Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1751666
 
 

Citations (2)



 
 

Footnotes (347)



 


 



The Limited Diagnosticity of Criminal Trials


Dan Simon


USC Gould School of Law, USC Department of Psychology


Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 64, p. 143, 2011
USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 11-2

Abstract:     
A fundamental function of the criminal trial is to determine the facts correctly in order to distinguish between guilty and innocent defendants, and between strong and weak prosecutions. This Article seeks to answer a simple question: How good is the criminal trial at reaching accurate factual conclusions?

The Article applies a body of experimental psychology to examine the ability of factfinders to assess the evidence and draw correct inferences from it. The psychological research indicates that the mental processes involved in determining facts in criminal trials are more complex and fickle than generally believed. Part I exposes the difficulties in deciphering the human testimony that is frequently encountered in criminal trials, including eyewitness identification, witness memory for the event, confessions, alibis, and witness demeanor. The task is further hindered by two systemic problems with the integrity of the evidence: false corroboration and the paucity of the investigative record. Part II demonstrates that the inference-making process is susceptible to distortion from the context of legal decisionmaking. Intrusive factors include courtroom persuasion, exposure to impermissible information, emotional arousal, racial prejudice, and the decisionmaker’s cognitive process itself.

In sum, the accuracy of the criminal trial falls short of the system’s high epistemic demands and the certitude it exudes. The findings contribute to our understanding of the causes of mistaken verdicts, particularly wrongful convictions. The Article proposes ways to improve the diagnosticity of the process.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 83

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: January 31, 2011 ; Last revised: February 3, 2011

Suggested Citation

Simon, Dan, The Limited Diagnosticity of Criminal Trials. Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 64, p. 143, 2011; USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 11-2. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1751666

Contact Information

Dan Simon (Contact Author)
USC Gould School of Law, USC Department of Psychology ( email )
699 Exposition Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90089
United States
213-740-0168 (Phone)
213-740-5502 (Fax)

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,035
Downloads: 258
Download Rank: 64,721
Citations:  2
Footnotes:  347

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.312 seconds