Khurshid Ayesha, Jacquin Kristine M
a Mississippi State University , Mississippi State , Mississippi , USA.
J Child Sex Abus. 2013;22(8):949-67. doi: 10.1080/10538712.2013.839592.
We examined the impact of expert witness orientation (researcher or clinical practitioner) and type of testimony (testimony for the prosecution, defense, both prosecution and defense, or no testimony) on mock jurors' decisions in a sexual abuse trial. Participants acted as mock jurors on a sexual abuse criminal trial based on recovered memory that included expert witness testimony. Results showed that expert witness testimony provided by a researcher did not impact mock jurors' guilt ratings any differently than the expert witness testimony provided by a clinical practitioner. However, type of testimony had a significant effect on jurors' guilt ratings such that jurors who read only defense or only prosecution testimony made decisions favoring the relevant side.
我们研究了专家证人的身份（研究人员或临床从业者）以及证词类型（控方证词、辩方证词、控辩双方证词或无证词）对模拟陪审员在性虐待审判中决策的影响。参与者在一场基于恢复记忆的性虐待刑事审判中担任模拟陪审员，该审判包含专家证人的证词。结果表明，研究人员提供的专家证人证词对模拟陪审员有罪评定的影响与临床从业者提供的专家证人证词并无差异。然而，证词类型对陪审员的有罪评定有显著影响，即仅阅读辩方或仅阅读控方证词的陪审员做出了有利于相关一方的决策。
