Phenotypic mismatch between suspects and fillers but not phenotypic bias increases eyewitness identifications of Black suspects.

Introduction: Despite converging evidence that people more closely associate the construct of criminality with Black people who exhibit a more African facial phenotype than Black people who express a more European phenotype, eyewitness researchers have largely ignored phenotypic bias as a potential contributor to the racial disparities in the criminal legal system. If this form of phenotypic bias extends to eyewitness identification tasks, eyewitnesses may be more likely to identify Black suspects with an African rather than European phenotype, regardless of their guilt status. Further, in cases where the witness's description of the perpetrator does not contain phenotypic information, phenotypic mismatch between the suspect and the other lineup members may bias identification decisions toward or against the suspect. If witnesses can use elements of the lineup construction to guide their identification decisions rather than relying on their recognition memory, then the lineup should be deemed unfair due to suspect bias. The current study also investigated lineup presentation method as a procedural safeguard, predicting that that when lineups were presented simultaneously, there would be a significant two-way interaction of phenotypic bias and lineup composition, with a larger simple main effect of phenotypic bias when lineups were suspect-biased (i.e., the fillers were a phenotypic mismatch to the suspect) than when all lineup members shared the same phenotype. We expected that this interaction would be significantly smaller or non-significant for sequential lineups. Methods: Participants watched a mock crime video that contained a Black culprit with either a more African phenotype or a less African phenotype before attempting identifications from a photo array that contained a suspect whose phenotype always matched the culprit viewed in the video, but varied in culprit-presence, phenotypic match of the suspect and fillers, and presentation method. Results: Participants did not identify Black suspects with Afrocentric features more often than Black suspects with Eurocentric features. However, witnesses made more identifications of suspects when the fillers did not match the suspect's phenotype compared to when all lineup members possessed similar phenotypic features. Discussion: In sum, phenotypic bias did not influence our participant-witnesses' identification decisions, nor interact with lineup composition and lineup presentation type to affect identifications of suspects, suggesting that phenotypic bias may be less influential in match-to-memory tasks than other types of legal decision-making (e.g., determining guilt and sentencing). However, the suggestiveness created by failing to match fillers' phenotypes to the suspect's phenotype can be avoided with proper attention to fair lineup construction.

An offer you cannot refuse: Plea offer size affects innocent but not guilty defendants' perceptions of voluntariness.

OBJECTIVE: We examined whether various plea outcomes-including sentence reduction size (smaller, larger), type (traditional guilty plea, Alford plea), and frame (plea discount, trial penalty)-differentially affected innocent and guilty defendants' perceptions of the voluntariness of their guilty pleas. HYPOTHESES: We hypothesized (1) guilty defendants would rate guilty pleas as more voluntary than would innocent defendants; (2) defendants would rate larger sentence reductions either as more voluntary than smaller sentence reductions because they feel more fair or as less voluntary because they feel harder to reject; (3) defendants would rate guilty pleas as more voluntary when the plea offer was framed as a discount compared with a penalty; (4) penalty framing would differentially affect defendants offered large versus small sentence reductions; and (5) Alford pleas would differentially affect guilty versus innocent defendants. METHOD: Adults from Qualtrics Research Panels (N = 1,518; Mage = 59.22 years; 52% male; 83% White, non-Hispanic) played the role of a defendant in a simulated plea decision-making process. They were either innocent or guilty of the accusation. The prosecutor offered them a plea deal that varied in sentence reduction size (smaller, versus larger), type (traditional versus Alford plea), and frame (plea discount versus trial penalty). Participants then decided how to plead and rated the voluntariness of the decision-making process. RESULTS: Plea outcomes affected innocent and guilty defendants in slightly different ways. Innocent and guilty defendants were less likely to plead guilty when the plea offer had a smaller compared with a larger sentence reduction. However, innocent defendants were less likely to plead guilty overall, required more prompting from their defense attorney to plead guilty, and rated the plea decision-making process as less voluntary than did guilty defendants. Innocent defendants also rated the plea decision-making process as less voluntary when offered a smaller compared with larger sentence reduction and when they were offered an Alford plea compared with a traditional guilty plea. Framing the plea offer as a discount or a penalty did not affect defendants' perceptions of voluntariness. CONCLUSION: Variations in plea outcomes affect defendants' perceptions of voluntariness. Moreover, at least some courts' definitions of voluntariness do not align with how laypeople-and thus, possible defendants-view the same construct. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Potential causes of racial disparities in wrongful convictions based on mistaken identifications: Own-race bias and differences in evidence-based suspicion.

OBJECTIVE: We explored whether racial disparities in evidence-based suspicion (i.e., evidence of guilt prior to placement in a lineup) provide a better explanation of racial disparities in exonerations based on eyewitness misidentification than the own-race bias in eyewitness identifications. HYPOTHESES: We predicted that the own-race bias in identification accuracy would be insufficiently large to fully explain the racial disparities in wrongful convictions in cases with mistaken identification. We also predicted that possible racial disparities in the prior probability of suspect guilt before subjecting suspects to the risk of misidentification might better explain racial disparities in wrongful convictions. METHOD: We conducted a meta-analysis on 54 effect sizes extracted from 16 studies (1,503 individual participants) that tested whether there was an own-race bias in eyewitness identifications using a design that varied the race of both the witnesses and the target faces (Black vs. White). We also constructed two curves that plotted the prior probability of suspect guilt against the posterior probability of guilt: one if an identification were to be obtained for a Black suspect and one if an identification were to be obtained for a White suspect. RESULTS: Participants, irrespective of their race, were better able to discriminate among previously seen White than Black targets. However, the differential accuracy rates for identifications of White versus Black suspects were too small to explain racial disparities in exoneration data on their own. However, racial disparities in evidence that police have against suspects before placing them in an identification procedure would likely explain more of the variance in racial disparities in mistaken identifications that lead to wrongful convictions. CONCLUSION: Memory errors caused by the own-race bias are likely not the sole or even primary cause of racial disparities in misidentifications; rather, systemic bias in the amount of evidence that police have before placing a suspect at risk of misidentification likely explains more of the variance of racial disparities in wrongful convictions based on mistaken identifications. Requirements for evidence-based suspicion before placing suspects in an identification procedure are needed to prevent systemic racism in mistaken identifications. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

From whose perspective? Differences between actors and observers in determining the voluntariness of guilty pleas.

OBJECTIVE: Valid guilty pleas must be made voluntarily, yet most defendants report that they did not feel part of the decision-making process or responsible for the decision. Defendants and judges both play a role in determining whether guilty pleas are voluntary. The actor-observer bias suggests that defendants and judges perceive the decision-making process differently given the nature of their roles. The present studies applied this framework to assess the complexity of voluntary plea decision-making. HYPOTHESES: We expected observers would rate pleas as more voluntary than would actors. We also expected participants to rate pleas made by guilty defendants as more voluntary than those made by innocent defendants and to view pleas made with voice as more voluntary than those made without voice. Finally, we expected the effect of guilt and voice on voluntariness to differ for actors and observers. METHOD: Participants were Amazon's Mechanical Turk workers (Study 1: N = 202, Study 2: N = 626) who had a history of high-quality performance on past tasks, were roughly evenly split between men (Study 1: 52%, Study 2: 53%) and women (Study 1: 48%, Study 2: 47%), and were primarily White/non-Hispanic (Study 1: 84%, Study 2: 75%). They watched video-recorded materials about a criminal case in which a defendant decided how to plead. The materials varied the participant's role (actor, observer), the defendant's guilt (innocent, guilty), and whether the defendant had a voice in the decision-making process (no voice, voice). Participants then rated the voluntariness of the decision-making process. RESULTS: In both studies, actors rated pleas as more voluntary than did observers. Participants rated guilty pleas as more voluntary when the defendant was guilty compared with innocent. Participants also rated pleas as more voluntary when the defendant had a voice in the decision-making process compared with when the defendant did not have a voice, but the difference was bigger for observers than for actors. CONCLUSIONS: Defendants and judges both determine whether a guilty plea is made voluntarily. These decision-makers are likely to perceive the plea decision-making process differently given their differing perspectives. There was also a large effect of voice on whether decisions were perceived to be voluntary. Individuals who play a role in the plea decision-making process should ensure that defendants have a proper opportunity to express their opinions and preferences about the decision. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Evidence strength (insufficiently) affects police officers' decisions to place a suspect in a lineup.

OBJECTIVE: We examined whether variations in the strength of the evidentiary connection between a suspect and the crime under investigation affected officers' decisions to place suspects into an identification procedure and whether education about the problems associated with base-rate neglect sensitized officers to variations in evidentiary connection. METHOD: Police officers (N = 279; age range = 24-70; 86% male) read a hypothetical crime scenario, adopting the role of the lead investigator. The scenarios varied in how closely the suspect was connected to the crime (evidentiary connection: weak vs. strong). Before reading the crime scenarios, half of the participants received education about the relationship between the base rate of guilt among suspects placed in lineups and the prevalence of mistaken identifications (education: present vs. absent). Officers indicated whether they would conduct an identification procedure with a witness based on the evidence they currently had against the suspect. HYPOTHESES: We expected that participants would better distinguish between the strong and weak evidentiary connection conditions when education was present than when it was absent. RESULTS: Education did not sensitize officers to the strength of the evidence connecting the suspect to the crime under investigation, but officers were sensitive to variations in evidentiary connection without benefit of the educational intervention. However, a majority of officers were willing to subject a suspect to an identification procedure even when there was no evidence connecting the suspect to the crime. CONCLUSIONS: Officers' decisions about placing suspects in lineups reflect some level of base-rate neglect that remained even after education about the importance of increasing the ratio of culprit-present to culprit-absent lineups for decreasing mistaken identifications. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Testing the waters: An investigation of the impact of hot tubbing on experts from referral through testimony.

OBJECTIVE: The present research examined whether concurrent expert testimony ("hot tubbing") and court-appointed testimony reduced adversarial allegiance in clinical experts' judgments compared with traditional adversarial expert testimony. HYPOTHESES: We predicted Hypothesis 1: Defense experts would render more not responsible judgments and lower ratings of criminal responsibility than would prosecution experts; Hypothesis 2: Adversarial allegiance effects on experts' judgments would be heightened for adversarial experts and attenuated for concurrent experts over time; Hypothesis 3: Adversarial and concurrent experts would report higher dissonance than would court-appointed experts and adversarial experts' ratings would increase over time, concurrent experts' ratings would decrease, and court-appointed experts' ratings would remain unchanged. METHOD: Clinicians and advanced clinical doctoral students conducted simulated criminal responsibility evaluations for the prosecution, defense, or court. We categorized participants as favoring the prosecution or defense based on their preexisting attitudes and randomly assigned them to the adversarial, concurrent, or court-appointed expert testimony conditions. Participants completed a dichotomous responsibility judgment, strength of responsibility ratings, and cognitive dissonance measure after initial evidence review (n = 93), report completion (n = 52), and testimony (n = 48). Concurrent experts generated a joint report outlining areas of agreement and disagreement before providing testimony. RESULTS: Concurrent testimony did not eliminate adversarial allegiance. Adversarial and concurrent experts' perceptions of responsibility did not significantly differ (d = .04, 95% CI [-.64, .71]) or change over time (ηp2 = .03); however, prosecution experts-across testimony types-rated the defendant as significantly more responsible than did defense experts (d = 1.87, 95% CI [1.06, 2.67]). Concurrent and adversarial experts did not differ in their reports and minimally differed in testimony content. CONCLUSIONS: Experts who initially favored the prosecution or defense showed adversarial allegiance regardless of expert testimony method, and we observed no attenuation of this bias over the course of their case involvement. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence.

OBJECTIVE: The Executive Committee of the American Psychology-Law Society (Division 41 of the American Psychological Association) appointed a subcommittee to update the influential 1998 scientific review paper on guidelines for eyewitness identification procedures. METHOD: This was a collaborative effort by six senior eyewitness researchers, who all participated in the writing process. Feedback from members of AP-LS and the legal communities was solicited over an 18-month period. RESULTS: The results yielded nine recommendations for planning, designing, and conducting eyewitness identification procedures. Four of the recommendations were from the 1998 article and concerned the selection of lineup fillers, prelineup instructions to witnesses, the use of double-blind procedures, and collection of a confidence statement. The additional five recommendations concern the need for law enforcement to conduct a prelineup interview of the witness, the need for evidence-based suspicion before conducting an identification procedure, video-recording of the entire procedure, avoiding repeated identification attempts with the same witness and same suspect, and avoiding the use of showups when possible and improving how showups are conducted when they are necessary. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability and integrity of eyewitness identification evidence is highly dependent on the procedures used by law enforcement for collecting and preserving the eyewitness evidence. These nine recommendations can advance the reliability and integrity of the evidence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Variations in reliability and validity do not influence judge, attorney, and mock juror decisions about psychological expert evidence.

OBJECTIVE: We tested whether the reliability and validity of psychological testing underlying an expert's opinion influenced judgments made by judges, attorneys, and mock jurors. HYPOTHESES: We predicted that the participants would judge the expert's evidence more positively when it had high validity and high reliability. METHOD: In Experiment 1, judges (N = 111) and attorneys (N = 95) read a summary of case facts and proffer of expert testimony on the intelligence of a litigant. The psychological testing varied in scientific quality; either there was (a) blind administration (i.e., the psychologist did not have an expectation for the test result) of a highly reliable test, (b) nonblind administration (i.e., the psychologist did have an expectation for the test result) of a highly reliable test, or (c) blind administration of a test with low reliability. In a trial simulation (Experiment 2), we varied the scientific quality of the intelligence test and whether the cross-examination addressed the scientific quality of the test. RESULTS: The variations in scientific quality did not influence judges' admissibility decisions nor their ratings of scientific quality nor did it influence attorneys' decisions about whether to move to exclude the evidence. Attorneys' ratings of scientific quality were sensitive to variations in reliability but not the testing conditions. Scientifically informed cross-examinations did not help mock jurors (N = 192) evaluate the validity or the reliability of a psychological test. CONCLUSION: Cross-examination was an ineffective method for educating jurors about problems associated with nonblind testing and reliability, which highlights the importance of training judges to evaluate the quality of expert evidence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Exposure to capital voir dire may not increase convictions despite increasing pretrial presumption of guilt.

During capital voir dire, prospective jurors are questioned about their views on capital punishment to determine their ability and willingness to impose the penalty as required by law. Two experiments replicated and extended Haney's (1984a) research on the effects of exposure to capital voir dire, which has been cited to support the proposition that jurors who are exposed to a capital voir dire are more prone to convict. In the first study, watching a capital voir dire increased participants' pretrial estimates of the likelihood of the defendant's guilt and conviction, replicating earlier findings. However, these pretrial effects did not survive the presentation of trial evidence, which had not been tested previously. Participants exposed to death qualification during capital voir dire were significantly less likely to convict than were those who were not exposed to death qualification. In a second study, exposure to capital voir dire influenced the type and amount of evidence that jurors reported that they would require for conviction, such that exposure to death qualification created an expectation for greater evidence of guilt than did exposure to a standard voir dire. To the extent that exposure to capital voir dire increases jurors' expectations for evidence of guilt, death qualified jurors may be more likely to acquit if their expectations are not met, despite increased pretrial bias against the defendant. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Viewing videotaped identification procedure increases juror sensitivity to single-blind photo-array administration.

We investigated whether watching a videotaped photo array administration or expert testimony could sensitize jurors to the suggestiveness of single-blind eyewitness identification procedures. Mock jurors recruited from the community (N = 231) watched a videotaped simulation of a robbery trial in which the primary evidence against the defendant was an eyewitness identification. We varied whether the witness made an identification from a single- or double-blind photo array, the evidence included a videotape of the photo array procedure, and an expert testified about the effects of single-blind identification procedures on administrators' behaviors and witness accuracy. Watching the videotaped photo array administration sensitized mock jurors to the suggestiveness of the single-blind procedure, causing them to be less likely to convict a defendant identified through single-rather than double-blind procedures. Exposure to the videotaped procedure also decreased the favorability of mock jurors' ratings of the eyewitness, irrespective of whether the lineup was conducted by a single-blind administrator. Expert testimony did not sensitize jurors to administrator bias. Thus, videotaping identification procedures could serve as an important procedural reform that both preserves a record of whether the lineup administration was suggestive and might improve jurors' evaluations of eyewitness evidence. (PsycINFO Database Record

Memory strength and lineup presentation moderate effects of administrator influence on mistaken identifications.

Administrator/witness pairs (N = 313) were randomly assigned to target-absent lineups in a 2 (Suspect/Perpetrator Similarity: High Suspect Similarity vs. Low Suspect Similarity) × 2 (Retention Interval: 30 min vs. 1 week) × 2 (Lineup Presentation: Simultaneous vs. Sequential) × 2 (Administrator Knowledge: Single-Blind vs. Double-Blind) factorial design to test whether suspect similarity and memory strength constrain interpersonal expectancy effects on eyewitness identification accuracy. Administrators who knew which lineup member was the suspect (single-blind) or who administered simultaneous lineups were more likely to emit verbal and nonverbal behaviors that suggested to the witness who the suspect was. Additionally, single-blind administrators exerted more pressure on witnesses to choose the suspect as opposed to fillers. Administrator knowledge interacted with retention interval and lineup presentation to influence mistaken identifications of innocent suspects; witnesses were more likely to mistakenly identify an innocent suspect from single-blind than double-blind lineups when witness retention intervals were long and photographs were presented simultaneously. Contrary to our predictions, suspect/perpetrator similarity did not interact with other manipulated variables to influence identification decisions. Both sequential and double-blind procedures should be used to reduce the use of suggestive behavior during lineup administration. (PsycINFO Database Record

Hypothesis testing in attorney-conducted voir dire.

Attorneys may hold expectations about jurors based on stereotypes about the relationships between demographic characteristics and attitudes. Attorneys test their hypotheses about prospective jurors during voir dire, but it is unclear whether their questioning strategies are likely to produce accurate information from jurors. In 2 studies, attorneys and law students formulated voir dire questions to test a particular hypothesis about the attitudes held by a prospective juror (venireperson) and provided their subsequent inferences about that individual given certain hypothetical responses to the questions. Bayes's theorem was used to compare attorneys' actual conclusions about the venireperson with the conclusions they would reach if correctly using the available information. Attorneys' conclusions were biased by the questions they asked, and in some cases, by the hypothesis that they were asked to test. Compared with normative models derived using Bayes' theorem, attorneys overrelied on venirepersons' responses when drawing conclusions about their attitudes. These findings suggest that even if traditional attorney-conducted voir dire elicited accurate information about prospective jurors' attitudes, attorneys may not use that information to draw normatively accurate conclusions about the attitudes that they hold.

Do Jurors Get What They Expect? Traditional versus Alternative Forms of Children's Testimony.

This study examined prospective jurors' expectancies for the verbal and nonverbal behavior of a child testifying in a sexual abuse case. Community members (N = 261) reporting for jury duty completed a survey in which they described their expectancies for how a child alleging sexual abuse would appear when testifying and their beliefs about discerning children's truthfulness, testimony stress, and fairness to trial parties. Within this survey, we varied the child's age (5, 10, or 15 years old), type of abuse alleged (vaginal fondling or penetration), and whether the abuse actually occurred (yes, no) between participants across five different testimony conditions (traditional live in-court, support person present, closed-circuit television, preparation, and videotape) within each participant. Participants expected a child providing traditional testimony to be more nervous, tearful, and fidgety; less confident, cooperative, and fluent; and to maintain less eye contact and provide shorter responses than when the child provided alternative forms of testimony. Participants believed it was easiest to determine a child's truthfulness and fairest to the defendant when the child testified live in court, but that this form of testimony was the most stressful and unfair to the child. Expectancies and beliefs differed within the alternative forms of testimony as well. Negative evaluations of children's alternative testimony may be the result of expectancy violation; namely, jurors expect differences in children's verbal and nonverbal behavior as a result of accommodation, but those differences actually do not occur.

The potentially biasing effects of voir dire in juvenile waiver cases.

An analysis of transcripts from cases in which a juvenile is adjudicated in adult criminal court showed that potential jurors may be questioned about their attitudes toward juvenile waiver during voir dire. If jurors express concerns about trying juveniles in adult criminal court, they are excused from the jury for cause (Danielsen et al., Paper presented at the meetings of the American Psychology-Law Society, 2004). We conducted a series of three studies to examine whether questions about juvenile adjudication practices and juvenile offenders during voir dire influenced jurors' pretrial and post-trial judgments of defendant guilt. Jurors who viewed a juvenile qualification voir dire provided higher pretrial probabilities of defendant guilt than did jurors who watched a standard voir dire that did not contain juvenile qualification questions. However, this pretrial guilt bias as a function of voir dire type did not persist after the presentation of trial evidence. Jurors who viewed a juvenile qualification voir dire and jurors who viewed a standard voir dire did not differ in their post-trial judgments of defendant guilt. Implications for the abilities of juvenile defendants to receive a fair trial in adult court are discussed.

The effects of rehabilitative voir dire on juror bias and decision making.

During voir dire, judges frequently attempt to "rehabilitate" venirepersons who express an inability to be impartial. Venirepersons who agree to ignore their biases and base their verdict on the evidence and the law are eligible for jury service. In Experiment 1, biased and unbiased mock jurors participated in either a standard or rehabilitative voir dire conducted by a judge and watched a trial video. Rehabilitation influenced insanity defense attitudes and perceptions of the defendant's mental state, and decreased scaled guilt judgments compared to standard questioning. Although rehabilitation is intended to correct for partiality among biased jurors, rehabilitation similarly influenced biased and unbiased jurors. Experiment 2 found that watching rehabilitation did not influence jurors' perceptions of the judge's personal beliefs about the case.

The effects of harassment severity and organizational behavior on damage awards in a hostile work environment sexual harassment case.

Community members reporting for jury duty (N = 128) read a sexual harassment trial summary in which harassment severity and the organization's sexual harassment policy and response were manipulated. Jurors who read the severe harassment scenario were more likely to agree that the plaintiff had suffered and should be compensated for her suffering and that the organization should be punished than were jurors who read the mild harassment scenario. When the organization had and enforced a sexual harassment policy, jurors believed that the plaintiff had suffered little and the organization should not be punished compared with conditions in which the organization did not have an enforced sexual harassment policy. Harassment severity influenced jurors' compensatory awards, and organizational behavior influenced jurors' punitive awards. These results have implications for plaintiffs, who must decide whether to claim specific or garden-variety damages; organizations, which could create or modify sexual harassment policy to limit damages; and trial lawyers, who could tailor arguments to maximize or minimize awards.

Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification.

Pairs (N=234) of witnesses and lineup administrators completed an identification task in which administrator knowledge, lineup presentation, instruction bias, and target presence were manipulated. Administrator knowledge had the greatest effect on identifications of the suspect for simultaneous photospreads paired with biased instructions, with single-blind administrations increasing identifications of the suspect. When biased instructions were given, single-blind administrations produced fewer foil identifications than double-blind administrations. Administrators exhibited a greater proportion of biasing behaviors during single-blind administrations than during double-blind administrations. The diagnosticity of identifications of the suspect in double-blind administrations was double their diagnosticity in single-blind administrations. These results suggest that when biasing factors are present to increase a witness's propensity to guess, single-blind administrator behavior influences witnesses to identify the suspect.

Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science?

This study examined the ability of jury-eligible community members (N = 248) to detect internal validity threats in psychological science presented during a trial. Participants read a case summary in which an expert testified about a study that varied in internal validity (valid, missing control group, confound, and experimenter bias) and ecological validity (high, low). Ratings of expert evidence quality and expert credibility were higher for the valid versus missing control group versions only. Internal validity did not influence verdict or ratings of plaintiff credibility and no differences emerged as a function of ecological validity. Expert evidence quality, expert credibility, and plaintiff credibility were positively correlated with verdict. Implications for the scientific reasoning literature and for trials containing psychological science are discussed.

The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence.

We tested whether an opposing expert is an effective method of educating jurors about scientific validity by manipulating the methodological quality of defense expert testimony and the type of opposing prosecution expert testimony (none, standard, addresses the other expert's methodology) within the context of a written trial transcript. The presence of opposing expert testimony caused jurors to be skeptical of all expert testimony rather than sensitizing them to flaws in the other expert's testimony. Jurors rendered more guilty verdicts when they heard opposing expert testimony than when opposing expert testimony was absent, regardless of whether the opposing testimony addressed the methodology of the original expert or the validity of the original expert's testimony. Thus, contrary to the assumptions in the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert, opposing expert testimony may not be an effective safeguard against junk science in the courtroom.