Legal Professionals Use an Implicit Checklist to Assess Expert Witness Credibility

{"In":[0],"a":[1,65],"court":[2],"of":[3,7,17,61,142],"law,":[4],"some":[5],"forms":[6],"evidence":[8],"are":[9],"too":[10],"technical":[11],"to":[12,26,34,100,120,138],"interpret":[13],"without":[14],"the":[15,59,122],"help":[16],"an":[18,31,52],"expert":[19,22,53,67],"witness.":[20],"However,":[21],"testimony":[23],"sometimes":[24],"leads":[25],"wrongful":[27],"conviction.":[28],"We":[29],"used":[30],"online":[32],"survey":[33],"quantitatively":[35],"compare":[36],"how":[37],"legal":[38,103,123,130],"professionals":[39,104,131],"(n":[40,46],"=":[41,47],"122)":[42],"and":[43,92,118,144,146],"lay":[44,101],"people":[45],"109)":[48],"understood":[49],"what":[50],"makes":[51],"witness":[54],"credible.":[55],"Both":[56],"groups":[57],"rated":[58],"importance":[60,107],"22":[62],"criteria":[63,86,109],"describing":[64],"hypothetical":[66],"either":[68],"in":[69,115],"positive":[70],"terms":[71,79],"(e.g.,":[72,80],"\\"…has":[73],"peer":[74],"reviewed":[75],"publications…\\")":[76],"or":[77,83],"negative":[78],"\\"…not":[81],"licensed":[82],"accredited…\\").":[84],"Nine":[85],"showed":[87],"significant":[88],"differences":[89],"between":[90],"groups,":[91],"for":[93],"other":[94],"criteria,":[95],"there":[96],"was":[97],"agreement.":[98],"Compared":[99],"people,":[102],"placed":[105],"more":[106],"on":[108],"such":[110],"as":[111],"domain":[112],"expertise":[113],"(knowledge":[114],"one's":[116],"field),":[117],"ability":[119],"answer":[121],"question":[124],"at":[125],"hand.":[126],"It":[127],"appears":[128],"that":[129],"have":[132],"refined":[133],"credibility":[134],"assessments":[135],"potentially":[136],"due":[137],"their":[139],"education,":[140],"knowledge":[141],"policy":[143],"guidance,":[145],"first-hand":[147],"experience.":[148]}

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Behavioral Sciences & the Law
Published
2026-08-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.70089
Primary Topic
Deception detection and forensic psychology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Legal Professionals Use an Implicit Checklist to Assess Expert Witness Credibility

Behavioral Sciences & the Law
Deception detection and forensic psychology
article

Legal Professionals Use an Implicit Checklist to Assess Expert Witness Credibility

article en

Abstract

In a court of law, some forms of evidence are too technical to interpret without the help of an expert witness. However, expert testimony sometimes leads to wrongful conviction. We used an online survey to quantitatively compare how legal professionals (n = 122) and lay people (n = 109) understood what makes an expert witness credible. Both groups rated the importance of 22 criteria describing a hypothetical expert either in positive terms (e.g., "…has peer reviewed publications…") or negative terms (e.g., "…not licensed or accredited…"). Nine criteria showed significant differences between groups, and for other criteria, there was agreement. Compared to lay people, legal professionals placed more importance on criteria such as domain expertise (knowledge in one's field), and ability to answer the legal question at hand. It appears that legal professionals have refined credibility assessments potentially due to their education, knowledge of policy and guidance, and first-hand experience.

Behavioral Sciences & the Law
Middlesex University Mauritius (MU), Middlesex University London (GB)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 99%
Deception detection and forensic psychology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.