Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

Jurors’ perceptions of forensic science expert witnesses: Experience, qualifications, testimony style and credibility

16 references·5 citing·39 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

2005How Many Interviews Are Enough?20,704 cited
1994Phenomenological research methods13,881 cited
2009Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward1,298 cited
2009Strengthening forensic science in the United States : a path forward957 cited
2009Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience934 cited
1993Inside the Juror179 cited
1996Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions?179 cited
1996The MMPI, MMPI-2 & MMPI-A in Court: A Practical Guide for Expert Witnesses and Attorneys133 cited
2009Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions133 cited
2010The Witness Credibility Scale: An outcome measure for expert witness research119 cited
2009Expert witness confidence and juror personality: their impact on credibility and persuasion in the courtroom.87 cited
1994Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making82 cited
2003Jurors'Evaluations of Expert Testimony: Judging the Messenger and the Message64 cited
2016Science, technology, or the expert witness: What influences jurors’ judgments about forensic science testimony?51 cited
1997The Jury as Critic: An Empirical Look at How Capital Juries Perceive Expert and Lay Testimony

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

48 cited

1984Source credibility and perceived expertness of testimony in a simulated child-custody case.40 cited

Cited by

2021Inconclusives and error rates in forensic science: a signal detection theory approach36 cited
2023Human Factors in Forensic Science20 cited
2020Exploring juror evaluations of expert opinions using the Expert Persuasion Expectancy framework14 cited
2020Forensic Confirmation Bias: Do Jurors Discount Examiners Who Were Exposed to Task‐Irrelevant Information?*†12 cited
2025Psychological insights for judging expertise and implications for adversarial legal contexts4 cited