Joanna Kabzińska

The purpose of this qualitative research is to explore the perceptions of Polish judges and prosecutors regarding the role of psychologist expert witnesses in the evaluation of eyewitness testimony. Two main research questions were formulated: What are the criteria for selecting psychologist expert witnesses to participate in interviews and then to formulate expert opinions? What do judges and prosecutors expect from psychologist expert witnesses and their evaluations of eyewitness testimony? In-depth interviews were conducted involving judges (N = 31) and prosecutors (N = 30), both male (N = 35) and female (N = 26). Though other factors, such as availability, were also frequently mentioned, the judges and prosecutors declared that their choices of psychologist expert witnesses were predominantly determined by their professional abilities. These criteria correspond with the characteristics that judges and prosecutors claim to value the most in psychologist expert witnesses: their specialist fields, their experience, and their reliability in carrying out their work. It is of particular importance to the evaluation of witness testimony that judges and prosecutors recognize that, for an opinion to be complete, there is a need for psychological testing and diagnosis in addition to being present at interviews. However, judges and prosecutors do not always recognise the difference between legal conceptions of witness credibility and the assessments of it formulated by psychologist expert witnesses. The research provides an unique insight into the expectations of Polish judges and prosecutors regarding the role of psychologist expert witnesses in evaluating, and reporting on, witness testimony. To identify the aspects of psychologists’ opinions that are particularly valued by judges and prosecutors can enable better cooperation and communication between psychologists and legal professionals.