Idioma
Català Español English

Los conocimientos de la psicología más allá de la prueba pericial

orcid logo 16px Carmen Herrero

El presente trabajo plantea la necesidad de que el Derecho y los tribunales utilicen el conocimiento científico procedente de la psicología. Más concretamente, sugiere el papel de distintos procesos psicológicos y sociales en la obtención, interpretación y valoración de la prueba. Para ello, aborda la problemática del testimonio del experto y la admisibilidad de la prueba aportando investigaciones empíricas que cuestionan la distintividad del razonamiento legal. Se constata la diferente consideración o estatus otorgado a la psicología frente a otras disciplinas forenses, se muestra la utilización por parte de los operadores jurídicos de creencias de sentido común no validadas científicamente y se ilustran sus efectos negativos en algunas decisiones de la sala 2ª del Tribunal Supremo. En particular, las referidas a criterios orientativos para valorar la credibilidad de las víctimas.

Además, se proponen distintas áreas en las que el Derecho puede beneficiarse de los conocimientos de la psicología jurídica y se sugiere una aproximación más amplia al rol del perito. Por otra parte, se aplicará el conocimiento de la psicología, especialmente de la psicología cognitiva, para explicar los errores en las pruebas forenses. Se analizan también las implicaciones para la prueba de los hechos y para la calidad de la toma de decisiones. Finalmente, se aboga por una mayor interacción entre académicos/profesionales de la psicología y el derecho, así como por la necesidad de estudios empíricos con los profesionales del sistema de justicia.

Referencias

ANDRÉS IBÁÑEZ, P., 2003: «Sobre el valor de la inmediación. (Una aproximación crítica)», en Jueces para la Democracia. Información y Debate, 46: 57-66.

ANDRÉS IBÁÑEZ, P., 2017: «Sobre la pobreza cultural de una práctica (judicial) sin teoría», en Derecho PUCP, 79: 111-126.

ANDRÉS IBÁÑEZ, P., 2020: «En materia de

prueba: sobre algunos cuestionables tópicos jurisprudenciales», en Quaestio facti. Revista Internacional sobre Razonamiento Probatorio, 1: 75-102.

BARR, M. y BEN-SHAKHAR, G., 2019: Science, Pseudoscience, non-sense, and critical thinking: why the differences matter. London: Routledge.

BENFORADO, A., 2015: Unfair. The new science of criminal injustice. New York: Crown Pub Inc

BENTON, T. R., ROSS, D. F., BRADSHAW, E., THOMAS, W. N., y BRADSHAW, G. S., 2006: «Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: comparing jurors, Judges and Law Enforcement to eyewitness experts», en Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 115–129

BOGARD, G., MEIJER, E. H., VRIJ, A. y MERCKELBACH, H., 2016: «Strong, but wrong: lay people´s and police officers´ beliefs about verbal and nonverbal cues to deception», en PLos ONE, 11: e0156615. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156615

BOND, C. F., JR. y DEPAULO, B. M., 2006: «Accuracy of deception judgments», en Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10: 214-234.

BRANK, E., 2019: Psychology of Family Law. N. Y: New York University Press.

BROOMELL, S. B. y KANE, P. B., 2017: «Public perception and communication of scientific uncertainty», en Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146: 286-304.

BROWNSELL, A. y BULL, R., 2011: «Magistrates´ beliefs concerning verbal and non-verbal behaviours as indicators of deception», en The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 3: 29-46.

BURGOON, J. K., 2018: «Microexpressions are not the best way to catch a liar», en Frontiers in Psychology, 9: 1672.

CHAMPOD, C. y VUILLE, J., 2011: «Scientific evidence in Europa. Admissibility, evaluation and equality of arms», en International Commentary on Evidence, 9: https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1123

CHARMAN, S., DOUGLASS, A. B. y MOOK, A., 2019: «Cognitive bias in legal decision making», en N. BREWER A. B. DOUGLAS (eds.), Psychological Science and Law (pp. 30). Nueva Yorg: Gilford Press

COLE, S. A. y BARNO, M., 2020: «Probabilistic reporting in criminal cases in the United States: a baseline study», en Science and Justice, 60, 406-414.

COLE, S. A. y DIOSO-VILLA, R., 2011: «Should judges worry about ´CSI Effect´?, en Court Review, 47: 16-27.

COOPER, P., DANDO, C., ORMEROD, T., MATTISON, M., MARCHANT, R., MILNE, R. y BULL, R., 2018: «One step forward and two steps back? The “20 Principles” for questioning vulnerable witnesses and the lack of an evidence-based approach», en The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 22, 392-410.

CROZIER, W-. KUKUCKA, J. y GARRET, B. L., 2020: «Juror appraisals of forensic evidence: effects of blind proficiency and cross-examination», en Forensic Science International, 315: 110433.

CUTLER, B. L. y KOVERA, M. B., 2011: «Expert psychological testimony», en Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20: 53-57.

DEMAINE, L., 2008: «In search of an anti-elephant: confronting the human inability to forget inadmissible evidence», en George Mason Law Review, 16: 99-140.

DEMAINE, L., 2012: «Realizing the potential of instructions to disregard», en L. Nadel y W. P Sinnott-Amstrong (Ed.), Memory and Law (pp. 185-212), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

DENAULT, V. y DUNBAR, N., 2017: «Nonverbal communication in courtrooms: Scientific assessments or modern trials by ordeal?», en The Advocates’ Quarterly, 47: 280-308.

DENAULT, V. y DUNBAR, N., 2019: «Credibility assessment and deception detection in courtrooms: Hazards and challenges for scholars and legal practitioners», en T. Docan-Morgan (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of deceptive communication (pp. 915-936). Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.

DENAULT, V., 2020: «Misconceptions about nonverbal cues to deception: a covert threat to the justice system», en Frontiers in Psychology, 573460. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.573460.

DENAULT, V., PLUSQUELLEC, P., JUPE, L. M., ST-YVES, M., DUNBAR, N. E., HARTWIG, M., … VAN KOPPEN, P. J., 2020: «The analysis of nonverbal communication: The dangers of pseudoscience in security and justice contexts», en Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 30: 1-12.

DEPAULO, B. M., LINDSAY, J. J., MALONE, B. E., MUHLENBRUCK, L., CHARLTON, K. y COOPER, H., 2003: «Cues to deception», en Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-118.

DESMARAIS, S. L. y READ, J. D., 2011: «After 30 years, what do we know about what juror know? A meta-analytic review of lay knowledge regarding eyewitness factors», en Law and Human Behavior, 35: 200-210.

DESPADOVA, N. M, KUKUCKA, J. y HILEY, A., 2020: «Can defense attorneys detect forensic confirmation bias? », en Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 228: 216-220.

Dodier, O. y Tomas, F., 2019: «When psychological science fails to be heard: the lack of evidence-based arguments in a ministerial report on child sexual abuse», en Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 3: 385-395.

DROR, I. E. (2012). Cognitive bias in forensic science. Science & Technology 2012 Yearbook (pp. 43-45). McGraw-Hill.

DROR, I. y BUCHT, R. 2012: «Psychological Perspectives on Problems with Forensic Science Evidence», en B. Cutler (Ed.), Conviction of the Innocent: Lessons From Psychological Research (pp.257-276). American Psychologial Association.

DROR, I. ROSENTHAL, R., 2008: «Meta-analytically quantifiying the realiability and bias ability of forensic experts», en Journal ff Forensic Sciences, 53: 900-903.

DROR, I., 2011: «The paradox of human expertise», en Narinder Kapur (Ed.), The Paradoxical Brain (pp.177-188). Cambridge University Press.

DROR, I., 2013: «The ambition to be scientific: human expert performance and objectivity», en Science and Justice, 53: 81-82.

DROR, I., 2017: «Human expert performance in forensic decision making: Seven different sources of bias», en Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 49: 541-547.

DROR, I., 2018: «Better science for better justice: a proposal for joint experts», en Science and Justice, 58:465-466.

DROR, I., 2018: «Biases in forensic experts», en Science, 360 (6386): 243.

DROR, I., 2020: «Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: six fallacies and eight sources of bias», en Analytical Chemistry, 92: 7998-8004.

DROR, I., CHAMPOD, C., LANGENBURG, G., CHARLTON, D, HUNT, H. y ROSENTHAL, R., 2011: «Cognitive issues in fingerprint analysis: Inter- and intra-expert consistency and the effect of a ‘target’ comparison». Forensic Science International, 208: 10–17.

DROR, I., MCCORMACK, B. M. EPSTEIN, J., 2015: «Cognitive bias and its impact on expert witnesses and the court», en The Judges´Journal, 54, 4

DROR, I., THOMPSON, W. C., MEISSNER, C. A., KORNFIELD, I., KRANE, D., SAKS, M. y RISINGER, D. M., 2015: «Context management toolbox: A linear sequential unmasking (LSU) approach for minimizing cognitive bias in forensic decision making», en Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60: 1111-1112.

EDMOND, G., 2012: «Is reliability sufficient? The Law Commission and expert evidence in international and interdisciplinary perspective (Part 1)», en The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 16: 30-65. doi:10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.391.

EDMOND, G., TOWLER, A., GROWNS, B., RIBEIRO, G…MARTIRE, K., 2017: «Thinking forensics: Cognitive science for forensic practitioners», en Science and Justice, 57 (2):144-154. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2016.11.005.

EKMAN GROUP (2011). F.A.C.E. training: Interactive training by Dr. Paul Ekman. Recuperado de https://www.paulekman.com/about/about-paul-ekman-group-llc/

EKMAN, P., 2009: Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York, NY: Norton

ENGLICH, B. y MUSSWEILER, T., 2001: «Sentencing Under Uncertainty: Anchoring Effects in the Courtroom», en Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31: 1535-1551.

FAIGMAN, D. L y MONAHAN, J., 2009: «Standars of legal admissibility and their implications for psychological science», en J. L. SKEEM, K. S. DOUGLAS y S. O. LILIENFELD (Eds.), Psychological Science in the Courtroom (pp. 3-25). Nueva York: Gilford Press

FAIGMAN, D. L., 2002: «Is science different for lawyers?», en Science, 297:339-340.

FAIGMAN, D. L., 2006: «Judges as “amateur scientist”», en Boston University Law review, 86: 1207-1225.

FAIGMAN, D. L., 2013: «The Daubert revolution and the birth of modernity: managing scientific evidence in the age of science», en University of California, Davis, 46: 893-930.

FAIGMAN, D. L., MONAHAN, J. y SLOBOGIN, C. 2014: «Group to Individual (G2i) Inference in Scientific Expert Testimony», en The University of Chicago Law Review, 81: 417-480.

FAIGMAN, D. L., SLOBOGIN, C. y MONAHAN, J., 2016: «Gatekeeping Science: Using the Structure of Scientific Research to Distinguish Between Admissibility and Weight in Expert Testimony», en Northwestern University Law Review, 110: 859-904.

FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER, 2011: Reference manual on scientific evidence (Third Edition). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press

FENTON, N., 2011: «Improve statistics in court», en Nature, 479: 36-37.

FERRER, J., 2005: Prueba y verdad en el Derecho, (2ªed). Barcelona: Marcial Pons

FERRER, J., 2007: La valoración racional de la prueba, Barcelona: Marcial Pons.

FERRER, J., 2017: «El control de la valoración de la prueba en segunda instancia», en Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law, 33: 107-126.

FINDLEY, K. y SCOTT, M. S., 2006: «The multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases», en Wisconsin Law Review, 291: 291-397.

FISHER, C. E., FAIGMAN, D. L. y APPELBAUM, P. S., 2015: «Toward a jurisprudence of psychiatric evidence: examining the challenges of reasoning from group data in psychiatry to individual decisions in the law», en University of Miami Law Review, 69: 685-753.

FORENSIC SCIENCE REGULATOR (2015). Guidance. Cognitive Bias Effects. Relevant to Forensic Science Examinations. FSR 1-G-217. Issue 1.

FORENSIC SCIENCE REGULATOR (2020). Guidance. Cognitive Bias Effects. Relevant to Forensic Science Examinations. FSR 1-G-217. Issue 2.

FOX, C. R. y BIRKE, R., 2002: «Forecasting Trial Outcomes: Lawyers Assign Higher Probability to Possibilities That Are Described in Greater Detail» en Law and Human Behavior, 26: 159- 173.

FRENDA, S. J., NICHOLS, R. M. y LOFTUS, E., 2011: «Current issues and advances in misinformation research», en Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20: 20-23.

FUNDACIÓN ESPAÑOLA PARA LA CIENCIA LA TECNOLOGÍA (FECYT), 2019: Percepción social de la Ciencia y la Tecnología 2018. Madrid. FECYT. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación.

GARRET, B. L., 2020: «Wrongful convictions», en Annual Review of Criminology, 3: 245-259.

GARRETT, B. L. y MITCHELL, G., 2016: «Forensics and Fallibility: Comparing the Views of Lawyers and Judges», en West Virginia Law Review; Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2016-63; Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Series. Disponible en SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2865246

GARRIDO, E. y HERRERO, C., 1997: «lnfluence of the prosecutor’s plea on the judge’s sentencing in sexual crimes: Hypothesis of the theory of anchoring by Tvesky and Kahneman», en S. Redondo, V. Garrido, J. Perez, & R. Barberet (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law: International contributions (pp. 215-226). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

GARRIDO, E. y HERRERO, C., 2006: «Relaciones entre la psicología y la ley», en E. Garrido, J. Masip y C. Herrero (Coord.), Psicología Jurídica (pp. 3-42), Madrid: Pearson.

GASCÓN, M. y LUCENA, J. J., 2010: «Pruebas científicas. La necesidad de un cambio de paradigma», en Jueces para la Democracia, 69: 95-106.

GASCÓN, M., 2004 (2ª ed): Los hechos en el derecho. Bases argumentales de la prueba. Madrid: Marcial Pons.

GASCÓN, M., 2013: «Prueba científica. Un mapa de retos», en C. Vázquez (Ed.), Estándares de prueba y prueba científica. Ensayos de epistemología jurídica (pp. 203-213). Madrid: Marcial Pons

GASCÓN, M., LUCENA, J. J. y GONZÁLEZ, J., 2010: «Razones científico-jurídicas para valorar la prueba científica: una argumentación multidisciplinar», en Diario La Ley, 7481, 4 de octubre

GATOWSKI, S. I., DOBBIN, S. A., RICHARDSON, J. T., GINSBURG, G. P., MERLINO, M. L. DAHIR, V., 2001: «Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world», en Law and Human Behavior, 25: 433-458.

GIGERENZER, G., 2015: «Heurística inteligente», en J. Brockman (Ed), Las mejores decisiones, (pp.43-58). Bárcelona: Crítica

GONZÁLEZ, J. L. MANZANERO, A., 2018: Obtención y valoración del testimonio. Madrid Pirámide.

GRANHAG, P. A., STRÖMWALL, L. A. y Hartwig, M., 2005: «Eyewitness testimony: Tracing the beliefs of Swedish legal professionals», en Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23, 709-727.

GROSCUP, J., 2004: «Judicial decision making about expert testimony in the aftermath of Daubert and Jumho», en Journal of Forensic Psychology Pracctice, 4: 57-66.

GUTHRIE, C., RACHLINSKI, J. J. y WISTRICH, A. J., 2001: «Inside the judicial mind», en Cornell Law Review, 86, 777-830.

GUTHRIE, C., RACHLINSKI, J. J. WISTRICH, A. J., 2002: «Judging by heuristic: Cognitive illusions in judicial decision making», Judicature, 86, 44-50.

GUTHRIE, C., RACHLINSKI, J. J. y WISTRICH, A. J., 2007: «Blinking on the bench: How judges decide cases», en Cornell Law Review, 93, 1-43

HAACK, S., 2020: «Judging expert testimony: from verbal formalism to practical advice», en Quaestio facti. Revista Internacional sobre Razonamiento Probatorio, 1: 13-30.

HAUCH, V., SPORER, S. L., MICHAEL, S. W. y MEISSNER, C. A., 2016: «Does training improve detection of deception? A meta-analysis», en Communication Research, 43: 283-343.

HERRERO, C., 2016: Evaluación de falsas creencias e ideas pseudocientíficas sobre la conducta y la mente en estudiantes de Psicología, Criminología y Derecho. Memoria Proyecto de Innovación Docente ID-0141. 2015-2016. Disponible en http://hdl.handle.net/10366/13149.

HERRERO, C., 2019: «Bases psico-jurídicas para confeccionar medidas y protocolos de actuación respecto al tratamiento de víctimas especialmente vulnerables», en M. del Pozo, L. Bujosa y A. González (Eds.), Protocolos de actuación con víctimas especialmente vulnerables: Una guía de buenas prácticas (pp. 23-40). Madrid, Spain: Thomson Reuters Aranzadi.

HERRERO, C., 2020: Presentación al Curso de Especialización en Derecho: Obtención, interpretación y valoración de la prueba, Universidad de Salamanca. Cursos de Especialización en Derecho.

HERRERO, C., MASIP, J. y PICADO, E., 2016: «Mitos y pseudociencia sobre el comportamiento humano en criminólogos, juristas y policía», en XI Congreso Español de Criminología. Abriendo vías a la reinserción.

HOUSTON, K. A., HOPE, L., MEMON, A. y READ, J., 2013: «Expert testimony on eyewitness evidence: in search of common sense», Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 31: 637-651.

JORDAN, S., BRIMBAL, L., WALLACE, D. B., KASSIN, S. M. HARTWIG, M. y STREET, C. N. H., 2019: «A test of micro-expressions training tool: does it improve lie detection?», en Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 16: 222-235.

JUPE, L. M. y DENAULT, V., 2019: «Science and pseudoscience? A distinction that matters for police officers, lawyers and judges», en Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 26: 753-765.

KAHNEMAN, D. y TVERSKY, A., 1973: «On the Psychology of Prediction», en Psychological Review, 80: 2037-251.

KASSIN, S. M., REDLICH, A. D., ALCESTE, F. y LUKE, T. J., 2018: «On the general acceptance of confessions research: opinions of scientific community», en American Psychologist, 73: 63-80.

KASSIN, S., TUBB, A., HOSCH, H. M. y MEMON, A., 2001: «On the ‘general acceptance’ of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of experts», en American Psychologist, 56, 405–416.

KASSIN. S. M, DROR, I. y KUKUCKA, J., 2013: «The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions», en Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2: 42–52.

KING, M., 1984: «Understanding the legal system: A job for psychologists?», en D. J. M Müller y D. E. Blackman y A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Psychology and law (pp. 67-82). Chichesten John Wiley & Sons.

KLENTZ, B. A., WINTERS, G. M. y CHAPMAN, J. E., 2020: «The CSI effect and the impact of DNA evidence on mock jurors and jury deliberations», en Psychology, Crime and Law, 26: 552-570.

KNUTSSON, J. y ALLWOOD, C. M., 2014: «Opinions of legal professionals: Comparing child and adult witnesses’ memory report capabilities». The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context. 10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.06.001.

KOEHLER, J. y MEIXNER, J., 2015: «Decision making and the law: truth barriers», en G. Karen y G. Wu (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (pp. 749-774). John Wiley & Sons.

KOEHLER, J., 2020: «Forensic source conclusions: twenty threats to validity», en Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 228: 149–161.

KOEN, W. J. y BOWERS, C. M. (Eds.) 2018: The psychology and sociology of wrongful convictions: Forensic Science Reform, NY: Elsevier-Academic Press

KÖHNKEN, G. y MANZANERO, A. L. SCOTT, T., 2015: «Análisis de la validez de las declaraciones: mitos y limitaciones». Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 25: 13-19

KOVERA, M. B. y LEVETT, L. M., 2015: «Jury decision making», en B. L. Cutler y P. A. Zapf (Eds.), APA Handbook of Forensic Psychology: vol. 2. Criminal Investigation, adjudication, and sentencing outcomes (pp. 271-311). American Psychological Association.

KUKUCKA, J., 2018: «Confirmation bias in the Forensic Sciences: causes, consequences, and countermeasures», en W. J. Koen y C. M. Bowers (Eds.), The psychology and sociology of wrongful convictions: Forensic Science Reform (pp. 215-245), NY: Elsevier-Academic Press.

KUKUCKA, J., HILEY, A. y KASSIN, S. M., 2020: «Forensic confirmation bias: do jurors discount examiners who were exposed to task-irrelevant information», en Journal of Forensic Sciences, 65: 1978-1990.

KUKUCKA, J., Kassin, S., Zapf, P. A. y Dror, I., 2017: «Cognitive bias and blindness: a global survey of forensic science examiners», en Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6: 452-459.

LAW COMMISSION, 2009: «The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales: A New Approach to the Determination of Evidentiary Reliability», Law Com. Consultation Paper No. 190.

LAW COMMISSION, 2011: «Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales», Law Com. Report No. 325 (hereafter ‘Report’).

LILIENFELD, O., 2012: «Public Skepticism of Psychology. Why may people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific», en American Psychologist, 67: 111-129.

Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., Ruscio, J., y Beyerstein, B. L., 2010: 50 great myths of popular psychology: Shattering widespread misconceptions about human behavior. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.

LOFTUS, E., 1993: «The reality of Repressed Memories», en American Psychologist, 48: 518-537.

LOFTUS, E.F. COLE, S. A., 2004: «Contaminated Evidence», en Science, 304: 959.

LUPÁRIA, L., 2015 (Ed.): Understanding wrongful conviction. The protection of innocent across Europe and America. Wolters Kluwer.

MACLEAN, C. L. DROR, I., 2016: «A primer on Psychology of cognitive bias», en C. Robertson y A. Kesselheim (Eds.), Blinding as a Solution to Bias: Strengthening Biomedical Science, Forensic Science, and Law (pp. 13-24). New York: Elsevier, Inc.-Academic Press.

MACLEAN, N., NEAL, T. M.S., MORGAN, R. D. MURRIE, D. C., 2019: «Forensic clinicians’ understanding of bias», en Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 25: 323–330.

MAGNUSSEN, S., MELINDER, A., STRIDBECK, U. y RAJA, A. Q., 2010: «Beliefs about factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness testimony: a comparison of judges, jurors and general public». Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 122-133

MAGNUSSEN, S., SAFER, M. A., SARTORI, G. WISE, R. A., 2013: «What Italian defense attorneys know about factors affecting eyewitness accuracy: a comparison with U.S. and Norwegian samples», en Frontiers in Psychiatry, doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00028.

MAGNUSSEN, S., WISE, R. A., RAJA, A. Q., SAFER, M. A., PWELENKO, N. y STRIDBECK, U., 2008: «What judges know about eyewitness testimony: A comparison of Norwegian and US judges», en Psychology, Crime and Law, 14: 177–188.

MAGRO-SERVET, V., 2018: «Análisis de la Doctrina Jurisprudencial reciente en violencia de género», en Diario La Ley, Nº 9278, Sección Dossier, 15 de Octubre de 2018,

MASIP, J. y HERRERO, C., 2015: «Nuevas aproximaciones en detección de mentiras I. Antecedentes y Marco teórico», en Papeles del Psicólogo, 36: 83-95.

MASIP, J. y HERRERO, C., 2015b: «Nuevas aproximaciones en detección de mentiras II. Estrategias activas de entrevista e información contextual», en Papeles del Psicólogo, 36: 96-108.

MASIP, J. y HERRERO, C., 2015c: «Police detection of deception: Beliefs about behavioral cues to deception are strong even though contextual evidence is more useful», en Journal of Communication, 65, 125-145.

MASIP, J. y HERRERO, C., 2017: «Examining police officers’ response bias in judging veracity», en Psicothema, 29: 490-495.

MASIP, J., 2005: «¿Se pilla antes a un mentiroso que a un cojo? Sabiduría popular frente a conocimiento científico sobre la detección no-verbal del engaño», en Papeles del Psicólogo, 78-91.

MASIP, J., 2017: «Deception detection: state of art and future prospects», en Psicothema, 29: 149-159.

MASIP, J., BARBA, A. y HERRERO, C., 2012: «Behaviour Analysis Interview and common sense. A study with novice and experienced officers», en Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 19: 21-34.

MASIP, J., HERRERO, C., GARRIDO, E. y BARBA, A., 2011: «Is the behavior Analysis Interview just common sense?», en Applied Cognitive Psyhcology, 25: 593-604.

MAZZONI, G., 2019: Psicología del Testimonio. Trotta.

MCAULIFF, B. D. y GROSCUP, J. L., 2009: «Daubert and Psychological Science in court: judging validity from bench bar, and jury box», en J. L. SKEEM, K. S. DOUGLAS y S. O. LILIENFELD (Eds.), Psychological Science in the Courtroom (pp. 26-52). Nueva York: Gilford Press.

McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B.y NUÑEZ, G., 2009: «Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds and experimenter bias in psychological science?», en Law and Human Behavior, 33: 247–257.

MELINDER, A., BURREL, L., ERIKSEN, M. O., MAGNUSSEN, S. y WESSEL, E., 2016: «The emotional child witness effect survives presentation mode», en Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 34: 113-125.

MUNRO, G. D. y MUNRO, C. A., 2014: «“Soft” versus “hard” psychological science: biased evaluations of scientific evidence that threatens or supports a strongly-held political identity», en Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36: 533-543.

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON FORENSIC SCIENCE (2015). Ensuring that forensic analysis is based upon task-relevant information. 2015 Dec. https://www.jus tice.gov/archives/ncfs/file/818196/download (Septiembre 2020)

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, 2009: «Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward National Academies Press, 53 (‘NRC Report’).

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, 2011: Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Third Edition. Washington, D. C: National Academic Press (NAP).

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, 2014: Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press (NAP).

NEAL, T. M. S., 2017: Discerning bias in forensic psychological reports in insanity cases. Behavioral Sciences & Law, doi: 10.1002/bsl.2346

NEAL, T. M. S., HIGHT, M., HOWATT, B. y HAMZA, C., 2018: «The cognitive and social psychological bases of bias in forensic mental health judgments», en M.K. Miller and B.H. Bornstein (Eds), Advances in Psychology and Law: Volume 3 (pp. 151-175). New York: Springer.

NEAL, T. M. S., SLOBOGIN, C., SAKS, M. J., FAIGMAN, D. L. y GEISINGER, K. F., 2019: «Psychological assessments in legal context: Are Courts Keeping “Junk Science” Out of the Courtroom?», en Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20: 135-164.

NEUFELD, P. J. y SCHECK, B., 2010: «Making forensic science more scientific», en Nature, 464: 351.

NEUFELD, P. J., 2005: «The (near) irrelevance of Daubert to criminal justice and some suggestions for reform», en American Journal of Public Health, 95, 107-113.

NICKERSON, R. S., 1998: «Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guise», en Review of General Psychology, 2: 175–220.

NIETO, A. J., 2019: «El principio de inmediación, el lenguaje no verbal y gestual y las micro-expresiones faciales: A propósito de la STD 119/2019, de 6 de Marzo», en Diario La Ley, nº 9491, Sección Tribuna, 4 de Octubre.

NIEVA, J., 2010: La valoración de la prueba, Barcelona: Marcial Pons.

NISBETT, R. E. y BORGIDA, E., 1975: «Attribution and the psychology of prediction», en Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35: 932-943.

NIST, EXPERT WORKING GROUP FOR HUMAN FACTORS IN HANDWRITING EXAMINATION, 2020. Forensic Handwriting Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice Through a Systems Approach. U. S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Justice, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NISTIR 8282.

NIST, EXPERT WORKING GROUP ON HUMAN FACTORS IN LATENT PRINT ANALYSIS, 2012: Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach. U. S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Justice, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

OBSERVATORIO CONTRA LA VIOLENCIA DOMÉSTICA DE GÉNERO (2018, noviembre). Grupo de expertas y expertos del Consejo General del Poder Judicial en materia de violencia de género. Guía de buenas prácticas para la toma de declaración de víctimas de violencia de género. Madrid: Consejo General del Poder Judicial

OEBERST, A. y GOECKENJAN, I., 2016: «When being wise after the event results in injustice: evidence for hindsight bias in judges’ negligence assessments», en Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22, 271.

OIG, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, 2006: A review of the FBI’s handling of the Brandon Mayfield case. Office of the Inspector General, Oversight & Review Division, US Department of Justice.

OIG., 2011: A review of the FBI’s progress in responding to the recommendations in the office of the inspector general report on the fingerprint misidentification in the Brandon Mayfield case. < http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s1105.pdf>

OSBORNE, N., BIRD, C. y STOEL, R., 2019: «Forensic handwriting examination and cognitive bias: recommendations from the NIST expert working group on human factors», en Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51: Sup1, 141-144.

OTGAAR, H., HOWE, M. L, MERCKELBACH, H. y MURIS, P., 2018: «Who es the better eyewitness? Sometimes adults but other times children», en Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 378-385

OTGAAR, H., HOWE, M. L., PATIHIS, L., MERCKELBACH, H., LYNN, S. J., LILIENFELD, S. O. y LOFTUS, E., 2019: «The return of the repressed: The persistent and problematic claims of long-forgotten trauma», en Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14: 1072-1095.

PATIHIS, L., HO, L. Y., TINGEN, I. W., LILIENFIELD, S. O. y LOFTUS, E., 2014: «Are the “memory wars” over? A scientist-practitioner gap in beliefs about repressed memory», en Psychological Science, 25: 519-530.

PORTER, S. y TEN BRINKE, L., 2008: «Reading between the lies: Identifying concealed and falsified emotions in universal facial expressions», en Psychological Science, 19: 508-514.

PRONIN, E., LIN, D. y ROSS, L., 2002: «The bias blind spot: perceptions of bias in self versus others», en Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28: 369–381.

QUIGLEY-MCBRIDE, A. WELLS, L., 2018: «Fillers can help control for contextual bias in forensic comparison task», en Law and Human Behavior, 42: 295-305.

RACHLINSKI, J. J., 1998: «A positive psychological theory of judging in hindsight», en University of Chicago Law Review, 65, 571-625.

RACHLINSKI, J. J., WISTRICH, A. J. y GUTHRIE, C., 2015: «Can judges make reliable numeric judgments? Distorted damages and skewed sentences», en Indiana Law Journal, 90: 695-739.

RAMÍREZ ORTIZ, J. L., 2014: «Verdad, proceso y derecho penal (Interrogatorios en la habitación 101)», en Jueces para la Democracia. Información y debate, 79: 18-37.

RAMÍREZ ORTIZ, J. L., 2018: «La prueba en los delitos contra la indemnidad sexual», en Diario La Ley, 9199, Sección Doctrina, Editorial Wolters Kluwer

RAMÍREZ ORTIZ, J. L., 2020: «El testimonio único de la víctima en el proceso penal desde la perspectiva de género», en Quaestio facti. Revista Internacional sobre Razonamiento Probatorio, 1: 201-245.

REDFIELD, S. E., 2017: Enhancing Justice. Reducing Bias. American Bar Association.

REISBERG, D., 2014: The Science of perception and memory: a pragmatic guide for Justice System. Oxford: Oxford University Press

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT. PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2016: «Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods

RIBEIRO, G., TANGEN, J. M. y MCKIMMIE, B. M., 2019: «Beliefs about error rates and human judgment in forensic science», en Forensic Science International, 297, 138-147.

RISINGER, D. M., SAKS, M. J., THOMPSON, W. C. ROSENTHAL, R., 2002: «The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden problems of expectation and suggestion», en California Law Review, 90 (1): 1-56.

ROBBENNOLT, J. K. y HANS, V. P., 2016: The Psychology of Tort Law. New York: NY University Press.

ROBERTSON, C. y KESSELHEIM, A., eds., 2016: Blinding as a Solution to Bias: Strengthening Biomedical Science, Forensic Science, and Law. New York: Elsevier, Inc.-Academic Press.

ROECH, K., 2012: «Wrongful convictions in Canada», en University of Cincinnati Law Review, 80: 1465-1526.

ROSS, L., 1977: «The intuitive Psychologist And His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process», en L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 10, pp. 173-220). New York: Academic Press

ROWELL, A. y BILZ, K., 2021: The Psychology of Environmental Law. New York University Press.

ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY, 2017: Statistics and probability for advocates: understanding the use of statiscal evidence in courts and tribunals.

SAKS, M. J. y FAIGMAN, D. L., 2008: «Failed forensics: how forensic science lost its way and how it might yet find it», en Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4:149–171.

SAKS, M. J. y KOEHLER, J. J., 2005: «The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science», en Science, 309: 892-895.

SAKS, M. J. y SPELLMAN, B. A., 2016: The psychological foundations of Evidence Law. New York: NY University Press.

SCHACTER, D. L., 2002: The seven sins of memory: how the mind forgets and remembers. Houghton Mifflin (Traducc. Castellano, 2003, 2007 y 2011 Los siete pecados de la memoria: cómo olvida y recuerda la mente. Ariel)

SCHANZ, K. y SALFATI, C. G., 2016: «The CSI effect and its controversial existence and impact: a mixed methods review», en Crime Psychology Review, 2: 60-79.

SCHAUER, F. y SPELLMAN, B., 2013: «Is expert evidence really different?», en Notre Dame Law Review, 89: 1-26.

SCHAUER, F., 2006: «On the supposed jury-dependence of evidence law», University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 155: 165-202.

SCHAUER, F., 2010a: «Is There a Psychology of Judging? » , en D. Klein y G. Mitchell (Eds.), The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making (pp. 103-120). Oxford University Press.

SCHAUER, F., 2010b: «Can Bad Science be Good Evidence? », en Cornell Law Review, 95: 1191-1220.

SHAH, P., MICHAL, A., IBRAHIM, A., RHODES, R. y RODRÍGUEZ, F., 2017: «What makes everyday scientific reasoning so challenging? en Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 66: 251-299.

SHAPIRO, D. L., MIXON, L., JACKSON, M. SHOOK, J., 2015: «Psychological expert witness testimony and judicial decison making trends», en International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 42-43: 149-153.

SIMONCELLI, T., 2016: «Rigor in Forensic Science», en C. Robertson y A. Kesselheim (Eds.), Blinding as a Solution to Bias: Strengthening Biomedical Science, Forensic Science, and Law (pp. 129-131). New York: Elsevier, Inc.-Academic Press.

SMITH, S. M., STINSON, V. y PATRY, M. W., 2011: «Fact or fiction? The myth and reality of the CSI effect», en Court Review, 47: 4-7.

SNOOK, B., MCCARDLE, M. I., FAHMY, W. y HOUSE, J. C., 2017: «Assessing truthfulness on the witness stand: Eradicating deeply rooted pseudoscientifc beliefs about credibility assessment by triers of fact», en Canadian Criminal Law Review, 22: 297–306

SOBRAL, J., 2008: «Psicología, testimonios y testigos: un asunto clave en la investigación criminal», en V. Garrido y J. Sobral, La psicología aplicada al descubrimiento, captura y condena de los criminales (pp.371-393), Barcelona: Nabla Ed.

SPELLMAN, B. y SCHAUER, F. 2012a: «Law and Social Cognition». Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2012-10. Disponible en SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2000806.

SPELLMAN, B. y SCHAUER, F., 2012b: «Legal Reasoning», en K. J. Holyoak y R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp.719-735). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

SPELLMAN, B. y WEAVER, C. A., 2020 (forthcoming): «Memory and the Law, en M. Kahane y A. Wagner (Eds.), Handbook of Human Memory -- Vol. II: Applications. Oxford (Prox), en Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2020-56, recuperado de SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3644394

SPELLMAN, B., 2007: «On the supposed expertise of judges in evaluating evidence. In response to Frederick Schauer, On the Supposed Jury-Dependence of Evidence Law, 155 U. PA. L. REV. 165 2006: University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 156:1-9.

SPORER, S. L., 2007: «Evaluating witness evidence: The fallacies of intuition», en C. Engel y F. Strack (Eds.), The impact of court procedure on the psychology of judicial decision making (pp. 111-150). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlag

STEBLAY, N., HOSCH, H. M., CULHANE, S. E. y MCWETHY, A., 2006: «The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: A meta-analysis», en Law and Human Behavior, 30: 469-492.

STERN, S. M. y LEWINSOHN-ZAMIR, D., 2020: The Psychology of Property Law. NY University Press

STERNLIGHT, J. R. y ROBBENNOLT, J. K., 2008: «Good Lawyers Should Be Good Psychologists: Insights for Interviewing and Counseling Clients», en Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 23: 437-

STEVENAGEM, S. V. y BENNETT, A., 2017: «A biased opinion: demonstration of cognitive bias on fingerprint matching task through knowledge of DNA test results», en Forensic Science International, 276: 93-106.

STOLZENBERG y LYON, T. D., 2014: «How Attorneys Question Children About the Dynamics of Sexual Abuseand Disclosure in Criminal Trials», en Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20: 19-30

STRÖMWALL, L. y GRANHAG, P. A., 2003: «How detect deception? Arresting the beliefs of police officers, prosecutors and judges», en Psychology, Crime, and Law, 9: 19-36.

SUNDE, N. y DROR, I., 2019: «Cognitive and human factors in digital forensic: problems, challenges, and the way forward», en Digital Investigation, 29: 101-108.

TADEI, A., FINNILÄ, K., REITE, A., ANTFOLK, J. y SANTTILA, P., 2016: «Judges’ Capacity to Evaluate Psychological and Psychiatric Expert Testimony», en Nordic Psychology, 68: 204-217.

TARUFFO, M., 2002: La prueba de los hechos. (trad. cast. de Jordi Ferrer Beltrán, Madrid: Trotta.

TARUFFO, M., 2005 a: «Conocimiento Científico y estándares de prueba judicial», en Boletín Mexicano de Derecho Comparado, año XXXVIII, 114: 1285-1312

TARUFFO, M., 2005 b: «Prólogo», en J. Ferrer, Prueba y verdad en el Derecho (2ª ed.). Barcelona: Marcial Pons.

TARUFFO, M., 2010: Simplemente la verdad. El juez y la construcción de los hechos, Barcelona: Marcial Pons.

TARUFFO, M., 2013: «La aplicación de estándares científicos a las ciencias sociales y forenses», en C. Vázquez (ed.), Estándares de prueba y prueba científica. Ensayos de epistemología jurídica (pp. 203-213), Madrid: Marcial Pons.

TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP FOR EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE,1999: Eyewitness evidence. A guide for law enforcement. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice

THOMPSON, W. C., 2018: Developing effective methods for addressing contextual bias in Forensic Science. National Institute of Justice. Report of Grant. Final Summary Overview. Recuperado de https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/252784.pdf.

TUPPER, N., SAUERLAND, M., HOPE, L. y MERCKELBACH, H., 2015: «Seeing and believing: common courtroom myths in eyewitness memory», en The Inquisitive Mind, 28 https://www.in-mind.org/article/seeing-and-believing-common-courtroom-myths-in-eyewitness-memory

TYLER, T. R., 2006: «Viewing CSI and the threshold of guilt: Managing truth and justice in reality and fiction», en The Yale Law Journal, 115: 1050–1085.

VARIOS AUTORES, 2015: «Criminal Justice and forensic science evidence: current controversies. Monográfico British Journal of American Studies 2015.

VÁZQUEZ, C. 2015 b: «La admisibilidad de las pruebas periciales y la racionalidad de las decisiones judiciales», en DOXA, Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, 38: 101-130.

VÁZQUEZ, C., 2013: Estándares de prueba y prueba científica. Ensayos de epistemología jurídica, Barcelona: Marcial Pons.

VÁZQUEZ, C., 2015a: De la prueba científica a la prueba pericial, Barcelona: Marcial Pons.

VÁZQUEZ, C., 2016: «La prueba pericial en la experiencia estadounidense. El caso Daubert», en Jueces para la Democracia. Información y Debate, 86: 92-112.

VRIJ, A. y FISHER, R. P., 2020: «Unraveling the misconception about deception and nervous behavior», en Frontiers in Psychology, 11: 1377. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01377

VRIJ, A., 2018: «Verbal lie detection tools from an applied perspective», en J. P. Rosenfeld (Ed.), Detecting concealed information and deception: Recent developments (pp. 297–327). San Diego, CA: Elsevier: Academic Press.

VRIJ, A., GRANHAG, P.-A. y PORTER, S., 2010: «Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection», en Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11: 89-121.

VRIJ, A., HARTWIG, M. y GRANHAG, P. A., 2019: «Reading lies: Nonverbal Communication and Deception», en Annual Review of Psychology, 70: 295-317.

WECHSLER, H. J., KEHN, A., WISE, R. A. y CRAMER, R. J., 2015: «Attorney beliefs concerning scientific evidence and expert witness credibility», en International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 41, 58-66.

WELLS, G. L, MALPASS, R. S., LINDSAY, R. C. L., FISHER, R. P., TURTLE, J. W. y FULERO, S. M., 2000: «From the lab to the police station. A successful application of eyewitness research», en American Psychologist, 55: 581–598.

WELLS, G. L., KOVERA, M. B., DOUGLASS, A. B., BREWER, N., MEISSNER, C. A. y WIXTED, J. T., 2020: «Policy and procedure recommendations for collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence», en Law and Human Behavior, 44: 3-36.

WELLS, G. y LOFTUS, E., 2003: «Eyewitness memory for people and events», en A. M. Goldstein y I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology, Vol. 1, Forensic Psychology, (pp. 149-160). . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons

WISE, R. A. y SAFER, M. A., 2004: «What US Judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony», en Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 427-443.

WISE, R. A., SAFER, M. A. y MARO, C. A., 2011: «What U.S. law enforcement officers know and believe about eyewitness factors, eyewitness interviews and identification procedures», en Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 488-500.

WISE, R. A., SARTORI, G., MAGNUSSEN, S. y SAFER, M. A., 2014: «An examination of the causes and solutions to eyewitness error», en Frontiers Psychology, doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00102.

WISSLER, R. L., WILLIAMS, K. E. y SAKS, M. J., 2013: «Dual-Processing models of admissibility: how legal test for the admissibility of scientific evidence resemble cognitive science´s System 1 and System 2», en Virginia Journal of Law and Technology, 17: 356-371.

WISTRICH, A. J. y RACHLINSKI, J. J., 2017: «Implicit bias in judicial decision making: how it affects judgment and what judges can do abou it», en S. E. Redfield (Ed.), Enhancing Justice. Reducing Bias (pp. 87-130). Chicago: American Bar Association.

WISTRICH, A. J., GUTHRIE, C. y RACHLINSKI, J. J., 2005: «Can judges ignore inadmissible information? The difficulty of deliberately disregarding», en University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153: 1251-1345.

Enlaces refback

No hay ningún enlace refback.
Copyright (c) 2021 MAMEN HERRERO URL de la licencia: https://www.quaestiofacti.com/como-publicar/

ISSN-e: 2604-6202

ISSN: 2660-4515