Institutional Constraints on the Ethics of Expert Testimony

The impact of Daubert and its progeny on the admissibility of behavioral and social science evidence.

“…Such an approach is common in educating juries about the reliability of eyewitness testimony independent of the specific eyewitness in the particular case (Devenport, Penrod, & Cutler, 1997). Ultimately, however, the best way to educate the judiciary may be for behavioral and social scientists to review carefully the admissibility decisions of trial judges to determine if they are "getting it right" and to publish their findings (Sales & Simon, 1993). Only time and external scrutiny will reveal if the judiciary requires additional support in this area, such as by the use of special masters or other judicial aids (Krauss & Sales, 1999;Saxe & Ben-Shakhar, 1999).…”

“…In addition, in most cases, adversarial experts may be of limited help in appropriately educating the courts. Experts may be put on a very short financial leash, which means that they are unlikely to spend the time necessary to master the legal questions, critically review all of the scientific literature, and educate the attorney (Sales & Simon, 1993). Rather, they typically testify about that which they “know.” Where clinical evaluation is necessary, experts typically resort to what is ordinarily done rather than educating the court about what ought to be done.…”

Children's allegations of sexual abuse: Forensic and scientific issues: A reply to commentators.

“…One response to this sad state of affairs is to work within the various scientific and medical disciplines to fortify the ethics guidelines governing expert testimony. Some, like Fisher (1995), have been pursuing this option with vigor and responsibility (see Sales & Shuman, 1993; Sales & Simon, 1993). However, there are limits to the beneficial effects that this can have because of the inherently sketchy nature of such guidelines.…”

Forensic standards in the American Psychological Association's new ethics code.

“…Standards 7.02 (c), 7.04 (a), and 7.04 (b) require psychologists to "appropriately limit" their conclusions if an examination of the person is "not feasible," "describe fairly the bases for their testimony and conclusions," and "acknowledge the limits of their data or conclusions" (APA, 1992(APA, , p. 1610. These are critical cautions for testifying, because the retaining party will typically pressure the psychologist to shade his or her testimony to favor the client's cause (e.g., Sales & Simon, 1993). Standard 7.04 (a) also requires that when providing "forensic testimony and reports, psychologists testify truthfully, honestly, and candidly" (APA, 1992(APA, , p. 1610).…”