Trial by Cognitive Ordeal: Irrational Approaches to the Opinions of Investigators, Trial Integrity and Proof.
This article suggests that lawyers and judges may not understand the effects of their rules and procedures upon the production of evidence and its evaluation in criminal trials and appeals. Focusing on case studies involving the opinions of police officers and other investigators, as well as experts...
| Publicado en: | Modern Law Review Vol. 87; no. 3; pp. 535 - 570 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
May2024
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=176451414&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 176451414 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00267961 D8H jtl: Modern Law Review issn: 00267961 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: May2024 vid: 87 iid: 3 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell artinfo: ui: 176451414 10.1111/1468-2230.12848 ppf: 535 ppct: 35 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: C – @attributes: type: P size: 611KB tig: atl: Trial by Cognitive Ordeal: Irrational Approaches to the Opinions of Investigators, Trial Integrity and Proof. aug: au: Edmond, Gary su: Criminal trials Legal evidence Jurors Cross-examination Criminal investigation sug: subj: Criminal trials Legal evidence Jurors Cross-examination Criminal investigation ab: This article suggests that lawyers and judges may not understand the effects of their rules and procedures upon the production of evidence and its evaluation in criminal trials and appeals. Focusing on case studies involving the opinions of police officers and other investigators, as well as experts, it explains how applicable rules, procedures and safeguards did not produce, and appear incapable of producing, the effects claimed by courts. Drawing on scientific research – on cognitive bias and voice and face comparison – the article demonstrates how judges have enabled investigators to express their biased and speculative opinions, treated investigators' opinions as expert (or special) without evidence of validity or ability, and encouraged jurors to make their own voice and face comparisons in the highly suggestive context of the accusatorial criminal trial. Courts have placed great reliance on trial safeguards, such as cross‐examination and judicial directions, trivialised the difficulty of voice and image comparisons and overlooked the likelihood that juror interpretations will be incurably biased, and that the same evidence will be unwittingly counted more than once. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Modern Law Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Modern Law Review holder: Wiley-Blackwell dt: @attributes: year: 2024 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|