Why Judges Are Applied Psychologists

• Published in: PsycCritiques Vol. 61; no. 27; p. No Pagination Specified
• Main Author: Cantone, Jason A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: American Psychological Association 04.07.2016
• Subjects: Adjudication; Human; Juries; Laws; Legal Evidence; Legal Testimony; Prejudice; Witnesses
• DOI: 10.1037/a0040354
• ISSN: 1554-0138

Reviews the book, The Psychological Foundations of Evidence Law by Michael J. Saks and Barbara A. Spellman (see record 2015-56343-000). Imagine the courtroom scene when a witness makes a misleading statement that could unfairly prejudice the jury. The opposing attorney stands, yells, “Objection, your honor!” and the judge sustains the objection, asking the jurors to disregard the statement. The law on excluding prejudicial statements is fairly clear. Federal Rule of Evidence 403 (FRE 403; Federal Rules of Evidence, 2011a) states, “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” However, what about the underlying psychology behind the judge’s limiting instruction? Are jurors mentally able to disregard such testimony, especially if it offers prejudicial information against the defendant? And, even if they are able to disregard it, are they willing to disregard it if they consider it the truth? That is what this book is all about. It explores important questions such as these, while also demanding a call to action for psychologists to more strongly emphasize the Federal Rules of Evidence (hereinafter “Rules”; Federal Rules of Evidence, 2011a, 2011b) in their work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)