Forensic Psychology

Introduction to
Psychology and the Law

1
Forensic Psychology

• Plan for today:

• Course outline
• Psychology versus the Law
• Expert Witnesses

•2
Professor

• Dr. Will Huggon

• huggonw@mcmaster.ca

•3
Teaching Assistants

• Sevda Montakhaby Nodeh | montakhs@mcmaster.ca |

•4
Email

• Email the TA first!

• Put course code in subject line (PSYCH 3CC3)
• 48 hours, not including weekends

•5
Readings

• Revel Forensic Psychology, 6e Canada Version

• By Joanna Pozzulo

•6
Evaluation

• Homework 0% May 7th @ 12am

• Midterm 25% May 15th
• Amicus Brief 35% June 4th@ 12am
• Final Exam 40% June 14th

•7
Psychology

• Human behaviour lies at the heart of

psychology and the law.

• Psychology – is the scientific study of

behaviour and mental processes in an attempt to
understand, predict, and in some cases control
human behaviour

•8
The Law

• IT DEPENDS.
• The legal system is comprised of a body of
laws, rules, regulations, and procedures.
• The legal system is designed to govern, regulate
and control human behaviour

•9
Psychology and the Law

• The relationship between human behaviour and

the law, the legal system, and the legal process
• Empirical study of the assumptions about
human behaviour that underlie the operation
and functioning of the law.
• the reasonableness and validity of the
evidence

• 10
Differences between Law and
Psychology
The Law Psychology
Precedent What’s new?
Battle to win the Attempt to find
truth what really
happened
Rules Prediction
Guilty/Not Guilty Probabilities
• 11
Psychology/Law

• Psychology of the law

• Study of law itself

• 12
Psychology/Law

• Psychology and the law

• Psychology is used to critically evaluate the
assumptions being made in law.

• 13
Psychology/Law

• Psychology in the law

• “explicit and conventional use of
psychology” as a tool in the operation of law

• 14
Witnesses as Evidence

• The law of evidence recognizes two types of

witnesses:
• The common witness to fact
• Expert witness

• 15
Expert Witness

• Those qualified to express a professional

opinion, by their training, knowledge, and
experience
• They provide expertise the triers of fact (jurors)
do not possess

• 16
Expert Witness

• Role to assist the court and not the parties

instructing them
• Main difference between experts and regular
witnesses:
• Able to give an “opinion”

• 17
Expert Witness

• A) talk to a fact or consideration at issue

• Competence to stand trial, suggestibility,
being of sound mind
• B) perform an
• Factors that cause an eyewitness to be
unreliable, a victim to suggestion, an abused
child is asymptomatic

• 18
Who is an Expert?

• UK
• United States
• Canada

• 19
Experts in the UK

• A person who through special training, study or

experience, is able to furnish the Court, tribunal,
or oral hearing with scientific or technical
information which is likely to be outside the
experience and knowledge of a judge,
magistrate, convenor, or juror

• 20
Experts in the US

• Daubert Standard
• a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility
of expert witnesses' testimony during United
States federal legal proceedings

• 21
Daubert Standard

• A witness who is qualified as an expert by

knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education may testify in the form of an opinion
or otherwise if:

• 22
Daubert Standard

• (a) The expert’s scientific, technical, or other

specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact
to

• 23
Daubert Standard

• (b) The testimony is based on

• 24
Daubert Standard

• (c) The testimony is the product of

• 25
Daubert Standard

• (d) The expert has reliably applied the

principles and methods to the

• 26
Experts in Canada

• The Canadian Supreme Court has expressly

adopted the Daubert standard in R. v. Mohan

• 27
Mohan Standard

• Four Criteria:
• It must be
• the trier of fact
• should not trigger any
• must be given by

• 28
Mohan Standard

• Relevance is a question of law and so is

determined by the judge
• necessary if the expert evidence is outside the
experience of a judge and jury
• should be included where the probative value of
the evidence outweighs any prejudicial effect it
may cause

• 29
Negative Bias

• Expert testimony is especially necessary in

cases where jurors have little knowledge of
what constitutes

• 30
Education

• A great many factors and estimator variables

and system variables are unknown to the
layperson and should be brought to their
attention to ensure that justice is done

• 31
Education

• We need neutral education -- Not advocacy

• Testimony should explain general principles

• Discuss the

• And the used to get these data

to the conclusion being offered

• 32
Social Framework Testimony

• To offset negative bias experts need to present a

social framework testimony
• Provides background based on

• 33
Social Framework Testimony

• Designed to inform jurors of something they

didn’t already know
•
concerning the nature of (for
example):
• sexual abuse, reaction of victims, and they ways
trauma can affect memory

• 34
How Effective is Expert
Testimony in CSA cases?
• Mock jurors who heard an expert testify rated a
child witness as on memory ability,
reality monitoring, and resistance to suggestion
• (Though verdicts were significantly affected
by of expert’s evidence and in
presentation)

• 35
Criticisms of Expert Testimony

• 1. Taking over the courtroom

• 2. Testify to the ultimate issue
• 3. Use of experts corrupts science

• 36
Taking Over the Courtroom

• One concern is that experts aren’t just

testifying, they’re taking over the courtroom
• May be not just informing the judge and jury,
but as experts,

• 37
Testify to the Ultimate Issue

• Ultimate Issue:
• This is an extreme form of the taking over the
courtroom concern
• The expert not only gives a conclusion but that
conclusion the ultimate legal
question

• 38
Possibility of Corruption of
Science
• The nature of our corrupts
the objective nature of science and bias may be
introduced into expert’s testimony
• 7 issues

• 39
How is Bias Introduced
Because of Adversarial System?
• Financial gains
• Extra-forensic relationships
• Attorney pressure
• Political and moral beliefs
• Notoriety
• Competition
• Lack of recognition of bias

• 40
Financial Gains

• You could get significant monetary gain for

being a witness
• Hired gun effect
• Is there any such thing as being objective
anymore?
• You’re being paid for your time as an expert,
not for your testimony

• 41
Financial Gains

• Most attorneys actually do pick experts based

on knowledge, communication skills, and
reputations
• BUT the bias is there

• 42
Extra-Forensic Relationships

• How was the expert found?

• Were they a friend of the lawyer?
• Part of the same professional organization?

• 43
Attorney Pressure

• The attorney wants to win

• They hired you
• They want to you say something to help their
side
• BUT the expert is SUPPOSED to be objective
and honest
• Conflict?

• 44
Political and Moral Beliefs

• Bias from the expert themselves

• Death penalty
• Abortion
• Political issues
• Should and consider your biases and refuse
cases where you can`t manage them

• 45
Notoriety

• Being part of the media barrage can be

attractive
• Run the risk of getting to close to fame in high
profile cases and lose objectivity

• 46
Competition

• Do you like to win?

• Everyone does
• Trying to trump the opposing expert instead of
being objective is biased
• The legal process itself encourages this with our
adversarial style

• 47
Lack of Recognition of Bias

• The biggest problem in any of these sources of

bias is

• Should always be on guard

• The best have a little doubt so they`re always
looking for it

• 48
Final Thoughts

• It must be stressed that experts should be a

knowledgeable education and information
provider
• Not an advocate or partisan player (they
shouldn’t take sides)

• 49