gratefully acknowledge their support. We would also like to thank Irene Bevc for her efforts as a research assistant on this project and several anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nitza B.

This research compared 40 adults with mild developmental disabilities (DD) and 40 nondelayed adults (ND) in terms of knowledge of legal terms and court proceedings. For all of the 34 terms studied, with the exception of "police officer" there were significant differences between the DD and ND groups with respect to degree of conceptual understanding of terms. Results indicate that all but 6 terms assessed (adjourn, allegation, crown attorney, defendant, prosecute, and court reporter) were well-defined by 85% or more of ND participants. In contrast, only 8 of the terms (police officer, lawyer, jail, court, lie, truth, judge, and witness) were reasonably conceptually understood by at least 75% of DD participants. Reported familiarity with terms in DD participants is not a reliable indicator of actual familiarity with terms. Results are discussed with respect to the need for education of DD individuals and legal professionals to support participation and fair treatment of DD individuals in legal situations.To date, very little research has been conducted to examine understanding of legal proceedings and terminology in people with developmental disabilities (DD). People with DD, however, are increasingly coming into contact with the criminal justice system. This is in part due to the fact that over the past decade it has come to light that people with DD are significantly over-represented in cases of physical, sexual, and

The effect of variation in the clarity of a witnessed event on the accuracy of eyewitness identification for adults with intellectual disabilities and those without disabilities was examined. Following observation of one of three films (clear, less distinct, or ambiguous) depicting a nonviolent theft, participants were asked to identify the thief from a photo lineup. Across all film conditions, participants with intellectual disabilities made as many correct identifications as did participants without disabilities, but they also made more false identifications and were more prone to guessing. Differences between groups seemed to be attributable to the demand factors inherent in the eyewitness identification task and understanding of the nature of the task itself.

No abstract

No abstract