Xem mẫu

Current Issues in Forensic Psychology 407 there had been at least 450 cases in 26 states in which eyewit-ness researchers had testified as experts (Fulero, 1993). It has been pointed out that “no such problem of admissibility was raised in the 1950s when clinical psychologists began to tes-tify on mental disorders or when social psychologists first appeared to describe the debilitating personality conse-quences of segregation” (Loh, 1981 p, 332). One reason for the cool legal reception to eyewitness researchers is that the law requires particularized proof rather than general proof (e.g., average responses as shown by research), and the law is reluctant to assume that there is a one-to-one correspondence betweenpotentialunreliabilityofeyewitnesses(whichiscon-ceded) and its actual impact in a particular trial (which must be proven). Another issue is that many courts have assumed that awareness of the fallibility of eyewitness evidence is alreadywithinthe“commonknowledge”ofmostjurors,leav-ing no need for expert testimony (Brigham et al., 1999). Thetypeofissuestudiedmayalsomakeadifference.Wells (1978, 1993) asserted that psychologists should concentrate on studying system variables, that is, factors that are change-able within the system (e.g., police procedures, interrogation techniques, fairness of lineups), rather than estimator vari-ables, whose impact in any particular situation can only be estimated (e.g., level of stress, weapon focus, race). Wells as-serted that because of their potential usefuless for improving procedures, the results of system-variable research would be more readily accepted by the legal system than would estimator-variable research. It remains to be seen whether the legalsystemwillbecomemorereceptiveinthefuturetoexpert testimony about the memory of eyewitnesses, or whether the resultsofeyewitnessresearchfindtheirwayintothelegalsys-tem by other means (e.g., via science-translation briefs). Clinical Forensic Evaluations Little research was directed toward improving clinicians’ evaluations for the courts until the 1980s. This changed dramatically across the next 20 years, heralded by seminal works published early in the 1980s. Among these were Monahan’s (1981) treatise summarizing the serious limits of our abilities to assess and predict violent behavior, the first book to summarize what we did and did not know about competence to stand trial as a legal and forensic assessment issue (Roesch & Golding, 1980), the publication of a system-atic model for the future development of instruments to as-sess a variety of legal competencies (Grisso, 1986), and the first comprehensive texts on the full range of forensic psy-chological evaluations for the courts in criminal, civil, and juvenile cases (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1987; Weiner & Hess, 1987). The importance of improving psychologists’ abilities to assess the potential for future violence among offenders and persons with mental illnesses was driven also by legal cases during the 1980s. Most notable among these was Barefoot v. Estelle (1983), in which the U.S. Supreme Court acknowl-edged experts’ inability to provide reliable predictions but, ironically, determined that they should continue to be con-sulted by the courts. Several large-scale research projects to improve our abilities to assess the risk of future violence began in the 1980s and had a major impact on practice when their results emerged in the 1990s. Among these were the work of researchers who developed and validated compre-hensive violence risk assessment tools to provide estimates of likelihood of reoffending among prisoners (e.g., Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998), likelihood of future violence related to psychopathy (Hare, 1996), and likelihood of vio-lence among persons with mental disorders after their release from psychiatric hospitals (Steadman et al., 1998). Research to improve our conceptualization and assess-ment of abilities related to legal competencies grew exponen-tially throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Reviews of research on competence to stand trial (Roesch, Zapf, Golding, & Skeem, 1999) describe the development of important and basic information regarding the legal process for determining competence, as well as the validation of structured assess-ment tools for obtaining relevant psycholegal information on defendants in such cases (e.g., Poythress et al., 1999). Similar advances were made in substantial research projects culminating in data and assessment tools to improve evalua-tions of competence of patients to consent to treatment (e.g., Grisso & Appelbaum, 1998). Child and Adolescent Psycholegal Issues Research advanced in the 1980s and 1990s in a number of areaspertainingtochildren’scapacitiesrelatedtopsycholegal questions. Among the most extensively researched of these questions was children’s capacities to offer reliable testimony aseyewitnessesorasvictims(e.g.,Ceci&Hembrooke,1998; Ceci, Toglia, & Ross, 1987). By the 1990s, developmental and experimental psychologists were able to provide signifi-cant information to courts regarding not only children’s capacities to testify but also methods of investigation and questioning that would reduce the likelihood that children’s reports would be contaminated by their experiences between the event and the trial. Children’s capacities to make decisions about matters af-fecting their welfare became a major issue in the courts in the late 1970s in the context of debates about youths’ choices concerning abortion (e.g., Bellotti v. Baird, 1979), medical 408 Forensic Psychology treatment (e.g., Parham v. J.R., 1979), and waiver of Miranda rights (e.g., Fare v. Michael C., 1979). Calls for research to address these issues (e.g., Melton, Koocher, & Saks, 1983) were answered by many researchers, and the need for further research in this area increased as more punitive delinquency laws of the 1990s strengthened the argument that youths had to be competent to stand trial (Grisso & Schwartz, 2000). FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY While we focused our attention on three areas above, the full range of topics that now fall under the rubric of forensic psychology is impressively broad. To illustrate, the second edition of The Handbook of Forensic Psychology (Hess & Weiner, 1999) contains sections on applying psychology to civil proceedings, applying psychology to criminal proceed-ings, communicating expert opinions, intervening with of-fenders, and professional issues (legal, ethical, and moral considerations; training in forensic psychology and the law). Among the civil proceedings discussed are mediating domes-tic law issues, personality assessment, educational disabili-ties, and civil competency. Among the criminal proceedings covered are assessing dangerousness and risk; evaluating eyewitness testimony; assessing jury competence; recom-mending probation and parole; assessing competency to stand trial, diminished capacity, and criminal responsibility; interacting with law enforcement; the “state of the art” of polygraph testing; and forensic uses of hypnosis. The section on interventions includes discussions of punishment, diver-sion, and alternative routes to crime prevention, substance abuse programs, psychotherapy with criminal offenders, and diagnosing and treating sexual offenders. Research is currently being carried out within each of these areas, and the results are reported regularly in the foren-sically oriented journals mentioned earlier, as well as in mainstream psychology journals and, less frequently, in law reviews and other legal journals. In addition, many psycholo-gists now take an active role in attempting to apply research findings and other relevant psychological knowledge to the legal system. In addition to the wide range of situations involving clinical psychological evaluations, these efforts may include writing research-based articles designed to in-form both attorneys and social scientists, delivering expert testimony,creatingscience-translationbriefs,consultingwith attorneys, and making presentations as part of continuing-education programs for attorneys and judges. The future of forensic psychology looks bright, as com- munication between leaders in both fields appears to be increasing in frequency and understanding. The potential for mutually beneficial cooperation between psychology and the legal system seems more promising than at any time since the optimistic (though inaccurate) predictions made by Freud and Münsterberg almost a century ago. REFERENCES American Heritage Dictionary. (1982). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597–1611. Applebaum, P. S. (1985). Tarasoff and the clinicians: Problems in fulfilling the duty to protect. American Journal of Psychiatry, 142, 425–429. Applebaum, P. S. (1988). The new preventive detention: Psychia-try’s problematic responsibility for the control of violence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 779–785. Baldwin, M., & Watts, B. (1996). A survey of graduate education and training experiences in psychology and law. American Psychology and Law Society News, 16, 10–11. Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978). Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (1999). History of forensic psychol-ogy. In A. K. Hess & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), The handbook of foren-sic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 3–23). New York: Wiley. Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132 (1979). Bersoff, D. N. (1986). Psychologists and the judicial system: Broader perspectives. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 151–165. Bersoff, D. N. (1987). Social science data and the Supreme Court: Lockhart as a case in point. American Psychologist, 42, 52–58. Bersoff, D. N. (1999). Preparing for two cultures: Education and training in law and psychology. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: The state of the discipline (pp. 375–401). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press. Bersoff, D. N., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Grisso, T., Hans, V. P., Roesch, R., & Poythress, N. G. (1997). Training in law and psychology: Models from the Villanova conference. American Psychologist, 52, 1301–1310. Binet, A. (1900). La suggestibilite. Paris: Schleicher. Binet,A.(1905).Lasciencedutermoignage.L’AnneePsychologique, 11,128–137. Bowers v. Hardwick, 106 S. Ct. 2841 (1986). Brigham, J. C. (1999). What is forensic psychology, anyway? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 273–298. Brigham, J. C., Wasserman, A. W., & Meissner, C. A. (1999). Dis-puted eyewitness identification evidence: Important legal and scientific issues. Court Review, 36(2), 12–25. References 409 Brodsky, S. (1973). Psychologists in the criminal justice system. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Buckhout, R. (1974). Eyewitness testimony. Scientific American, 231, 23–31. Burtt, H. E. (1931). Legal psychology. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. Cahn, E. (1955). Jurisprudence. New York University Law Review, 30, 150–169. Cattell, J. M. (1895). Measurements of the accuracy of recollection. Science, 2, 761–766. Ceci, S., & Hembrooke, H. (Eds.). (1998). Expert witnesses in child abuse cases. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ceci, S., Toglia, M., & Ross, D. (Eds.). (1987). Children’s eyewit-ness memory. New York: Springer-Verlag. Christie, R. (1976). Probability v. precedence: The social psychol-ogy of jury selection. In G. Bermant, C. Nemeth, & N. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and the law: Research frontiers (pp. 265– 281). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Clark, K. B. (1953). Desegregation: An appraisal of the evidence. Journal of Social Issues, 9, 1–15. Clark, M. (1997). Without a doubt. New York: Viking Penguin. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. v. City of Cleburne, Texas, 726 F.3d 191 (1985). Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 655–665. Cook, S. W. (1979). Social science and desegregation: Did we mislead the Supreme Court? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 420–437. Cook, S. W. (1984). The 1954 Social Science Statement and school desegregation: A reply to Gerard. American Psychologist, 39, 819–831. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993). Davis v. United States, 165 U.S. 373 (1897). Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862 (1954). Elliott, R. (1991a). Social science data and the APA: The Lockhart brief as a case in point. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 59–76. Elliott, R. (1991b). Response to Ellsworth. Law and Human Behav-ior, 15, 91–94. Ellsworth, P. C. (1991). To tell what we know or wait for Godot. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 77–90. Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979). Federal Rules of Evidence for the United States courts and magis- trates. (1975). St. Paul, MN: West. Finkel, N. J. (1988). Insanity on trial. New York: Plenum Press. Freud, S. (1959). Psycho-analysis and the ascertaining of truth in courts of law. In E. Jones (Ed.), Collected papers of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 2, pp. 13–24). New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1906) Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). Fulero, S. M. (1993). Eyewitness expert testimony: An overview and annotated bibliography, 1931–1988. Unpublished manuscript, Sinclair College, Dayton, Ohio. Garrison,A. H. (1998). The history of the M’Naughten insanity de-fense and the use of posttraumatic stress disorder as a basis of insanity.AmericanJournalofForensicPsychology,16,39–88. Gerard, H. B. (1983). School desegregation: The social science role. American Psychologist, 38, 869–877. Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S. Ct. 1951 (1967). Goodman, G. S., Levine, M., & Melton, G. B. (1992). The best evi-dence produces the best law. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 244–251. Goodman, G. S., Levine, M., Melton, G., & Ogden, D. W. (1991). The American Psychological Association brief in Maryland v. Craig. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 13–29. Greenburg, J. (1956). Social scientists take the stand: A review and appraisal of their testimony in litigation. Michigan Law Review, 54, 953–970. Grisso, T. (1986). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments. New York: Plenum Press. Grisso, T. (1991). A developmental history of the American Psychology-Law Society. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 213– 231. Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. (1998). Assessing competence to con-sent to treatment. New York: Oxford University Press. Grisso, T., Cocozza, J., Steadman, H., Fisher, W., & Greer, A. (1994). The organization of pretrial forensic evaluation ser-vices: A national profile. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 377– 393. Grisso, T., Sales, B., & Bayless, S. (1982). Law-related graduate courses and programs in psychology departments: A national survey. American Psychologist, 37, 267–278. Grisso, T., & Schwartz, R. (Eds.). (2000). Youth on trial: A develop-mental perspective on juvenile justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Grove, W. M., & Barden, R. C. (1999). Protecting the integrity of the legal system: The admissibility of testimony from men-tal health experts under Daubert/Kumho analyses. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 224–242. Hafemeister, T. L., & Melton, G. B. (1987). The impact of social science research on the judiciary. In G. B. Melton (Ed.), Reform-ing the law: The impact of developmental research (pp. 27–59). New York: Guilford Press. Hare, R. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 25–54. 410 Forensic Psychology Hess, A. K. (1996). Celebrating the twentieth anniversary of Crimi-nal Justice and Behavior: The past, present, and future of foren-sic psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 236–250. Hess, A. K. (1999). Defining forensic psychology. In A. K. Hess & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), The handbook of forensic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 24–47). New York: Wiley. Hess, A. K., & Weiner, I. B. (Eds.). (1999). The handbook of foren-sic psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Hutchins, R. M. (1927). The law and the psychologists. Yale Review, 16, 678–690. Hutchins, R. M., & Slesinger, D. (1928a). Some observations on the law of evidence: The competency of witnesses. Yale Law Jour-nal, 37, 1017–1028. Hutchins, R. M., & Slesinger, D. (1928b). Some observations on the law of evidence: Spontaneous exclamations. Columbia Law Review, 28, 432–440. Hutchins, R. M., & Slesinger, D. (1928c). Some observations on the law of evidence: Memory. Harvard Law Review, 41, 860–873. Hutchins, R. M., & Slesinger, D. (1929). Legal psychology. Psycho-logical Review, 36, 13–26. Jackson, J. H., Jr. (1998). Creating a consensus: Psychologists, the Supreme Court, and school desegregation, 1952–1955. Journal of Social Issues, 54(1), 143–177. Jenkins v. United States, 307 F.2d 637 (D.C. Cir. 1962). Karst, K. (1960). Legislative facts in constitutional litigation. Supreme Court Review, 75–112. Keith-Spiegel, P., & Koocher, G. (1985). Ethics in psychology: Professional standards and cases. New York: Random House. Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (1987). Kluger, R. (1976). Simple justice. New York: Knopf. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999). Kuna, D. P. (1978). One-sided portrayal of Münsterberg. American Psychologist, 33, 700. Laboratory of Community Psychology. (1973). Competency to stand trial and mental illness (DHEW Publication No. ADM77– 103). Rockville, MD: Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Larry P. v. Riles, 343 F. Supp. 1306 9N.D. Cal. 1972 (order granting preliminary injunction) aff’d 502 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1974); 459 F. Supp. 926 (N.D. Cal. 1979) appeal docketed No. 80–4027 (9th Cir., Jan. 17, 1980). Lockhart v. McCree, 106 S. Ct. 1758 (1986). Loftus,E.F.(1979).Eyewitnesstestimony.Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press. Loh, W. D. (1981). Perspectives on psychology and law. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 314–355. Maeder, T. (1985). Crime and madness: The origins and evolution of the insanity defense. New York: Harper & Row. Mark, M. M. (1999). Social science evidence in the courtroom: Daubert and beyond? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 175–193. Marston, W. M. (1917). Systolic blood pressure changes in decep-tion. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2, 117–163. Marston, W. M. (1920). Reaction-time symptoms of deception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 72–87. Marston, W. M. (1924). Studies in testimony. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 15, 5–32. Marston, W. M. (1925). Negative type, reaction-time symptoms of deception. Psychological Review, 32, 241–247. Maryland v. Craig, 110 S. Ct. 3157 (1990). McCary, J. L. (1956). The psychologist as an expert witness in court. American Psychologist, 11, 8–13. Mechem, P. (1936). The jurisprudence of despair. Iowa Law Review, 21, 669–692. Melton, G., Koocher, G., & Saks, M. (Eds.). (1983). Children’s com-petence to consent. New York: Plenum Press. Melton, G., Petrila, J., Poythress, N., & Slobogin, C. (1987). Psychological evaluations for the courts. New York: Guilford Press. Monahan, J. (1981). Predicting violent behavior: An assessment of clinical techniques. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Monahan, J., & Loftus, E. (1982). The psychology of law. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 441–475. Monahan, J., & Walker, L. (1987). Social framework: A new use of social science in law. Virginia Law Review, 73, 559–598. Moran, R. (1981). Knowing right from wrong: The insanity defense of Daniel McNaughten. New York: Free Press. Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908). Münsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand: Essays on psychol-ogy and crime. New York: Doubleday. Ogloff, J. R. P. (1999). Ethical and legal contours of forensic psychology. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: The state of the discipline (pp. 405–422). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press. Ogloff, J. R. P., Tomkins, A. J., & Bersoff, D. N. (1996). Education and training in psychology and law/criminal justice. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 200–235. Parham v. J. R. 442 U.S. 584 (1979). PASE v. Hannon, 506 F. Supp. 831 (N.D. Ill. 1980). People v. Hawthorne, 293 Mich. 15, 291 N.W. 205 (1940). Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Poythress, N., Nicholson, R., Otto, R., Edens, J., Bonnie, R., Monahan, J., et al. (1999). The MacArthur Competence Assess-ment Tool for Criminal Adjudication. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 109 S. Ct. 1775 (1989). Quen, J. (1994). The psychiatrist in the courtroom: Selected papers of Bernard L. Diamond, M.D. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press. Quinsey, V., Harris, G., Rice, M., & Cormier, C. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. References 411 Ray, I. (1983). A treatise on the medical jurisprudence of insanity. New York: DaCapo Press. (Original work published 1838) Rex v. Arnold (Kingston upon Thames Assizes), 16 State Trials 695 (1812). Rieber, R. W., & Green, M. (Eds.). (1981). Milestones in the history of forensic psychology and psychiatry. New York: DaCapo Press. Robinson,E.S.(1935).Lawandthelawyers.NewYork:Macmillan. Rock v. Arkansas, 107 S. Ct. 2804 (1987). Roesch, R., & Golding, S. (1980). Competency to stand trial. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Roesch, R., Golding, S., Hans, V. P., & Reppucci, N. D. (1991). Social science and the courts: The role of amicus briefs. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 1–11. Roesch, R., Grisso, T., & Poythress, N. G. (1986). Training pro-grams, courses, and workshops in psychology and law. In M. F. Kaplan (Ed.), The impact of social psychology on procedural justice (pp. 83–108). Springfield, IL: Thomas. Roesch, R., Zapf, P., Golding, S., & Skeem, J. (1999). Defining and assessing competency to stand trial. In A. Hess & I. Weiner (Eds.), The handbook of forensic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 327– 349). New York: Wiley. Saks, M. J. (1986). The law does not live by eyewitness testimony alone. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 279–280. Schetky, D., & Benedek, E. (1992). Clinical handbook of child psy-chiatry and the law. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Schulman, J., Shaver, P., Colman, R., Emrick, B., & Christie, R. (1973, May). Recipe for a jury. Psychology Today, 37–44, 79–84. Shuman, D. W., & Sales, B. D. (1999). The impact of Daubert and its progeny on the admissibility of behavioral and social science evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 3–15. Simon, R. (1983). The defense of insanity. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 11, 183. Slesinger, D., & Pilpel, M. E. (1929). Legal psychology: A bibliog-raphy and a suggestion. Psychological Bulletin, 12, 677–692. Sporer,S.L.,Malpass,R.S.,&Koehnken,G.(Eds.).(1996).Psycho-logicalissuesineyewitnessidentification.Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum. Steadman, H., Mulvey, E., Monahan, J., Robbins, P., Appelbaum, P., Grisso, T., et al. (1998). Violence by people discharged from acute psychiatric facilities and by others in the same neigh-borhoods. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55, 393–401. Stern, L. W. (1906). Zur psychologie der aussage. Zeaschrift fur die qesamte Strafrech-swissenschaft, 23, 56–66. Stern, L. W. (1910). Abstracts of lectures on the psychology of testimony. American Journal of Psychology, 21, 273–282. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967). Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (1976). Thompson, W. C. (1989). Death qualification after Wainright v. Witt and Lockhart v. McCree. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 185–215. Thornburgh v. American College of Physicians and Surgeons, 106 U.S. (1986). Tomkins, A. J., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (1990). Training and career op-tions in psychology and law. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 8, 205–216. Underwager, R. W., & Wakefield, H. (1992). Poor psychology pro-duces poor law. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 233–243. United States v. Ahmad, 366 F. Supp. 1356 (1973). United States v. Amaral, 488 F.2d, 1148 (9th Cir., 1973). United States v. Briggs, Cr. No. 14950, Middle District of Pennsyl-vania, Harrisburg Division. (1973). United States v. Durham, 214 F.2d 862 (1954). United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967). Walker, N. (1968). Crime and insanity in England: The historical perspective, Vol. 1. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press. Wall, P. C. (1965). Eyewitness identification in criminal cases. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Watkins v. United States Army, 837 F.2d 1428, rch’g en blanc granted, 847 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1988). Weiner, I., & Hess, R. (1987). The handbook of forensic psychology. New York: Wiley. Weinreb, L. (1986). Criminal law (4th ed.). Mineola, NY: Univer-sity Casebook Series. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546–1557. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identifica-tions? American Psychologist, 48, 553–571. Whipple, G. M. (1909). The observer as reporter: A survey of the “psychology of testimony.”Psychological Bulletin, 6, 153–170. Whipple, G. M. (1912). Psychology of testimony and report. Psychological Bulletin, 9, 264–269. Whipple, G. M. (1915). Psychology of testimony. Psychological Bulletin, 12, 221–224. Whipple, G. M. (1918). The obtaining of information: Psychology of observation and report. Psychological Bulletin, 15, 217–248. Wigmore,J.H.(1909).ProfessorMünsterbergandthepsychologyof testimony:BeingareportofthecaseofCokestonev.Münsterberg. IllinoisLawReview,3,399–445. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970). Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 350 (1968). Woocher, F. D. (1986). Legal principles governing expert testimony by experimental psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 47–61. Wrightsman, L. S. (2000). Forensic psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Yarmey, A. D. (1979). The psychology of eyewitness testimony. New York: Free Press. ... - tailieumienphi.vn
nguon tai.lieu . vn