Expert Evidence and Jurors’ Views on Expert Witnesses

References

• Becker, R. F. (1997). Scientific evidence and expert testimony handbook: A guide for lawyers, criminal investigators and forensic specialists. Springfield: Charles C Thomas.
   Google Scholar
• Blackwell, S. J. Y. (2007). Child sexual abuse on trial. (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Auckland, New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• Brekke, N., & Borgida, E. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 372–386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Champagne, A., Shuman, D., & Whitaker, E. (1991). An empirical examination of the use of expert witnesses in American courts. Jurimetrics Journal, 31 ( Summer 1991), 373–392.
   Google Scholar
• Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses. (2009). http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1908/0089/latest/DLM1817947.html
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A., & Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379–394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couch, J. V., & Sigler, J. N. (2002). Gender of an expert witness and the jury verdict. The Psychological Record, 52, 281–287
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowley, M. J. (1994). The impact of psychological expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases. (Unpublished PhD thesis), University of Tasmania, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Crowley, M. J., O'Callaghan, G., & Ball, P. L. (1994). The juridical impact of psychological expert testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 89–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 311–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evidence Act. (2006). http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0069/latest/DLM393463.html.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, R., & Wild J. (2004). Evidence - how it works. Continuing Legal Education, Department of the New Zealand Law Society, Seminar, New Zealand Law Society.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, S. G., & Walters, H. A. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 215–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freckelton, I. (1997) Child sexual abuse accommodation evidence: The travails of counterintuitive evidence in Australia and New Zealand. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 15, 247–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freckelton, I., Reddy, P., & Selby, H. (1999). Australian judicial perspectives on expert evidence: An empirical study. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Freckelton, I., Reddy, P., & Selby, H. (2001). Australian Magistrates’ perspectives on expert evidence: A comparative study. Carlton, Victoria: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman-Delahunty, J., Cossins, A., & Martschuk, N. (2014). Persistent misconceptions about child sexual abuse: The impact of specialised educative information and deliberation on mock jurors. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Empirical Studies of Judicial Systems: Citizen participation Around the World (pp. 1–50). Taipei, Taiwan: Institutum Jurisprudentiae Academia Sinica.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman-Delahunty, J., Cossins, A., & O'Brien, K. (2011). A comparison of expert evidence and judicial directions to counter misconceptions in child sexual abuse trials. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44, 196–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey, D. (2012). The Googling Juror: The fate of the jury trial in the digital paradigm. Paper presented to the 13^th Criminal law Congress, Queenstown, New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• Henderson, E., & Seymour, F. W. (2013). Expert witnesses under examination in the New Zealand criminal and family courts. New Zealand Law Foundation. http://www.lawfoundation.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Final-Research-Report-Henderson-Seymour-Expert-Witnesses-Under-Examination.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hosch, H. M. (1980). A comparison of three studies of the influence of expert testimony on jurors. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 297–302.
   Google Scholar
• Klettke, B., Greaesser, A. G., & Powell, M. B. (2010). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: The effects of evidence, coherence and credentials on juror decision making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 481–494.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovera, M. B., Gresham, A. W., Borgida, E., Gray, E., & Regan, P. C. (1997). Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 178–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovera, M. B., Levy, R. J., Borgida, E., & Penrod, S. D. (1994). Expert witnesses in child sexual abuse cases: Effects of expert testimony and cross-examination. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 653–674.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovera, M. B., Russano, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2002). Assessment of the commonsense psychology underlying Daubert: Legal decision makers’ abilities to evaluate expert evidence in hostile work environment cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 180–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClellan, P. (2009). Admissibility of expert evidence under the Uniform Evidence Act. Judicial College of Victoria Emerging Issues in Expert Evidence Workshop, Melbourne, October.
   Google Scholar
• Pipe, M. E., & Henaghan, M. (1996). Accommodating children's testimony: Legal reforms in New Zealand. Criminal Justice & Behaviour, 23, 377–401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose, J. (1999). How jurors see expert witnesses. The Trial Lawyer, 22, 420–426.
   Google Scholar
• Schuller, R. A. (1992). The impact of battered woman syndrome evidence on jury decision processes. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 597–620.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuller, R. A., & Cripps J. (1998). Expert evidence pertaining to battered women: The impact of gender of expert and timing of testimony. Law and Human Behaviour, 22, 17–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuller, R. A., & Hastings, P. A. (1996). Trials of battered women who kill: The impact of alternative forms of expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 2, 167–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuller, R. A., Terry, D., & McKimmie, B. (2001). The impact of an expert's gender on jurors’ decisions. Law and Psychology Review, 23, 59–78.
   Google Scholar
• Schutz, J. S. (1997). The expert witness and jury comprehension: An expert's perspective. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 7, 107–119.
   Google Scholar
• Seymour, F., Blackwell, S., Calvert, S., & McLean, B. (2013). Counterintuitive expert psychological evidence in child sexual abuse trials in New Zealand. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 21, 511–522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundby, S. E. (1997). The jury as critic: An empirical look at how capital juries perceive expert and lay testimony. Virginia Law Review, 83, 1109–1188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, W., Cameron, N., & Tinsley, Y. (1999). Jury trials in New Zealand - A survey of jurors. (Unpublished report). Wellington: Victoria University.
   Google Scholar