Witness Preparation. It would be unethical for
the consultant to work with a witness in any way
designed to encourage any alteration in the facts of
testimony. Although the line is a very thin one, the
idea ofwitness preparationis to help witnesses present
their testimony better without changing the facts to
which their testimony is directed. Because this is
such a delicate matter, some consultants will not
work with witnesses in criminal proceedings—
only in civil cases. Nietzel and Dillehay (1986)
have discussed many aspects of witness preparation,
including the manner in which facts are presented,
associated emotions on the part of the witness,
preparation for the sheer experience of being a wit-
ness in a courtroom, cross-examination, appear-
ance, and threats by the opposing attorney to the
credibility of the witness. However, there remains
a great deal of “gray area” between providing
proper assistance to potential witnesses and encour-
aging the potential witness to change testimony
(Wrightsman, 2001).
Convincing the Jury. Finally, consultants can
often help attorneys in the way they present their
cases and evidence (within the allowable constraints
of the judicial system) to jurors. Consultants can
assist attorneys in predicting how jurors will
respond to certain kinds of evidence or methods
of presentation, especially in opening and closing
arguments. In effect, the beliefs, feelings, and
behavior of jurors are the targets here. The consul-
tants then help attorneys find the very best way to
present their cases.
Research and Forensic PsychologyIn a real sense, virtually all research in psychology is
relevant to some forensic issue. For example,
research on the genetic components of schizophre-
nia may be very important in a mental competency
hearing. The nature of prejudice or the basic ele-
ments of the persuasive process are as germane to
the attorney as they are to the social psychologist.
Consumer research may have direct application to
a product liability suit. And recently, research
on attributions and interpersonal relationships has
been applied to the law on searches and seizures.
However, several research areas have become par-
ticularly identified with forensic psychology, and
we have chosen to sample two of them here.Eyewitness Testimony. Nothing can be so dra-
matic or damaging as an eyewitness who identifies
the person accused of a crime. Sucheyewitness testi-
monyhas been a powerful factor in the conviction
of countless individuals over the years. But such
testimony has all too often convicted the innocent
as well as the guilty (Brewer & Wells, 2011; Green
& Heilbrun, 2011; Wells & Olsen, 2003). The rea-
son, put simply, is that eyewitness testimony is often
unreliable and inaccurate. A case in point occurred
in 1979 in Wilmington, Delaware. A Catholic
priest was put on trial because a citizen told police
that the priest looked very much like an artist’s
sketch of a robber being circulated by the police.
Later, seven eyewitnesses to the robbery positively
identified the priest as the robber. The trial was
halted, however, when another man confessed to
the crime. What had happened with these eyewit-
nesses? Apparently, before showing pictures of sus-
pects to the witnesses, the police had quietly
revealed that the robber might be a priest. And
the priest’s picture was the only one with the sub-
ject wearing a clerical collar!
Over the years, Loftus and her colleagues have
conducted a number of experiments that together
show that eyewitnesses’memory can easily be dis-
torted by subsequent information. For example,
Loftus, Miller, and Burns (1978) had subjects view
a series of color slides of an auto accident. Half the
subjects were shown a series in which there was a
stop sign present; the other half saw a yield sign.
Afterward, subjects answered questions about the
slides. The critical question asked whether a partic-
ular sign (either stop or yield) was present. For half
the subjects, the sign asked about was consistent
with what subjects had seen earlier; for the other
half, it was inconsistent. Still later, the subjects were
shown 15 slides and were asked to pick out the one
they had seen before. Interestingly, subjects whose
question was consistent with the sign they had actu-
ally seen chose the correct slide 75% of the time,556 CHAPTER 19