Evidence Commons^™

12. Interviewing Victims And Suspected Victims Who Are Reluctant To Talk., Irit Irit Hershkowitz, Michael E. Lamb, Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon

Ehearsay, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

32. Eliciting Maltreated And Non-Maltreated Children’S Transgression Disclosures: Narrative Practice Rapport Building And A Putative Confession., Thomas D. Lyon, Lindsay Wandrey, Elizabeth C. Ahern, Robyn Licht, Megan P.Y. Sim, Jodi A. Quas

Thomas D. Lyon

31. How Attorneys Question Children About The Dynamics Of Sexual Abuse And Disclosure In Criminal Trials., Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon

The Future Of The Similar Fact Rule In An Indian Evidence Act Jurisdiction: Singapore, Siyuan Chen

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

In yet another attempt to bridge the gap between the rules of an antiquated statute and the modern realities of practice, Singapore’s Evidence Act was amended in 2012. Certain relevancy provisions were amended to allow greater admissibility of evidence. While new provisions were introduced to act as a check against abuse, oddly some similar fact provisions were left intact. This paper explains why the 2012 amendments have rendered the future of these enactments very uncertain. This paper also suggests a number of tentative recommendations as regards future legislative change or judicial interpretation. To the extent that Singapore’s Evidence Act was …

30. Facilitating Maltreated Children's Use Of Emotional Language., Elizabeth C. Ahern, Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon

29. Young Children’S Understanding That Promising Guarantees Performance: The Effects Of Age And Maltreatment., Thomas D. Lyon, Angela D. Evans

Thomas D. Lyon

16. Child Witnesses And Imagination: Lying, Hypothetical Reasoning, And Referential Ambiguity., Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon

Elm In The Courtroom: Application To Trial Juries, Natalie Claire Hopkins

Communication Studies

No abstract provided.

Psychopathy And Sentencing: An Investigative Look Into When The Pcl-R Is Admitted Into Canadian Courtrooms And How A Pcl-R Score Affects Sentencing Outcome, Katie Davey

Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository

Little is known about how and when the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R) is being introduced into Canadian Courts or how it affects sentencing outcomes. Using the Lexis-Nexis Quicklaw Academic Database to retrieve judge’s sentencing decisions, all 274 cases with PCL-R information for Canadian courts were included in this study. It was hypothesized correctly that PCL-R information would most often be introduced in Long Term Offender (LTO) and Dangerous Offender (DO) applications as well as sentencing cases for murderers and sex offenders. The 274 cases were then reduced to 37 cases in order to focus on sentencing without Dangerous Offender or …

Death And Politics: The Role Of Demographic Characteristics And Testimony Type In Death Penalty Cases Involving Future Dangerousness Testimony, Amy Magnus, Miliaikeala Heen, Joel D. Lieberman

Graduate Research Symposium (GCUA) (2010 - 2017)

Past research examining expert future dangerousness prediction testimony in death penalty cases and civil confinement hearings for sex offenders has found that jurors tend to be more persuaded by less scientific “clinical” testimony and less influenced by “actuarial” based testimony. Jurors demonstrate greater receptivity for clinical testimony despite the fact that actuarial testimony has been shown to be a better predictor of future dangerousness. Research in this area has focused on identifying cognitive factors that can potentially be manipulated during a trial to increase the effectiveness of actuarial testimony on jurors. A mock jury study was conducted to extend these …

Juror Typologies And Dna Comprehension:Who Benefits From Jury Trial Innovations?, Mari Sakiyama, Joel D. Lieberman

Graduate Research Symposium (GCUA) (2010 - 2017)

When DNA evidence is presented in the courtroom, it is typically accompanied by complex testimony conveying information such as the method of generating population frequencies, match criteria and probabilities, as well as laboratory errors and error rates. Although this evidence may have high probative value, the legal community has expressed growing concern regarding jurors’ ability to comprehend it. However, courts have implemented a variety of jury trial innovations to facilitate jurors’ ability to process complex information. Although these innovations may have a positive effect on comprehension of complex trial evidence, it is unclear whether some jurors are more likely to …

Are People Probabilistically Challenged? Book Review Of Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast And Slow (2011), Alex Stein

Alex Stein

Daniel Kahneman’s recent book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, is a must-read for any scholar and policymaker interested in behavioral economics. Thus far, behavioral economists did predominantly experimental work that uncovered discrete manifestations of people’s bounded rationality: representativeness, availability, anchoring, overoptimism, base-rate neglect, hindsight bias, loss aversion, and other misevaluations of probability and utility. This work has developed no causal explanations for these misevaluations. Kahneman’s book takes the discipline to a different level by developing an integrated theory of bounded rationality’s causes and characteristics. This theory holds that humans use two distinct modes of reasoning, intuitive (System 1) and deliberative (System …

The 2012 Amendments To Singapore's Evidence Act: More Questions Than Answers As Regards Expert Opionion Evidence?, Siyuan Chen

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

Singapore amended the expert opinion evidence provisions in its Evidence Act (EA) in 2012. The criteria for admissibility have been broadened, but the courts are now also expressly given the discretion to exclude relevant expert opinion evidence if it is ‘in the interests of justice’. This article explains why the 2012 amendments have raised more questions than answered them. First, Parliament did not appear to have properly appreciated the distinction—as conceptualised by the EA—between legal and logical relevance and relevance and admissibility. Second, it did not appear to have appreciated the distinction between general and specific relevance. Third, the introduction …