Expert testimony in legal proceedings and evidence

Expert Testimony

One area of legal psychology that has received a great deal of attention in the profession is the use of expert testimony to refute eyewitness testimony. Should psychologists be allowed to refute an eyewitness' testimony in a criminal case? In a related issue, should lawyers be allowed to hire trial consultants for jury selection, witness preparation, etc. Use arguments from the text to support your position.

Despite the expression 'seeing is believing' many factors can result in inaccurate eyewitness testimony. Personal biases can cause an eyewitness to remember events very differently from how they actually occurred. If an individual a witness encountered is later accused of a crime, the eyewitness may be far more likely to remember events in a negative light with the benefit of hindsight. Being in a crowd, in a high-stress situation, or being of a different culture or ethnic group of the defendant can also influence eyewitness testimony. For example, a person might 'finger' someone who is of Muslim origin as the criminal, simply because the individual (perhaps subconsciously) believes that everyone dressed in traditional Muslim garb 'looks alike.' A psychologist can be useful in bringing to light how individuals are more likely to misidentify people of different races and the fact that eyewitness testimony is not always credible. "One U.S. Court said this of the problems with eyewitness identification: 'We think it is evident that an identification of an accused made by a witness for the first time in the courtroom may often be of little testimonial force as the witness may have had opportunities to see the accused and to have heard him referred to by a certain name; whereas a prior identification, considered in connection with the circumstances surrounding its making, serves to aid the court in determining the trustworthiness of the identifications made in the courtroom'" (McAtlin 2009).