Abstract
Responds to E. F. Loftus's (see record) comments on M. McCloskey and H. E. Egeth's (see record) previous article in which the authors argue against psychologists testifying in court as expert witnesses on the validity of eyewitness testimony. Loftus presents documented cases of convictions of innocent people based on faulty eyewitness accounts, and she argues that expert testimony by psychologists could correct misconceptions jurors may hold. The present authors answer Loftus's criticisms and contrast their views with hers in the areas of empirical support for conclusive statements, perspectives on interventions, and focus on innocence. (10 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 573-575 |
| Number of pages | 3 |
| Journal | American Psychologist |
| Volume | 38 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - May 1 1983 |
Keywords
- need for psychologists to testify in court cases concerning validity of eyewitness testimony, reply to criticism of E. F. Loftus
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Psychology(all)