| Abstract: | Comments on the article by McCloskey and Egeth (1983), which examines the arguments in favor of experimental psychologists testifying as expert witnesses. In agreement with McCloskey and Egeth, I believe that psychologists should be free to decide for themselves whether they wish to offer expert testimony on eyewitness performance. I fear, however, that we may no longer have the choice. At the same time that psychologists are reading the McCloskey and Egeth articles that are so deeply critical of experimental psychologists offering testimony as an interesting intellectual exercise, prosecuting attorneys across the land are using them for an entirely different purpose: Judges are being told that the articles are proof that the psychological testimony does not even pass the "Frye test". Even as we speak, prosecutors are using the McCloskey and Egeth article to argue that there is no general acceptance in the field. In anticipation of this prosecutorial strategy, let me suggest that despite the views of McCloskey and Egeth, there are numerous research findings that are generally accepted in our field. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
