Credibility Assessment and Deception Detection in Courtrooms: Hazards and Challenges for Scholars and Legal Practitioners

  • Vincent DenaultEmail author
  • Norah E. Dunbar


This chapter addresses the issue of credibility assessment and deception detection in courtrooms. First, an overview of deception in courtrooms of adversarial justice systems is offered. Second, the influence of false beliefs and inappropriate stereotypes on deception judgments made by judges or jurors is addressed. Third, limitations to the use of novel deception detection techniques during trials are presented. Finally, this chapter ends with a call for scholars concerned with the search for truth and justice to give serious consideration to the study of deception detection in courtrooms of adversarial justice systems.


Witness Testimony Courtroom Deception detection Credibility assessment 



The authors would like to thank Alexandre Germain, Adam Villeneuve, Barry Morrison, Éric Raymond, François Cooren, Louise Jupe, Maria Hartwig, Michel St-Yves, and Valérie Dupré for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this chapter.


  1. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 140 U.S. 76 (1891).Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organization of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, A., Porter, S., Ten Brinke, L., & Mundy, C. (2016). Seeing is believing: Observer perceptions of trait trustworthiness predict perceptions of honesty in high-stakes emotional appeals. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 22(9), 817–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandes, S. A. (2014). Remorse, demeanor, and the consequences of misinterpretation: The limits of law as a window to the soul. Journal of Law, Religion and State, 3(2), 170–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandes, S. A. (2016). Remorse and criminal justice. Emotion Review, 8(1), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beety, V. E. (2013). Criminality and corpulence: Weight bias in the courtroom. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 11(2), 523–554.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, E. (2013). An introduction to judicial fact-finding. Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 39(3), 519–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bell, V., Villalobos, J. G., & Davis, D. (2014). Attorneys. In T. Levine (Ed.), Encyclopedia of deception (pp. 41–45). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Bennett, M. W. (2015). Unspringing the witness memory and demeanor trap: What every judge and juror needs to know about cognitive psychology and witness credibility. American University Law Review, 64(6), 1331–1376.Google Scholar
  10. Bessette c. Brisson, 2004 CanLII 44897 (QC CQ).Google Scholar
  11. Blumenthal, J. A. (1993). A wipe of the hands, a lick of the lips: The validity of demeanor evidence in assessing witness credibility. Nebraska Law Review, 72(4), 1157–1204.Google Scholar
  12. Bodenhausen, G. V. (1988). Stereotypic biases in social decision making and memory: Testing process models of stereotype use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(5), 726–737.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy and bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 477–492.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Bothwell, R., & Jalil, M. (1992). The credibility of nervous witnesses. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 581–586.Google Scholar
  15. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).Google Scholar
  16. Brodsky, S. L., & Pivovarova, E. (2016). The credibility of witnesses. In C. Willis-Esqueda & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), The witness stand and Lawrence S. Wrightsman, Jr. (pp. 41–52). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Brouillard Also Known As Chatel v. The Queen, [1985] 1 SCR 39, 1985 CanLII 56 (SCC).Google Scholar
  18. Browning, J. (2014). Snitches get stitches: Witness intimidation in the age of Facebook and Twitter. Pace Law Review, 35(1), 192–214.Google Scholar
  19. Buel, S. M. (2014). De facto witness tampering. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law and Justice, 29(1), 72–131.Google Scholar
  20. Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1994). Deception: Strategic and nonstrategic communication. In J. A. Daly & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 191–223). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Buller, D., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6(3), 203–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Buller, D. B., Burgoon, J. K., White, C., & Ebesu, A. (1994). Interpersonal deception: VII. Behavioral profiles of falsification, equivocation and concealment. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13(4), 366–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bulow-Moller, A. M. (1991). Trial evidence: Overt and covert communication in court. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 38–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Burgoon, J. K., Blair, J. P., & Strom, R. E. (2008). Cognitive biases and nonverbal cue availability in deception detection. Human Communication Research, 34(4), 572–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2010). Nonverbal communication. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  26. Burnett, A., & Badzinski, D. M. (2005). Judge nonverbal communication on trial: Do mock trial jurors notice? Journal of Communication, 55(2), 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Clark, D. S. (1990). Civil litigation trends in Europe and Latin America since 1945: The advantage of intracountry comparisons. Law & Society Review, 24(2), 549–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Clemenz, G., & Gugler, K. (2000). Macroeconomic development and civil litigation. European Journal of Law and Economics, 9(3), 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Connick, E., & Davis, R. C. (1983). Examining the problem of witness intimidation. Judicature, 66(9), 439–448.Google Scholar
  30. Canada’s Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. Retrieved from
  31. Denault, V. (2015). Communication non verbale et crédibilité des témoins [Nonverbal communication and the credibility of witnesses]. Cowansville: Éditions Yvon Blais.Google Scholar
  32. Denault, V. (2017). Le “langage” non verbal des témoins, quand les pseudosciences s’invitent au tribunal [The “body language” of witnesses, when pseudosciences are invited in the courtroom]. ScriptUM: La revue du Colloque VocUM 2015, 2, 96–118.Google Scholar
  33. Denault, V., & Dunbar, N. (2017). Nonverbal communication in courtrooms: Scientific assessments or modern trials by ordeal? The Advocates’ Quarterly, 47(3), 280–308.Google Scholar
  34. Denault, V., & Jupe, L. (2017). Deception detection. In B. Baker, R. Minhas, & L. Wilson (Eds.), Psychology and law factbook 2. Derby: European Association of Psychology and Law Student Society.Google Scholar
  35. Denault, V., & Jupe, L. (2018). Detecting deceit during trials: Limits in the implementation of lie detection research—A comment on Snook, McCardle, Fahmy and House. Canadian Criminal Law Review, 23(1), 97–106.Google Scholar
  36. Denault, V., Jupe, L., Dodier, O., & Rochat, N. (2017). To veil or not to veil, detecting lies in the courtroom: A comment on Leach et al. (2016). Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 24(1), 102–117.Google Scholar
  37. DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 63–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 979–995.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Doyon, F. (1999). L’évaluation de la crédibilité des témoins [The credibility assessment of witnesses]. Revue canadienne de droit pénal, 4, 331–343.Google Scholar
  41. Dumas, R., & Testé, B. (2006). The influence of criminal facial stereotypes on juridic judgments. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 65(4), 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Eades, D. (2008). Telling and retelling your story in court: Questions, assumptions and intercultural implications. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 20(2), 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Eberhardt, J. L., Davies, P. G., Purdie-Vaughns, V. J., & Johnson, S. L. (2006). Looking deathworthy perceived stereotypicality of black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science, 17(5), 383–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, marriage, and politics. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  45. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 32, 88–106.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Farmer, C., & Hancock, J. (2014). Perjury. In T. Levine (Ed.), Encyclopedia of deception (pp. 753–756). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Fawcett, H. E. (2014). Witness, false testimony of. In T. Levine (Ed.), Encyclopedia of deception (pp. 937–940). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Fortune, W. H., Underwood, R. H., & Imwinkelried, E. J. (1996). Modern litigation and professional responsibility handbook. New York: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Fraigman, D. L. (2006). Judges as amateur scientists. Boston University Law Review, 86(5), 1207–1226.Google Scholar
  50. Frankel, M. E. (1975). The search for truth: An umpireal view. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 123(5), 1031–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Friedland, S. I. (1989). On common sense and the evaluation of witness credibility. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 40(1), 165–226.Google Scholar
  52. Galasinski, D. (2000). The language of deception: A discourse analytical study. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Gerber, R. J. (1987). Victory vs. truth: The adversary system and its ethic. Arizona State Law Journal, 19(1), 3–26.Google Scholar
  54. Gödert, H. W., Gamer, M., Rill, H. G., & Vossel, G. (2005). Statement validity assessment: Inter-rater reliability of criteria-based content analysis in the mock-crime paradigm. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10(2), 225–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).Google Scholar
  56. Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2004). The detection of deception in forensic contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Green, S. P. (2001). Lying, misleading, and falsely denying: How moral concepts inform the law of perjury, fraud, and false statements. Hasting Law Journal, 53(1), 157–212.Google Scholar
  58. Griffin, L. K. (2013). Narrative, truth, and trial. Georgetown Law Journal, 101(2), 281–336.Google Scholar
  59. Haney, C., Sontag, L., & Constanzo, S. (1994). Deciding to take a life: Capital juries, sentencing instructions, and the jurisprudence of death. Journal of Social Issues, 50(2), 149–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Luke, T. (2014). Strategic use of evidence during investigative interviews: The state of the science. In D. C. Raskin, C. R. Honts, & J. C. Kircher (Eds.), Credibility assessment: Scientific research and applications (pp. 1–36). Oxford: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  61. Hauch, V., Blandón-Gitlin, I., Masip, J., & Sporer, S. L. (2015). Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 307–342.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Heath, W. P. (2009). Arresting and convicting the innocent: The potential role of an “inappropriate” emotional display in the accused. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27(3), 313–332.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hutchins, R. M. (2014). You can’t handle the truth! Trial juries and credibility. Seton Hall Law Review, 44(2), 505–556.Google Scholar
  64. Imwinkelried, E. J. (1985). Demeanor impeachment: Law and tactics. American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 9(2), 183–236.Google Scholar
  65. Jones v. National Coal Board, [1957]. 2 All E.R. 155 (C.A.).Google Scholar
  66. Kane, J. L. (2007). Judging Credibility. Litigation, 33(3), 31–37.Google Scholar
  67. Knapp, M. L., & Hall, J. A. (2010). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Boston: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  68. Köhnken, G. (1989). Behavioral correlates of statement credibility: Theories, paradigms, and results. In H. Wegener, F. Lösel, & J. Haisch (Eds.), Criminal behavior and the justice system: Psychological perspectives (pp. 271–289). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Koppell, S. (2014). An argument against increasing prosecutors’ disclosure requirements beyond Brady. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 27(3), 643–654.Google Scholar
  70. Lacy, J. W., & Stark, C. E. L. (2013). The neuroscience of memory: Implications for the courtroom. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 649–658.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Levenson, L. L. (2008). Courtroom demeanor: The theater of the courtroom. Minnesota Law Review, 92(3), 573–633.Google Scholar
  72. Levine, E. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2014). Are liars ethical? On the tension between benevolence and honesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Levine, E. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2015). Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125, 88–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Levine, T. R. (2010). A few transparent liars. Communication Yearbook, 34(1), 40–61.Google Scholar
  75. Levine, T. R. (2018). Ecological validity and deception detection research design. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(1), 45–54. Scholar
  76. Levine, T. R., Serota, K. B., Shulman, H., Clare, D. D., Park, H. S., Shaw, A. S., & Lee, J. H. (2011). Sender demeanor: Individual differences in sender believability have a powerful impact on deception detection judgments. Human Communication Research, 37(3), 377–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Lilienfeld, S. O., & Landfield, K. (2008). Science and pseudoscience in law enforcement: A user-friendly primer. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(10), 1215–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Loeterman, B. (1997, February 25). What Jennifer saw. Frontline. Retrieved from
  79. Loevy, J. (2006). How to convince the court that the cops are lying. Litigation, 32(2), 33–39.Google Scholar
  80. Mann, S., Ewens, S., Shaw, D., Vrij, A., Leal, S., & Hillman, J. (2013). Lying eyes: Why Liars seek deliberate eye contact. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20(3), 452–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Mann, S., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Granhag, P. A., Warmelink, L., & Forrester, D. (2012). Windows to the soul? Deliberate eye contact as a cue to deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36(3), 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Masip, J. (2017). Deception detection: State of the art and future prospects. Psicothema, 29(2), 149–159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. McCornack, S. A. (1992). Information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs, 59(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Minzner, M. (2008). Detecting lies using demeanor, bias and context. Cardozo Law Review, 29(6), 2557–2582.Google Scholar
  85. Monaghan, N. (2015). Law of evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Moreno, J. A. (2003). Einstein on the bench: Exposing what judges do not know about science and using child abuse cases to improve how courts evaluate scientific evidence. Ohio State Law Journal, 64(2), 351–584.Google Scholar
  87. Morrison, B. R., & Comeau, W. (2002). Judging credibility of witnesses. The Advocates Quarterly, 25(4), 411–440.Google Scholar
  88. Morrison, B. R., Porter, L. L., & Fraser, I. H. (2007). The role of demeanour in assessing the credibility of witnesses. The Advocates Quarterly, 33(1), 170–192.Google Scholar
  89. Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2012). Exploiting liars verbal strategies by examining the verifiability of details. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 19(2), 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Norris, J., & Edwardh, M. (1995). Myths, hidden facts and common sense: Expert opinion evidence and the assessment of credibility. Criminal Law Quarterly, 38(1), 73–103.Google Scholar
  91. Oberlander, V., Naefgen, C., Koppehele-Gossel, J., Quinten, L., Banse, R., & Schmidt, A. F. (2016). Validity of content-based techniques to distinguish true and fabricated statements: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 40(4), 440–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. O’Neill, H. (2001, March 4). The perfect witness. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
  93. O’Regan, D. (2017). Eying the body: The impact of classical rules for demeanor credibility, bias, and the need to blind legal decision makers. Pace Law Review, 37(2), 379–454.Google Scholar
  94. P. (D.) v. S. (C.), [1993] 4 SCR 141, 1993 CanLII 35 (SCC).Google Scholar
  95. Paciocco, D. M. (2010). Understanding the accusatorial system. Canadian Criminal Law Review, 14(3), 307–325.Google Scholar
  96. Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., McCornack, S. A., Morrison, K., & Ferrerra, M. (2002). How people really detect lies. Communication Monographs, 69(2), 144–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Peck, D. W. (1954). The complement of court and counsel. Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, 9(6), 272–286.Google Scholar
  98. Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Porter, S., & ten Brinke, L. (2009). Dangerous decisions: A theoretical framework for understanding how judges assess credibility in the courtroom. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14(1), 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Porter, S., ten Brinke, L., & Gustaw, C. (2010). Dangerous decisions: The impact of first impressions of trustworthiness on the evaluation of legal evidence and defendant culpability. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 16, 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Porter, S., Campbell, M. A., Birt, A. R., & Woodworth, M. T. (2003). “He said, she said”: A psychological perspective on historical memory evidence in the courtroom. Canadian Psychology, 44(3), 190–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Pryor, B., & Buchanan, R. W. (1984). The effects of a defendant’s demeanor on juror perceptions of credibility and guilt. Journal of Communication, 34(3), 92–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Quebec’s Code of Civil Procedure. 2018. c. C-25.01. Retrieved from
  104. R. v. Béland, [1987] 2 SCR 398, 1987 CanLII 27 (SCC).Google Scholar
  105. R. v. Brooks, [2000] 1 SCR 237, 2000 SCC 11 (CanLII).Google Scholar
  106. R. v. Darlyn, [1946] CanLII 248 (BC CA).Google Scholar
  107. R. v. Egger, [1993] 2 SCR 451, 1993 CanLII 98 (SCC).Google Scholar
  108. R. v. François, [1994] 2 SCR 827, 1994 CanLII 52 (SCC).Google Scholar
  109. R. v. Gagnon, [2006] 1 SCR 621, 2006 SCC 17 (CanLII).Google Scholar
  110. R. v. Handy, [2002] 2 SCR 908, 2002 SCC 56 (CanLII).Google Scholar
  111. R. v. Marquard, [1993] 4 SCR 223, 1993 CanLII 37 (SCC).Google Scholar
  112. R. c. Martin, 2017 QCCS 193 (CanLII).Google Scholar
  113. R. c. Pinard, [2014] QCCQ 5630 (CanLII).Google Scholar
  114. R. c. S. B., [2006] QCCQ 12796 (CanLII).Google Scholar
  115. R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 SCR 484, 1997 CanLII 324 (SCC).Google Scholar
  116. R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326, 1991 SCC 45 (CanLII).Google Scholar
  117. R. v. W. (R.), [1992] 2 SCR 122, 1992 CanLII 56 (SCC).Google Scholar
  118. Ragaz, L. L., & Russell, B. (2010). Sex, sexual orientation, and sexism: What influence do these factors have on verdicts in a crime-of-passion case? Journal of Social Psychology, 150(4), 341–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Ramseyer, J. M., & Rasmusen, E. B. (2013). Comparative litigation rates (Harvard John M. Olin Discussion Paper Series, No. 681, Nov. 2010). Retrieved from
  120. Remland, M. S. (1994). The importance of nonverbal communication in the courtroom. The New Jersey Journal of Communication, 2(2), 124–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Rieh, S. Y., & Danielson, D. R. (2007). Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (pp. 307–364). Medford: Information Today.Google Scholar
  122. Rogers, H., Fox, S., & Herlihy, J. (2015). The importance of looking credible: The impact of the behavioural sequelae of post-traumatic stress disorder on the credibility of asylum-seekers. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 21(2), 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Rogers, T., Zeckhauser, R. J., Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., & Norton, M. I. (2017). Artful paltering: The risks and rewards of using truthful statements to mislead others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(3), 456–473.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. Rozin, P. (2001). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(1), 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Schwelb, F. E. (1989). Lying in court. Litigation, 15(2), 3–54.Google Scholar
  126. Searcy, M., Duck, S., & Blanck, P. (2005). Nonverbal communication in the courtroom and the “appearance” of justice. In R. E. Riggio & R. S. Feldman (Eds.), Applications of nonverbal communication (pp. 41–62). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  127. Seelau, S. M., & Seelau, E. P. (2005). Gender-role stereotypes and perceptions of heterosexual, gay and lesbian domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 20(6), 363–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Seniuk, G. T. G. (1992). Judicial fact-finding and a theory of credit. Saskatchewan Law Review, 56(1), 79–112.Google Scholar
  129. Seniuk, G. T. G. (2013). Credibility assessment, common law trials and fuzzy logic. In B. S. Copper, D. Griesel, & M. Ternes (Eds.), Applied issues in in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment (pp. 19–30). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  130. Serota, K. B., Levine, T. R., & Boster, F. J. (2010). The prevalence of lying in America: Three studies of self-reported lies. Human Communication Research, 36(1), 2–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Simon-Kerr, J. (2015). Systematic lying. William & Mary Law Review, 56(6), 2175–2234.Google Scholar
  132. Slobogin, C. (1996). Testilying: Police perjury and what to do about it. University of Colorado Law Review, 67(4), 1037–1060.Google Scholar
  133. Strier, F. (1994). Making jury trials more truthful. University of California, Davis Law Review, 30(1), 95–182.Google Scholar
  134. Strömwall, L. A., & Granhag, P. A. (2003). How to detect deception? Arresting the beliefs of police officers, prosecutors and judges. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 9(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Summers, R. S. (1999). Formal legal truth and substantive truth in judicial fact-finding—Their justified divergence in some particular cases. Law and Phylosophy, 18(5), 497–511.Google Scholar
  136. Sundby, S. (1998). The capital jury and absolution: The intersection of trial strategy, remorse, and the death penalty. Cornell Law Review, 83(4), 1557–1598.Google Scholar
  137. Sward, E. E. (1989). Values, ideology, and the evolution of the adversary system. Indiana Law Journal, 64(2), 301–355.Google Scholar
  138. Tadei, A., Finnilä, K., Reite, A., Antfolk, J., & Santtila, P. (2016). Judges’ capacity to evaluate psychological and psychiatric expert testimony. Nordic Psychology, 68(3), 204–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Talwar, V., & Crossman, A. M. (2012). Children’s lies and their detection: Implications for child witness testimony. Developmental Review, 32(4), 337–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Tanford, J. A. (2009). The trial process: Law, tactics and ethics. New York: Matthew Bender & Co.Google Scholar
  141. ten Brinke, L., & Porter, S. (2013). Discovering deceit: Applying laboratory and field research in the search for truthful and deceptive behaviour. In B. S. Cooper, D. Griesel, & M. Ternes (Eds.), Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment (pp. 221–237). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Timony, J. P. (2000). Demeanor credibility. Catholic University Law Review, 49(4), 903–944.Google Scholar
  143. Troville, P. V. (1939). History of lie detection. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 29(6), 848–881.Google Scholar
  144. United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998).Google Scholar
  145. Van Swol, L. M., & Braun, M. (2014). Communicating deception: Differences in language use, justifications, and questions for lies, omissions, and truths. Group Decision and Negotiation, 23(6), 1343–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Vetrovec v. The Queen, [1982] 1 SCR 811, 1982 CanLII 20 (SCC).Google Scholar
  147. Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-based content analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(1), 3–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Vrij, A. (2007). Deception: A social lubricant and a selfish act. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Frontiers of social psychology: Social communication (pp. 309–342). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  149. Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  150. Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2016). Which lie detection tools are ready for use in the criminal justice system? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(3), 302–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., & Blank, H. (2017). A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta-analysis. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2012a). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(2), 110–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2012b). The sound of critics: New tunes, old tunes, and resistance to play. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(2), 139–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. (2006). Information-gathering vs accusatory interview style: Individual Differences in respondents’ experiences. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(4), 589–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Vrij, A., Mann, S., Kristen, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2007). Cues to deception and ability to detect lies as a function of police interview styles. Law and Human Behavior, 31(5), 499–518.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Wellborn, O. G. (1990). Demeanor. Cornell Law Review, 76(5), 1075–1105.Google Scholar
  157. White v. The King, [1947] SCR 268, 1947 CanLII 1 (SCC).Google Scholar
  158. Wilson, J. P., & Rule, N. O. (2015). Facial trustworthiness predicts extreme criminal-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science, 26(8), 1325–1331.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Wilson, J. P., & Rule, N. O. (2016). Hypothetical sentencing decisions are associated with actual capital punishment outcomes. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(4), 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Wilthermuth, S. S., Newman, D. T., & Raj, M. (2015). The consequences of dishonesty. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Winkel, F. W., & Koppelaar, L. (1991). Rape victims’ style of self-presentation and secondary victimization by the environment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6(1), 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Wise, T. A. (1845). Commentary on the Hindu system of medicine. Calcutta: Thacker and Co.Google Scholar
  163. Yates, J., Davis, B. C., & Glick, H. R. (2001). The politics of torts: Explaining litigation rates in the American states. State Politics & Policy Quaterly, 1(2), 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Zebrowitz, L. A., & McDonald, S. M. (1991). The impact of litigants’ babyfaceness and attractiveness on adjudications in small claims courts. Law and Human Behavior, 15(6), 603–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CommunicationUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Department of CommunicationUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations