返回Google圖書搜尋

Does Cross-examination Help Jurors Detect Deception ?

出版	ProQuest, 2009
URL	http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=6C2qYgEACAAJ&hl=&source=gbs_api

註釋Both the Constitution and case law establish cross-examination as a crucial method for eliciting testimony that will assist fact finders in determining the truthfulness of a witness's testimony. Despite the legal system's faith in the efficacy of cross-examination as a safeguard against deceptive witnesses, no studies have tested the assumption that cross-examination will help jurors discriminate between truthful and false testimony. The cross-examination strategies that trial technique manuals advocate are based on commonsense notions of human behavior, but these strategies have not been empirically tested to determine if they help jurors accurately discriminate between truthful and lying witnesses. Although traditional cross-examination techniques have not been empirically studied, psychological research has identified specific strategies that improve laypeople's ability to detect deception when viewing an interrogation of a suspect. The present research examined the effectiveness of currently employed cross-examination techniques in determining the truthfulness of a witness's testimony. In addition, the traditional cross-examination techniques were tested against cross-examination strategies that were based on techniques derived from the deception detection literature. In the first phase, 106 participants either witnessed a confederate steal a wallet or they were not exposed to the theft. In phase II of the experiment, I v manipulated participants' motivation to either lie or tell the truth about what they saw. Witnesses' direct and cross-examinations were videotaped in a mock courtroom, and witnesses either underwent a traditional cross-examination, a cross-examination based on deception detection research, or no cross examination. In phase III of the study each of the witnesses' examinations were edited into the larger context of a theft trial. Mock jurors viewed the trial and provided veracity judgments for each of the witnesses and rendered a verdict. Although behavioral differences were observed between deceptive witnesses who underwent a research based cross-examination and deceptive witnesses who underwent a traditional cross-examination, cross-examination type did not influence jurors' evaluations of witness truthfulness. Implications for the legal systems and future research directions are discussed. (p. IV-V).