CrimProf Blog

Editor: Kevin Cole
Univ. of San Diego School of Law

Monday, June 11, 2018

Chin & Crozier on Experts and the Jury's Ken

Jason Chin and William Crozier (The University of Queensland - T.C. Beirne School of Law and CUNY, John Jay College of Criminal Justice) have posted Rethinking the Ken Through the Lens of Psychological Science (Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Canadian courts are loathe to admit expert evidence from psychological scientists when that evidence does not concern a disposition, typically a psychological disorder. As a result, psychological evidence concerning the unconscious processes and situational forces that underlie mistaken eyewitness identifications and wrongful confessions are regularly excluded from courtrooms. Courts justify these exclusions on the basis that the evidence is not beyond the ken of the trier of fact – the psychologist would simply be describing an experience shared by judge and jury. This reasoning stands on a fundamental misunderstanding of psychology. In fact, psychological science finds that the situation drives behaviour in a manner that regularly evades the trier of fact’s ken. This is because these situational forces rely on unconscious cognitive processes, and humans rarely have introspective access to these processes. As a result, humans cling to several deep misconceptions about memory processes and confessions.

In this Article, we first discuss the mechanics of the mischief: why humans fail to account for unconscious processes and the situation, and instead focus on disposition. Then we provide evidence for this type of reasoning in decisions to exclude expert evidence about eyewitness identifications and false confessions. We conclude with recommendations to manage prejudicial evidence in a manner that is based on a more nuanced understanding of human psychology.

| Permalink


Post a comment