바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.24 No.3

Citation Share

Perceptions of Expert Witnesses and Their Admissibility Evaluations

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2010, v.24 no.3, pp.77-90
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2010.24.3.005

(2010). Perceptions of Expert Witnesses and Their Admissibility Evaluations. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 24(3), 77-90, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2010.24.3.005

Abstract

Expert testimony is intended to assist the trier of fact in understanding certain type of evidence and the admissibility of expert evidence is determined by the trial judge. The admissibility standards for expert witness exist in the United States, but Korean legal system do not have structural standards or explicit rules for evaluating the admissibility of scientific evidence or expert testimony. This study examined 1) general perceptions of Korean judges and lay people on a variety of expert witnesses, 2) judges' admissibility evaluation experiences, and 3) which criteria are considered to be important when evaluating admissibility. The results indicated that Korean judges and lay people rated forensic science or medical experts as most important, honest, competent, and reliable, whereas police officer, accountant/appraiser, and polygraph expert were placed at the bottom. Further, training, general acceptance, prior expert testimony experience, and level of education are perceived as important criteria when evaluating admissibility of experts in Korea.

keywords
expert testimony, scientific evidence, admissibility standards, perceptions of expert witnesses, expert testimony, scientific evidence, admissibility standards, perceptions of expert witnesses, 전문가 증언, 과학적 증거, 증언 허용 기준, 전문가 증인에 대한 인식

Reference

1.

박광배 (1997). 과학적 증거의 법적 타당성. 형사정책연구, 8(1), 79-107.

2.

법원행정처 (2007). 전문심리위원 제도 해설. 사법정책실.

3.

심희기 (1999). 과학적 증거의 허용성과 신빙성. 형사법연구, 12, 1-24.

4.

유혁상·권창국 (2004). 주요 선진국의 과학적 수사기법의 도입과 활용방안: 과학적 신뢰성의 판단기준과 범인식별을 위한 사회과학적 분석기법을 중심으로. 한국형사정책연구원 연구총서.

5.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 S. Ct. 2795, (1993).

6.

Faigman, D. L. & Monahan, J. (2005). Psychological evidence at the dawn of the law's scientific age. Annual Reviewof Psychology, 56, 631-659.

7.

Federal Rules of Evidence (2004). Retrieved July, 15th 2008 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

8.

Federal Judicial Center (2000). Reference manual of scientific evidence. Retrieved from http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/sciman00.pdf/$file/sciman00.pdf

9.

Garrett, B. L. & Neufeld, P. J. (2009). Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Virginia LawReview, 95(1), 1-97.

10.

Gotowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L., & Dahir, V. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 433-458.

11.

Krafka, C., Dunn, M. A., Johnson, M. T., Cecil, J. S., & Miletich D. (2002). Judge and attorney experiences, practices, and concerns regarding expert testimony in federal civil trials. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(3), 309-332.

12.

Kim, Y. S., Barak, G., & Shelton, D. E. (2009). Examining the "CSI-effect" in the cases of circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony: Multivariate and path analyses. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 452-460.

13.

Kovera, M. B., McAuliff, B. D., & Herbert, K. S. (1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence: Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychohlogy, 84(3), 362-375.

14.

Kovera, M. B. & McAuliff, B. D. (2000). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judgeevaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 574-586.

15.

Lieberman, J. D., Carrell, C. A., Miethe, T. D., & Krauss, D. A. (2008). Gold versus platinum:Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence? Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 14(1), 27-62.

16.

McAuliff, B. D., & Groscup, J. L. (2009). Daubert and psychological science in court: Judging validity from the bench, bar, and jury box. In J. L. Skeem, K. S. Douglas, & S. O. Lilienfeld (Eds.). Psychological science in courtroom: Consensus and controversy. (pp. 26-54). New York: The Guilford Press.

17.

Mellon, J. N. (2001). Manufacturing convictions: Why defendants are entitled to the data underlying forensic DNA kits. Duke LawJournal, 51, 1097-1137.

18.

National Research Council (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

19.

Robbers, M. L. (2008). Blinded by science: The social construction of reality in forensic television shows and its effect on criminal jury trial. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(1), 84-102.

20.

Stevens, D. J. (2008). Forensic science, wrongful convictions, and American prosecutor discretion. The Howard Journal, 47(1). 31-51.

21.

Saks, M. J., & Wissler, R. L. (1984). Legal and psychological bases of expert testimony: Surveys of the law and of jurors. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 2(4), 435-449.

22.

Tyler, T. (2006). Viewing CSI and threshold of guilt: Managing truth and justice in reality and fiction, Yale Law Journal, 115, 1050-1085.

23.

Vidmar, N. (2005). Expert evidence, the adversary system, and the jury. American Journal of Public Health, 95,(S1), 137-143.

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy