Current Issues in Forensic Psychology 407there had been at least 450 cases in 26 states in which eyewit-
ness researchers had testified as experts (Fulero, 1993). It has
been pointed out that “no such problem of admissibility was
raised in the 1950s when clinical psychologists began to tes-
tify on mental disorders or when social psychologists first
appeared to describe the debilitating personality conse-
quences of segregation” (Loh, 1981 p, 332). One reason for
the cool legal reception to eyewitness researchers is that the
law requires particularized proof rather than general proof
(e.g., average responses as shown by research), and the law is
reluctant to assume that there is a one-to-one correspondence
betweenpotentialunreliability of eyewitnesses (which is con-
ceded) and itsactualimpact in a particular trial (which must
be proven). Another issue is that many courts have assumed
that awareness of the fallibility of eyewitness evidence is
already within the “common knowledge” of most jurors, leav-
ing no need for expert testimony (Brigham et al., 1999).
The type of issue studied may also make a difference. Wells
(1978, 1993) asserted that psychologists should concentrate
on studyingsystem variables,that is, factors that are change-
able within the system (e.g., police procedures, interrogation
techniques, fairness of lineups), rather thanestimator vari-
ables,whose impact in any particular situation can only be
estimated (e.g., level of stress, weapon focus, race). Wells as-
serted that because of their potential usefuless for improving
procedures, the results of system-variable research would be
more readily accepted by the legal system than would
estimator-variable research. It remains to be seen whether the
legal system will become more receptive in the future to expert
testimony about the memory of eyewitnesses, or whether the
results of eyewitness research find their way into the legal sys-
tem by other means (e.g., via science-translation briefs).
Clinical Forensic Evaluations
Little research was directed toward improving clinicians’
evaluations for the courts until the 1980s. This changed
dramatically across the next 20 years, heralded by seminal
works published early in the 1980s. Among these were
Monahan’s (1981) treatise summarizing the serious limits
of our abilities to assess and predict violent behavior, the
first book to summarize what we did and did not know about
competence to stand trial as a legal and forensic assessment
issue (Roesch & Golding, 1980), the publication of a system-
atic model for the future development of instruments to as-
sess a variety of legal competencies (Grisso, 1986), and the
first comprehensive texts on the full range of forensic psy-
chological evaluations for the courts in criminal, civil, and
juvenile cases (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1987;
Weiner & Hess, 1987).
The importance of improving psychologists’ abilities to
assess the potential for future violence among offenders and
persons with mental illnesses was driven also by legal cases
during the 1980s. Most notable among these was Barefoot v.
Estelle(1983), in which the U.S. Supreme Court acknowl-
edged experts’ inability to provide reliable predictions but,
ironically, determined that they should continue to be con-
sulted by the courts. Several large-scale research projects to
improve our abilities to assess the risk of future violence
began in the 1980s and had a major impact on practice when
their results emerged in the 1990s. Among these were the
work of researchers who developed and validated compre-
hensive violence risk assessment tools to provide estimates
of likelihood of reoffending among prisoners (e.g., Quinsey,
Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998), likelihood of future violence
related to psychopathy (Hare, 1996), and likelihood of vio-
lence among persons with mental disorders after their release
from psychiatric hospitals (Steadman et al., 1998).
Research to improve our conceptualization and assess-
ment of abilities related to legal competencies grew exponen-
tially throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Reviews of research
on competence to stand trial (Roesch, Zapf, Golding, &
Skeem, 1999) describe the development of important and
basic information regarding the legal process for determining
competence, as well as the validation of structured assess-
ment tools for obtaining relevant psycholegal information
on defendants in such cases (e.g., Poythress et al., 1999).
Similar advances were made in substantial research projects
culminating in data and assessment tools to improve evalua-
tions of competence of patients to consent to treatment (e.g.,
Grisso & Appelbaum, 1998).Child and Adolescent Psycholegal IssuesResearch advanced in the 1980s and 1990s in a number of
areas pertaining to children’s capacities related to psycholegal
questions. Among the most extensively researched of these
questions was children’s capacities to offer reliable testimony
as eyewitnesses or as victims (e.g., Ceci & Hembrooke, 1998;
Ceci, Toglia, & Ross, 1987). By the 1990s, developmental
and experimental psychologists were able to provide signifi-
cant information to courts regarding not only children’s
capacities to testify but also methods of investigation and
questioning that would reduce the likelihood that children’s
reports would be contaminated by their experiences between
the event and the trial.
Children’s capacities to make decisions about matters af-
fecting their welfare became a major issue in the courts in the
late 1970s in the context of debates about youths’ choices
concerning abortion (e.g., Bellotti v. Baird,1979), medical