Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases

Anderson, C. A. (1983). Abstract and concrete data in the perseverance of social theories: When weak data lead to unshakeable beliefs.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 93–108. Anderson, C. A., New, B. L., & Speer, J. R. (1985). Argument availability as a mediator of social theory perserverance.Social Cognition, 3, 235–249. August, R. L., & Forman, B. D. (1989). A comparison of sexually abused and nonsexually abused children's behavioral responses to anatomically correct dolls.Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 20, 39–47. Baker, E. V. (1990). Psychological expert testimony on a child's veracity in child sexual abuse prosecutions.Louisiana Law Review, 50, 1039–1055. Bar-Hillel, M. (1980). The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments.Acta Psychologica, 44, 211–233. Borgida, E., Gresham, A. W., Swim, J., Bull [Kovera], M. A., & Gray, E. (1989). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse: An empirical investigation of partisan orientation.Family Law Quarterly, 23, 433–449. Bottoms, B. L., & Goodman, G. S. (1989, April).The credibility of child victims of sexual assault. Paper presented at the 60th meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, MA. Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. (1979). Use of the simulation method in the study of jury behavior: Some methodological considerations.Law and Human Behavior, 3, 107–119. Brekke, N. C. (1985).Expert scientific testimony in rape trials. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. Brekke, N., & Borgida, E. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 372–386. Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis.Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 215–225. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1989) The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury.Law and Human Behavior, 13, 311–322. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence.Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185–191. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1994).How does the “battle of the eyewitness experts” affect the judgments of jurors? Unpublished manuscript, Florida International University. D.A.H. v. G.A.H., 371 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Appl.1985). Doris, J. (1991).The suggestibility of children's recollections: Implications for eyewitness testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Duggan, L. M., III, Aubrey, M., Doherty, E., Isquith, P., Levine, M., & Scheiner, J. (1989). The credibility of children as witnesses in a simulated child sex abuse trial. In S. Ceci, D. Ross, & M. Toglia (Eds.),Perspectives on children's testimony (pp. 71–99). New York: Springer-Verlag. Eisenberg, N., Owens, R. G., & Dewey, M. E. (1987). Attitudes of health professionals to child sexual abuse and incest.Child Abuse and Neglect, 11, 109–116. Everson, M. D., & Boat, B. W. (1994). Putting the anatomical doll controversy in perspective: An examination of the major uses and criticisms of the dolls in child sexual abuse evaluations.Child Abuse and Neglect, 18, 113–129. Faust, D., & Ziskin, J. (July 1, 1988). The expert witness in psychology and psychiatry.Science, 241, 31–35. Fox, S. G., & Walters, H. A. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment.Law and Human Behavior, 10, 215–228. Gibbs, M. S., Sigal, J., Adams, B., & Grossman, B. (1989). Cross-examination of the expert witness: Do hostile tactics affect impressions of a simulated jury?Behavioral Science and the Law, 7, 275–281. Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983).Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Himmelfarb, S. (1975). What do you do when the control group doesn't fit into the factorial design.Psychological Bulletin, 82, 363–368. Imwinkelreid, E. J. (1981). A new era in the evolution of scientific evidence—A primer on evaluating the weight of scientific evidence.William and Mary Law Review, 23, 261–290. In re Amber B., 191 Cal. Appl. 3d 682, 236 Cal Rptr. 623 (1st. Dist. 1987). In re Christine C., 191 Cal. App. 3d 676, 236 Cal. Rptr. 630 (1987). In re Jennifer, 517 N.E.2d 187 (Mass. Ct. Appl. 1988). In re J. K., 49 Wash. Appl. 670, 745 P.2d 1304 (1987). In re Rinesmith, 376 N.W.2d 139 (Mich. Ct. Appl. 1985). Jampole, L., & Weber, M. K. (1987). An assessment of the behavior of sexually abused and nonsexually abused children with anatomically correct dolls.Child Abuse and Neglect, 11, 187–192. Jelalian, E., & Miller, A. G. (1984). The perseverance of beliefs: Conceptual perspectives and research developments.Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2, 25–56. Johnson v. State, 292 Ark. 632, 732 S.W.2d 817 (1987). Kalven, Jr., H., & Zeisel, H. (1966).The American jury. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kendall-Tackett, K. A., Williams, L. M., & Finkelhor, D. (1993). Impact of sexual abuse on children: A review and synthesis of recent empirical studies.Psychological Bulletin, 113, 164–180. Keri v. State, 179 Ga. Appl. 664, 347 S.E.2d 236 (1986). Kovera, M. B., Gresham A. W., Borgida, E., Gray, E., & Regan, P. C. (1994). Juror decision-making in child sexual abuse cases: The effects of expert testimony and child witness demeanor. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota. Kovera, M. B., Borgida, E., Gresham, A. W., Swim, J., & Gray, E. (1993). Do child sexual abuse experts hold pro-child beliefs?: A survey of the International Society of Traumatic Stress Studies.Journal of Traumatic Stress, 6, 383–404. Lantrip v. Commonwealth, 713 S.W. 2d 816 (Ky. 1986). Levy, R. J. (1989). Using “scientific” testimony to prove child sexual abuse.Family Law Quarterly, 23, 383–409. Loftus, E. (1980). Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 9–15. Maan, C. (1991). Assessment of sexually abused children with anatomically detailed dolls: A critical review.Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9, 43–51. Maass, A., Brigham, J. C., & West, S. G. (1985). Testifying on eyewitness reliability: Expert advice is not always persuasive.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 207–229. MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jorors' bias for leniency.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21–33. McCord, D. (1986). Expert psychological testimony about child complainants in sexual abuse prosecutions: A foray into the admissibility of novel psychological evidence.The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 77, 1–68. Melton, G. B., & Limber, S. (1989). Psychologist's involvement in cases of child maltreatment: Limits of role and expertise.American Psychologist, 44, 1225–1233. People v. Bledsoe, 36 Cal. 3d 236, 203 Cal. Rptr. 450, 681 P.2d 291 (1984). People v. Bowker, 203 Cal. Appl.3d 385, 249 Cal Rptr. 886 (1988). People v. Gray, 187 Cal. Appl.3d, 231 Cal. Rptr. 658 (1986). People v. Luna, 204 Cal.App. 3d 776, 250 Cal. Rptr. 878 (1988). People v. Payan, 173 Cal.App. 3d 27, 220 Cal.Rptr. 126 (1985). People v. Roscoe, 168 Cal. App. 3d 1093, 215 Cal. Rptr. 45 (5th Dist. 1985). Roe, R. (1985). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases.University of Miami Law Review, 40, 97–113. Ross, L. (1987). The problem of construal in social inference and social psychology. In N. E. Grunberg, R. E. Nisbett, J. Rodin, & J. E. Singer (Eds.),A distinctive approach to psychological research: The influence of Stanley Schachter (pp. 118–150). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ross, L., & Anderson, C. A. (1982). Shortcomings in the attribution process: On the origins and maintenance of erroneous social assessments. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.),Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 129–152). Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press. Sagatun, I. J. (1991). Expert witnesses in child abuse cases.Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9, 201–215. Saks, M. J. (1977).Jury verdicts. Lexington, MA: Heath. Saks, M. J., & Kidd, R. F. (1981). Human information processing and adjudication: Trial by heuristics.Law & Society Review, 15, 123–160. Schul, Y. (1993). When warning succeeds: The effect of warning on success in ignoring invalid information.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 42–62. Serrato, V. (1988). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse prosecutions: A spectrum of uses.Boston University Law Review, 68, 155–192. Sigal, J., Braden-Maguire, J., Hayden, M., & Mosley, N. (1985). The effect of presentation style and sex of lawyer on jury decision-making behavior.Psychology: A Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior, 22, 13–19. State v. Erickson, 454 N.W.2d 624 (Minn, Appl. 1990). State v. Holloway, 82 N.C. Appl. 586, 347 S.E.2d 72 (1986). State v. Kim, 64 Haw. 598, 645 P.2d 1330 (1982). State v. Mueller, 344 N.W.2d 262 (Iowa Ct. App. 1983). State v. Myers, 359 N.W.2d 604 (Minn. 1984). Summit, R. C. (1983). The child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome.Child Abuse and Neglect, 7, 177–193. Taylor, S. E., & Thompson, S. C. (1982). Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect.Psychological Review, 89, 155–181. White, S., Strom, G. A., Santilli, G., & Halpin, B. M. (1986). Interviewing young sexual abuse victims with anatomically correct dolls.Child Abuse and Neglect, 10, 519–529. Wigmore, J. H.Evidence in trials at common law. (Chadbourn Revision). Boston: Little, Brown, and Company. Winer, B. J. (1971).Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.