We tested whether an opposing expert is an effective method of educating jurors about scientific validity by manipulating the methodological quality of defense expert testimony and the type of opposing prosecution expert testimony (none, standard, addresses the other expert's methodology) within the context of a written trial transcript. The presence of opposing expert testimony caused jurors t...

Experimental psychologists increasingly are asked to give expert testimony in court, especially with regard to issues of eyewitness reliability. Whether or not experimental psychologists should give expert testimony on these matters is a controversial issue. The empirical literature suggests that potential jurors do not have a good understanding of the variables influencing eyewitness accuracy ...

Expert testimony is an integral part of legal decision making. It informs judges and juries about a wide variety of topics. The assumption underlying its admission is that the average factfinder may lack enough knowledge about scientific or technical topics to make fully informed decisions in the absence of such testimony. Judges and juries are expected to be able to better understand these top...

Psychologists have long been concerned about the use of eyewitness testimony in the courtroom. Recently, it has been suggested that experimental psychologists should testify as expert witnesses in cases involving eyewitnesses to inform the jury about problems with eyewitness testimony. In this article we examine the arguments offered in favor of the use of expert testimony about eyewitnesses. W...