Explore the vast range of titles available.

During the Victorian era, new laws allowed more witnesses to testify in court cases. At the same time, an emerging cultural emphasis on truth-telling drove the development of new ways of inhibiting perjury. Strikingly original and drawing on a broad array of archival research, Wendie Schneider's examination of the Victorian courtroom charts this period of experimentation and how its innovations shaped contemporary trial procedure. Blending legal, social, and colonial history, she shines new light on cross-examination, the most enduring product of this time and the \"greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.\"

Let's examine how a prosecutor might consult with a reputable forensic mental health professional when the time comes to lead a search party down Memory Lane. Doctor: Dr. Schultz was my professor for \"Introduction to Forensic Mental Health Evaluations.\" Doctor: That would be good, but the opposite can be good too when an expert has written instructional books on the subject. Doctor: That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that personality testing is described as \"a critically important source of information.\"

Despite widespread reforms to legislation and policy, rape complainants still find cross-examination distressing, demeaning and humiliating. We conducted a systematic and holistic examination of cross-examination strategies to discern: (1) the range of tactics that defence lawyers use to challenge rape complainants’ accounts; and (2) whether—and if so, how—the approaches used currently differ from those used prior to the reforms. We compared the strategies and tactics used in cases that were prosecuted in the 1950s to those used in cases from the turn of the twenty-first century. Although contemporary complainants were subjected to lengthier cross-examinations involving a broader range of tactics than their historical counterparts, there was little difference in the breakdown of strategies and tactics across time periods.

•Mock jurors were swayed by examiners’ performance on blind proficiency tests.•Errors on blind proficiency tests made examiners less persuasive to mock jurors.•Conversely, proficient examiners were favored over examiners of unknown proficiency.•High proficiency somewhat inoculated examiners against cross-examination. Forensic testimony plays a crucial role in many criminal cases, with requests to crime laboratories steadily increasing. As part of efforts to improve the reliability of forensic evidence, scientific and policy groups increasingly recommend routine and blind proficiency tests of practitioners. What is not known is how doing so affects how lay jurors assess testimony by forensic practitioners in court. In Study 1, we recruited 1398 lay participants, recruited online using Qualtrics to create a sample representative of the U.S. population with respect to age, gender, income, race/ethnicity, and geographic region. Each read a mock criminal trial transcript in which a forensic examiner presented the central evidence. The low-proficiency forensic examiner elicited a lower conviction rate and less favorable impressions than the control, an examiner for which no proficiency information was disclosed. However, the high-proficiency examiner did not correspondingly elicit a higher conviction rate or more favorable impressions than the control. In Study 2, 1420 participants, similarly recruited using Qualtrics, received the same testimony, but for some conditions the examiner was cross-examined by a defense attorney. We find cross-examination significantly reduced guilty votes and examiner ratings for low-proficiency examiners. These results suggest that disclosing results of blind proficiency testing can inform jury decision-making, and further, that defense lawyering can make proficiency information particularly salient at a criminal trial.

Background Health and social care regulators are organisations that seek to maintain public trust in professionals and protect the public from harmful practitioners. For example, they ensure that practitioners have the correct qualifications to practice and investigate any concerns raised about them. Serious concerns can result in a fitness to practise (FtP) hearing where a member of the public may be required to give evidence as a witness. Being a witness and being cross‐examined is known to often be traumatic, particularly for members of the public in criminal trials. There is some research evidence that registered professionals who are the subject of the proceedings may suffer mental ill health as result of the experience. But there is scant research that specifically explores the experiences of members of the public giving evidence in a FtP hearing. The regulator web pages are an important source of information for public witnesses to prepare themselves for a FtP hearing. Aim This study aimed to examine the publicly available information for public witnesses from the 13 health and social care regulators in the United Kingdom to evaluate the content, amount, type and format of information available and make recommendations about how regulators can improve these. Methods Regulator websites were searched during November 2021–February 2022 for information for the public on what happens after raising a concern with a regulator. Resources were downloaded and qualitative content analysis conducted. Our findings were validated by interviews (n = 7) with the public including people with experience of FtP and a focus group of the public (n = 5). Results One hundred and forty‐six resources (97 webpages and 25 public facing documents, 20 videos and 4 easy read documents) were found. Topics included screening and investigation, preparing for a hearing, during a hearing and after a hearing, and support for witnesses. Discussion and Conclusion We conclude that there are many deficiencies in the information content and its presentation for the public and some exemplars, such as the use of flowcharts and short videos to explain the FtP processes. Recommendations for practice take the form of a framework with three themes, (i) co‐production, (ii) preferred content and (iii) format. It may be used by regulators to enhance their support for members of the public as witnesses in FtP hearings. Public Contribution Our advisory group of people with lived experience of involvement as members of the public in FtP discussed the findings and contributed to the recommendations.

The confrontation is a procedure for clarifying the inconsistencies that appeared in the statements of the persons heard in a criminal case, which could not be eliminated by the administration of other means of evidence, and at the same time a means of obtaining new data, of confirming some facts or circumstances already established, as well as verifying the statements of other interviewed persons, thus contributing to the establishment of the truth in question.

The new American Law Institute Medical Malpractice Restatement posits a novel rule in § 6(b) that would authorize the use of medical-practice guidelines as a standard of care for medical-malpractice litigation. However, it would only be a “safe harbor” shield; guidelines could not be similarly used by plaintiffs as a sword. For defendants, the rule would transform what heretofore has been indisputably hearsay evidence into prima facie proof that would serve as a substitute for expert testimony, and which would be sufficient to defeat a malpractice claim. Plaintiffs wishing to use practice guidelines would be relegated to the “learned treatise” exception of the hearsay rule.