NCJ Number
101654
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 10 Issue: 1-2 Dated: (June 1986) Pages: 47-61
Date Published
1986
Length
15 pages
Annotation
A review of the general evidentiary standards regarding expert testimony by experimental psychologists emphasizes the way those principles have been applied in the context of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identifications.
Abstract
The Federal Rules of Evidence establish broad criteria for the admission of expert testimony and place few limitations on the form in which the expert may testify. The decision in United States v. Amaral in 1973 established that scientific expert testimony must satisfy four criteria to be admissible: (1) the witness must be a qualified expert, (2) the testimony must concern a proper subject matter, (3) it must conform to a generally accepted explanatory theory, and (4) its probative value must outweigh its prejudicial effect. The courts recently appear to have shifted away from their unfavorable attitudes toward expert testimony on eyewitness reliability. Many courts now believe that psychological research on human perception and memory has progressed to the point that the expert's testimony may be both reliable and helpful enough to justify its admission in appropriate cases. Better education of courts, more research, careful case selection, and careful focusing of testimony would help allay the judicial system's historical concerns about admitting such expert testimony. 22 references. (Author abstract modified)