Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Deceptive Communication

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 140 U.S. 76 (1891).

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organization of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London: Macmillan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandes, S. A. (2016). Remorse and criminal justice. Emotion Review,8(1), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beety, V. E. (2013). Criminality and corpulence: Weight bias in the courtroom. Seattle Journal for Social Justice,11(2), 523–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, E. (2013). An introduction to judicial fact-finding. Commonwealth Law Bulletin,39(3), 519–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, V., Villalobos, J. G., & Davis, D. (2014). Attorneys. In T. Levine (Ed.), Encyclopedia of deception (pp. 41–45). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bessette c. Brisson, 2004 CanLII 44897 (QC CQ).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy and bias. Psychological Bulletin,134(4), 477–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bothwell, R., & Jalil, M. (1992). The credibility of nervous witnesses. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,7, 581–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Brouillard Also Known As Chatel v. The Queen, [1985] 1 SCR 39, 1985 CanLII 56 (SCC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Browning, J. (2014). Snitches get stitches: Witness intimidation in the age of Facebook and Twitter. Pace Law Review,35(1), 192–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buel, S. M. (2014). De facto witness tampering. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law and Justice,29(1), 72–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Buller, D., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory,6(3), 203–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulow-Moller, A. M. (1991). Trial evidence: Overt and covert communication in court. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,1(1), 38–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2010). Nonverbal communication. Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, A., & Badzinski, D. M. (2005). Judge nonverbal communication on trial: Do mock trial jurors notice? Journal of Communication,55(2), 209–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemenz, G., & Gugler, K. (2000). Macroeconomic development and civil litigation. European Journal of Law and Economics,9(3), 215–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connick, E., & Davis, R. C. (1983). Examining the problem of witness intimidation. Judicature,66(9), 439–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canada’s Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/.

  • Denault, V. (2015). Communication non verbale et crédibilité des témoins [Nonverbal communication and the credibility of witnesses]. Cowansville: Éditions Yvon Blais.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74(1), 63–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dumas, R., & Testé, B. (2006). The influence of criminal facial stereotypes on juridic judgments. Swiss Journal of Psychology,65(4), 237–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eades, D. (2008). Telling and retelling your story in court: Questions, assumptions and intercultural implications. Current Issues in Criminal Justice,20(2), 209–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, marriage, and politics. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry,32, 88–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, C., & Hancock, J. (2014). Perjury. In T. Levine (Ed.), Encyclopedia of deception (pp. 753–756). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett, H. E. (2014). Witness, false testimony of. In T. Levine (Ed.), Encyclopedia of deception (pp. 937–940). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortune, W. H., Underwood, R. H., & Imwinkelried, E. J. (1996). Modern litigation and professional responsibility handbook. New York: Aspen Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraigman, D. L. (2006). Judges as amateur scientists. Boston University Law Review,86(5), 1207–1226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, M. E. (1975). The search for truth: An umpireal view. University of Pennsylvania Law Review,123(5), 1031–1059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, S. I. (1989). On common sense and the evaluation of witness credibility. Case Western Reserve Law Review,40(1), 165–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galasinski, D. (2000). The language of deception: A discourse analytical study. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, R. J. (1987). Victory vs. truth: The adversary system and its ethic. Arizona State Law Journal, 19(1), 3–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  • Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2004). The detection of deception in forensic contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Griffin, L. K. (2013). Narrative, truth, and trial. Georgetown Law Journal,101(2), 281–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, R. M. (2014). You can’t handle the truth! Trial juries and credibility. Seton Hall Law Review,44(2), 505–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imwinkelried, E. J. (1985). Demeanor impeachment: Law and tactics. American Journal of Trial Advocacy,9(2), 183–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones v. National Coal Board, [1957]. 2 All E.R. 155 (C.A.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, J. L. (2007). Judging Credibility. Litigation,33(3), 31–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, M. L., & Hall, J. A. (2010). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Boston: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koppell, S. (2014). An argument against increasing prosecutors’ disclosure requirements beyond Brady. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics,27(3), 643–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacy, J. W., & Stark, C. E. L. (2013). The neuroscience of memory: Implications for the courtroom. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,14, 649–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, L. L. (2008). Courtroom demeanor: The theater of the courtroom. Minnesota Law Review,92(3), 573–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, E. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2015). Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,125, 88–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, T. R. (2010). A few transparent liars. Communication Yearbook,34(1), 40–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, T. R. (2018). Ecological validity and deception detection research design. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1411471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, S. O., & Landfield, K. (2008). Science and pseudoscience in law enforcement: A user-friendly primer. Criminal Justice and Behavior,35(10), 1215–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loeterman, B. (1997, February 25). What Jennifer saw. Frontline. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/etc/script.html.

  • Loevy, J. (2006). How to convince the court that the cops are lying. Litigation,32(2), 33–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masip, J. (2017). Deception detection: State of the art and future prospects. Psicothema,29(2), 149–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCornack, S. A. (1992). Information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs,59(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minzner, M. (2008). Detecting lies using demeanor, bias and context. Cardozo Law Review,29(6), 2557–2582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan, N. (2015). Law of evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Morrison, B. R., & Comeau, W. (2002). Judging credibility of witnesses. The Advocates Quarterly,25(4), 411–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, H. (2001, March 4). The perfect witness. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2001/03/04/the-perfect-witness/a7fa0461-c15c-4237-86db-52ab5069fbea.

  • 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 

  • P. (D.) v. S. (C.), [1993] 4 SCR 141, 1993 CanLII 35 (SCC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Paciocco, D. M. (2010). Understanding the accusatorial system. Canadian Criminal Law Review,14(3), 307–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,34, 243–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quebec’s Code of Civil Procedure. 2018. c. C-25.01. Retrieved from http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-25.01.

  • R. v. Béland, [1987] 2 SCR 398, 1987 CanLII 27 (SCC).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. v. Brooks, [2000] 1 SCR 237, 2000 SCC 11 (CanLII).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. v. Darlyn, [1946] CanLII 248 (BC CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. v. Egger, [1993] 2 SCR 451, 1993 CanLII 98 (SCC).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. v. François, [1994] 2 SCR 827, 1994 CanLII 52 (SCC).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. v. Gagnon, [2006] 1 SCR 621, 2006 SCC 17 (CanLII).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. v. Handy, [2002] 2 SCR 908, 2002 SCC 56 (CanLII).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. v. Marquard, [1993] 4 SCR 223, 1993 CanLII 37 (SCC).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. c. Martin, 2017 QCCS 193 (CanLII).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. c. Pinard, [2014] QCCQ 5630 (CanLII).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. c. S. B., [2006] QCCQ 12796 (CanLII).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 SCR 484, 1997 CanLII 324 (SCC).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326, 1991 SCC 45 (CanLII).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. v. W. (R.), [1992] 2 SCR 122, 1992 CanLII 56 (SCC).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramseyer, J. M., & Rasmusen, E. B. (2013). Comparative litigation rates (Harvard John M. Olin Discussion Paper Series, No. 681, Nov. 2010). Retrieved from http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Ramseyer_681.pdf.

  • Remland, M. S. (1994). The importance of nonverbal communication in the courtroom. The New Jersey Journal of Communication,2(2), 124–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P. (2001). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch. Personality and Social Psychology Review,5(1), 2–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwelb, F. E. (1989). Lying in court. Litigation,15(2), 3–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seniuk, G. T. G. (1992). Judicial fact-finding and a theory of credit. Saskatchewan Law Review,56(1), 79–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon-Kerr, J. (2015). Systematic lying. William & Mary Law Review,56(6), 2175–2234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slobogin, C. (1996). Testilying: Police perjury and what to do about it. University of Colorado Law Review,67(4), 1037–1060.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strier, F. (1994). Making jury trials more truthful. University of California, Davis Law Review,30(1), 95–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Sward, E. E. (1989). Values, ideology, and the evolution of the adversary system. Indiana Law Journal,64(2), 301–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talwar, V., & Crossman, A. M. (2012). Children’s lies and their detection: Implications for child witness testimony. Developmental Review,32(4), 337–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanford, J. A. (2009). The trial process: Law, tactics and ethics. New York: Matthew Bender & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timony, J. P. (2000). Demeanor credibility. Catholic University Law Review,49(4), 903–944.

    Google Scholar 

  • Troville, P. V. (1939). History of lie detection. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,29(6), 848–881.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vetrovec v. The Queen, [1982] 1 SCR 811, 1982 CanLII 20 (SCC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-based content analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,11(1), 3–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellborn, O. G. (1990). Demeanor. Cornell Law Review,76(5), 1075–1105.

    Google Scholar 

  • White v. The King, [1947] SCR 268, 1947 CanLII 1 (SCC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. P., & Rule, N. O. (2015). Facial trustworthiness predicts extreme criminal-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science,26(8), 1325–1331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilthermuth, S. S., Newman, D. T., & Raj, M. (2015). The consequences of dishonesty. Current Opinion in Psychology,6, 20–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wise, T. A. (1845). Commentary on the Hindu system of medicine. Calcutta: Thacker and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada

    Vincent Denault

  2. Department of Communication, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

    Norah E. Dunbar

Authors
  1. Vincent Denault
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Norah E. Dunbar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent Denault .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication Studies, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI, USA

    Tony Docan-Morgan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Denault, V., Dunbar, N.E. (2019). Credibility Assessment and Deception Detection in Courtrooms: Hazards and Challenges for Scholars and Legal Practitioners. In: Docan-Morgan, T. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Deceptive Communication. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96334-1_47

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation