2. bias-reducing instructions

3. unbiased lineup selection

4. immediate conficence ratings post selection.

the Wells et al., (2020) Ffficial Scientific Review Paper of the American Psychology-Law Society revealed 9 steps to increase the reliability and integrity of eyewitness identification. what were these 9 steps (3-6 of which already existed before the paper)

1. pre-lineup interview

2. evidence-based suspicion

3. keep lineup administration double blind

4. appropriate fillers

5. unbiased lineup instructions

6. collect confidence statement immediately following the lineup

7. videotape the identification process

8. avoid serial identification

9. avoid showups

3-6 known prior to the paper

what is the difference in the sensitivity effect and the skepticism effect in mock juror studies?

sensitivity effect:

• eyewitness testimony sensitised jurors to eyewitness testimony made under good conditions

skepticism effect:

• make jurors skeptical to all eyewitness, rather than just to eyewitness testimony made under bad conditions.

which is more effective, expert testimony or jury instructions?

Expert testimony is generally found to be more effective than jury instructions in influencing jurors' decisions regarding evidence, particularly in complex cases.

what did the US supreme court deem to be the panacea (thing that acts as a safeguard) to eyewitness misidentification?

cross-examinination 

what two core questions are asked to assess fitness to stand trial? what factors would make someone unfit to stand trial?

1. can the defendatn understand the charges

2. can the defendant assist counsel with their defense?
   

unfit if:

1. cant understand the proceedings

2. unable to effectively communicate with counsel

3. incapable of understanding consequences

*all must be due to intellectual or mental disorder

is the burden of proof on the defense or prosecution when it comes to competency to stand trial?

the burden of proof is on the defense. it is assumed you are fit unless proven by the defense.

what is legal insanity/NCRMD?

Legal insanity, also known as Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD), refers to a mental condition that impairs an individual's ability to understand the nature of their actions or distinguish right from wrong at the time of the crime.

what latin term does NCRMD stem from?

mens rea (meaning “guilty mind”)

how often is NCRMD used? how often is it sucessful?

it is used <1% of the time in cases. of that 1%, it is sucessful 20% of the time.

is NCRMD a legal or psychological concept?

its a legal concept