Tag: Robert Mauro

Procedural Justice of Court Appointed Experts: Procedural Justice and Power Differentials

Presenter: Benjamin Davies

Mentors: Robert Mauro and Robert Rocklin, Psychology

Poster: 17

Major: Psychology 

Studying procedural justice has ramifications for legitimacy, and ultimately, legal system success. Jurists are concerned that any departure from the adversary system would call the legitimacy of the system into question. The use of court appointed experts is one such departure. We aim to examine the perceptions of procedural justice in court-appointed experts and the moderating effect of power on this relationship. Participants will be presented with 4 vignette scenarios describing a civil negligence trial in which the plaintiff always loses. The subjective power (Individual, Corporation or Government Agency) of the plaintiff, and whether the 3rd testifying expert is court appointed/adversarial will be varied and participants will report their perceptions of procedural justice in addition to individual difference measures. We have two predictions; (1) Across conditions, court-appointed experts will be perceived as less procedurally just than adversarial experts and (2) There will be an interaction between court- appointed expert and plaintiff status, such that if there is a high status plaintiff and a court appointed expert, perceptions of procedural justice will be lowest. While results have not been collected, we believe these findings will add a new dimension to current understanding of the justice of legal processes, and pave the way towards a more in depth study of court-appointed experts.

Eyewitness Memory: How Stress and Situational Factors Affect Eyewitness Recall

Presenter: Anne Yilmaz

Faculty Mentor: Robert Mauro

Presentation Type: Oral

Primary Research Area: Social Science

Major: Psychology

As eyewitness memory and its current admissibility as evidence in courts have come under scrutiny, thousands of studies have been conducted examining variables that affect the accuracy of eyewitness memory. These variables are typically broken up as system and estimator variables—the first being factors affecting memory that are controllable after the event and the latter being uncontrollable situational factors that took place during the event. Decades of research has concluded that stress can both inhibit and enhance memory; this literature review will focus on the tie between stress, memory and various estimator variables such as seriousness, group eyewitness memory, weapon- focus, and victim vs bystander observation of a crime. Both field and lab studies will be examined. Despite the breadth of research in both eyewitness memory and stress’s effect on memory, there has been no comprehensive review in recent years combining stress and memory research with eyewitness data. This literature review will serve to bridge that gap and provide resources for those looking to continue research in the field of stress, situational psychology and eyewitness memory.

How the Use of Simulations Affects the Understandability and Memory for Expert Testimony

Presenter(s): Morgan Bunch

Faculty Mentor(s): Robert Mauro

Poster 113

Session: Social Sciences & Humanities

Experts are relying increasingly on the use of computer-generated simulations or recreations of an incident that are constructed by entering data into a computer program, to effectively communicate complex information. However, the validity of a simulation is often based on key assumptions that are obscure and hidden while the imagery is vivid and compelling. This raises the question of whether simulations can be effective ways to enhance the ability of the courts to deal with arcane information, explain complex issues in ways that judges and jurors can understand, or allow judges and jurors to be swayed by presentations that are only loosely grounded in the facts and science. In the effort to enhance the clarity and persuasiveness of expert testimony, we seek to investigate the effect of simulations on individuals’ perceptions of the validity of expert testimony. The questions guiding our inquiry are as follows: How effective are simulations relative to traditional visualizations in persuading individuals? How can simulations be effectively cross-examined? In what ways are simulations persuasive and/or being potentially mistaken for fact? How do judges’ instructions about the nature of simulations as opinions be sufficient to counter this effect? To answer these questions, participants will be recruited through the University of Oregon Psychology Department human subjects pool and randomly assigned to one of four conditions derived from a 2 (simulation vs. traditional visualization) x 2 (accurate testimony vs. inaccurate testimony) design, used to measure the extent of the simulation’s persuasiveness and its effect on juror decision making.