SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi / 2017 / Sayı: 32

Eyewitness Testimony and Cross Examination a Psychological View

TANIK İFADESİ VE ÇAPRAZ SORGU PSİKOLOJİK BİR BAKIŞ

Alper Küçükay(ODTÜ Sağlık Kültür ve Spor Daire Başkanlığı)
Pages
435–464
Publication Date
2017-10-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

By delving basically into literature of western origin, this article aims to provide academical and practical for jurists

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Eyewitness Testimony is an important topic in Turkish law.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In order to reach the truth and reveal the factual details, the testimony of an eyewitness is of crucial importance.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:By delving basically into literature of western origin, this article aims to provide academical and practical for jurists
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Tanık İfadesi · Tanığa Soru Sorma · Sorgulama Teknikleri

Abstract

Eyewitness Testimony is an important topic in Turkish law. In order to reach the truth and reveal the factual details, the testimony of an eyewitness is of crucial importance. For this purpose, cross examination is a method usable for jurists to interrogate the eyewitness. From a psychological perspective, this technique is used to scrutinize what has been experienced by the eyewitness and what can come out of an eyewitness’s testimony. Moreover, some cross examination techniques has been focused on. There are different methods and techniques for an eyewitness testimony. Similarly, interrogation and especially cross examination have been addressed in this article. We applicability of cross examination techniques and the effects of examination on a person have also been assessed. By delving basically into literature of western origin, this article aims to provide academical and practical for jurists

Özet

Tanık ifadesi, hukukumuzda önemli bir yere sahiptir. Tanığın ifadesi olayın açığa çıkması ve gerçeğe ulaşılması açısından önemlidir. Çapraz sorgu tanığın ifadesinin alınabilmesi için hukukçuların kullanabileceği bir yöntemdir. Bu noktaya psikolojik açıdan bakıldığında tanığa soru sorulmasında ne tür durumların yaşandığı ve sonuçta nelere yol açtığı incelenmiş bununla beraber çeşitli çapraz sorgu teknikleri üzerinde durulmuştur. Tanık ifadesinin alınmasında çeşitli yöntem ve teknikler olmakla birlikte soru sorma ve özellikle çapraz sorgulama bu makalenin konusu olarak ele alınmıştır. Çapraz sorgu ve sorgunun kişi üzerindeki etkileri de değerlendirilmiştir. Ağırlıklı olarak batı kaynaklı literatür araştırması yapılarak hukukçulara hem akademik hem de pratik temelde fayda oluşturması amaçlanmıştır

🔖

Cite This Article

Küçükay, A. (2017). Eyewitness Testimony and Cross Examination a Psychological View. Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi, Sayı: 32, 435–464. https://doi.org/10.1300/J158v01n03_03

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (57)

  1. “A Checklist of Winning Cross-Examination Concepts and Techniques”, s. 1-17, http://publicdefender.mt.gov/training/PracticeManual-Criminal/Ch9- CrossExam.pdfA
  2. Amerikan Psikiyatri Birliği, Ruhsal Bozuklukların Tanısal ve Sayımsal Elkitabı, DSM-5, Tanı Ölçütleri Başvuru Elkitabından çeviren: Prof. Dr. Ertuğrul Köroğlu, Hekimler Yayın Birliği, 2013, Ankara
  3. Archer Dawn, “Cross-Examining Lawyers, Facework and the Adversarial Courtroom”, Journal of Pragmatics, 2011, 43, 3216–3230
  4. Bernstein Eve M., Putnam Frank W., “Development, Reliability, and Validity of A Dissociation Scale”, The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1986, Volume 174, Issue 12, 727-735
  5. Bjorklund David F., Bjorklund Barbara R., Brown Rhonda Douglas, Cassel William S., “Children’s Susceptiblity to Repeated Questions: How Misinformation Changes Children’s Answers and Their Minds”, Applied Developmental Science, 1998, 2(2), 99-111
  6. Bower Gordon H., Forgas Joseph P., “Mood and Social Memory”, The Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition, 2001, s. 95-120
  7. Brainerd Charles, Reyna Valerie F., “Fuzzy-Trace Theory and Lifespan Cognitive Development”, Developmental Review, 2015, Volume 38, s. 89-121
  8. Brennan Mark, Brennan Roslin E., Strange Language: Child Victims Under Cross-Examination, 1998, Wagga Wagga
  9. Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/ 1.5.5271.pdf
  10. Chappelle Wayne, Rosengren Kent, “Maintaining Composure and Credibility as an Expert Witness During Cross-Examination”, Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 2001, 1:3, 55-72, DOI: 10.1300/J158v01n03_03
  11. Cotsirilos George J., “Meeting The Prosecution’s Case: Tactics and Strategies of Cross-Examination”, The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 1971, Vol.62, No:2, s. 142-152
  12. Crombag Hans F.M., Wagenaar Willem A.,. Van Koppen Peter J, “Crashing Memories and The Problem of Source Monitoring”, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1996, 10, 95-104
  13. Çapraz Sorgu (Cross Examination) ve Portekiz, HSK, http://www.hsk.gov.tr/ Eklentiler/Dosyalar/dd7069fe-3e12-4280-92a8-bc323983d56e.pdf
  14. Davies Emma, Henderson Emily, Seymour Fred W., “In Reply to: The Interest of Justice? The Cross-Examination of Child Complainants of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Proceedings”, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1997, 4:2, s.217-229
  15. Debold David, Dunn Gibson, “Çapraz Sorgu ve Tanığın Güvenirliği”, TBB Etkili Sorgu ve Dava Tanıklarının Çapraz Sorgulanması Eğitim Notları, 2016
  16. Diagnostic Statical Manual of Mental Disorders, American Psychiatric Association, 1994, Washington DC
  17. Eastwood Christine, Patton Wendy, “The Experiences of Child Complainants of Sexual Abuse in The Criminal Justice System”, 2002, Avustralya, s. 1-156
  18. Ellison Louise, “Exploring The Influence of Courtroom Questioning and PreTrial Preparation On Adult Witness Accuracy”, University of Leeds Research Report, s.1-8
  19. Eisen Mitchell L., Morgan Danielle Y., Mickes Laura, “Individual Differences in Eyewitness Memory and Suggestibility: Examining Relations Between Acquiescence, Dissociation and Resistence to Misleading Information”, Personality and Individual Differences, 2002, 33, 553-571
  20. Fiedler Klaus, Asbeck Judith, Nickel Stefanie, “Mood and Constructive Memory Effects on Social Judgement”, Cognition and Emotion, 1991, 5, 363-378
  21. Fisher George, Tversky Barbara, “The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony”, Stanford Journal of Legal Studies, 1:1, s. 25-30
  22. Flanagan William C., Carrol Harry P., “Massachusetts Practice Series”, Trial Practice, 2013, 12-2-50
  23. Fogliati Rhiannon, Bussey Kay, “The Effects of Cross-examination on Children's Reports of Neutral and Transgressive Events”, Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2014, 19-2, s. 296-314
  24. Forgas Joseph P., Laham Simon M., Vargas Patrick T., “Mood Effects On Eyewitness Memory: Affective Influences on Susceptibility to Misinformation”, 2005, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 574-588
  25. Fradella, Henry F., “Why Judges Should Admit Expert Testimony on the Unreliability of Eyewitness Identifications”, Federal Courts Law Review, 2006(3), 2-29.
  26. Gudjonsson Gisli H., The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook, 2008, Wiley Online Library
  27. Gudjonsson Gisli H., “The Relationship Between Interrogative Suggestibility and Acquiescence: Empirical Findings and Theoretical Implications”, Personality and Individual Differences, 1986, Volume 7, Issue 2, 195-199
  28. Gudjonsson Gisli H., Clark Noel K., “A Theoretical Model of Interrogative Suggestibility”, Social Behavior, 1986, 1, 83-104
  29. Gutheil G. Thomas, Commons Michael Lamport, Miller Patrice Marie, “Personal Question on Cross-Examination: A Pilot Study of Expert Witness Attitudes”, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 2001, 29:85-8
  30. Jack Fiona, Zajac Rachel, “The Effect of Age And Reminders on Witnesses Responses to Cross-Examination-Style Questioning”, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2014, 3, s. 1-6
  31. Jones Carolyn H., Pipe Margareth-Ellen, “How Quickly Do Children Forget Events? A Systematic Study of Children’s Event Reports as a Function of Delay”, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2002, Volume 16, Issue 7, 755-768
  32. Karakaya Naim, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Avukatın Soru Sorma Yetkisi, Avukatlar İçin El Kitabı IV, s. 11-12
  33. Kebbell Mark F., Deprez Steven, Wagstaff Graham R., “The Direct and CrossExamination of Complainants and Defendants in Rape Trials: A Quantitave Analysis of Question Type”, 2003, Pschology, Crime & Law, 9:1, 49-59
  34. Leinfelt Fredrik H., “Descriptive Eyewitness Testimony: The Influence of Emotionality, Racial Identification, Question Style, And Selective Perception”, Criminal Justice Review, 2004, Volume 29, Number 2, s. 317-340
  35. Loftus Elizabeth F., “Eyewitness Testimony”, 1996, Harvard University Press Mathieson Don, “Cross on Evidence”, 2012 Wellington, LexisNexis NZ Ltd.
  36. McGehee E. Jack, “A Guide to Direct Examination and Cross-Examination”, GPSolo, 2014, Vol. 31 No. 5, s. 1-10
  37. Melilli Kenneth J., “Risk Management in Cross Examination”, American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 2015, Vol. 38, issue 2, s. 317-334
  38. Poole A. Debra, White T. Lawrence, “Effects of Question Repetition on The Eyewitness Testimony of Children And Adults”, Developmental Psychology, 1991, Vol. 27, No. 6, 975-986
  39. Putnam Frank W., “Dissociation in Children and Adolescents”, 1997, NY: Guildford Press
  40. Rabianski Joseph, Carn Neil G., “Cross Examination: How to Protect Yourself and The Appraisal Report”, The Appraisal Journal, 1992, 60-4, s. 472-482
  41. Resnick Marc L., “When Eyewitnesses Misremember: The Delicate Balance Between Forensic Investigation and Memory Evidence Assessment”, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2014, Volume: 58 issue: 1, s. 539-543
  42. Richter Robert I., Senior Judge, District of Columbia Superior Court, “Examination and Cross-Examination of Trial Witnesses A Judicial Prospective”, http://www.abgm.adalet.gov.tr/eng/pdf/makaleler%20(EN)/article%203.pdf
  43. Righarts Saskia, Jack Fiona, Zajac Rachel, Hayne Harlene, “Young Children’s Responses to Cross-Examination Style Questioning: The effects of Delay ans Subsequent Questioning”, Psychology, Crime & Law, 2015, 21:3, s. 274-296
  44. Schooler Jonathan W., Loftus Elizabeth F., “Multiple Mechanisms Mediate Individual Differences in Eyewitness Accuracy and Suggestibility”, Mechanism of Everyday Cognition, 1993, s. 177-203, Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum
  45. Segovia Daisy A., Strange Deryn, Takarangi Melanie K.T., “Encoding Disorganized Memories for An Anologue Trauma Does Not Increase Memory Distortion or Anologue Symptoms of PTSD”, Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 2016, 50, 127-134
  46. Segovia Daisy A., Strange Deryn, Takarangi Melanie K.T., “Trauma Memories On Trial: Is Cross-Examination A Safeguard Against Distorted Analogue Traumatic Memories?”, Memory, 2015, 29:1-12
  47. Shapiro Lauren R., “Eyewitness Testimony for A Simulated Juvenile Crime by Male and Female Criminals with Consistent or Inconsistent Gender-role Characteristics”, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2009, Volume 30, Issue 6, s. 649
  48. Shermer Lauren O’Neill, Rose Karen C., Hoffman Ashley, “Perceptions and Credibility: Understanding the Nuances of Eyewitness Testimony”, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 2011, 27(2), s. 183–203
  49. Strange Deryn, Takarangi Melanie K.T., “False Memories for Missing Aspects of Traumatic Events”, Acta Psychologica, 2012, 141, 322-326
  50. Şahin Cumhur, Sanığın Kolluk Tarafından Sorgulanması, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara, 1994, s. 99
  51. Tustin Karen, Hayne Harlene, “Defining Boundary: Age-Related Changes in Childhood Amnesia”, Developmental Psychology, 2010, Vol 46(5), 1049-1061
  52. TBB Doğrudan Sorgu ve Çapraz Sorgu Eğitim Notları, 2015 Wilcock Rachel, Bull Ray, Milne Rebecca, Witness Identification in Criminal Cases: Psychology and Practice, 2008, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press
  53. Valentine Tim, Maras Katie, “The Effect of Cross-Examination on The Accuracy of Adult Eyewitness Testimony”, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2011, Volume 25, Issue 4, s. 554-561
  54. Vora Nilay U., “Radical Cross-Examinations”, Minority Trial Lawyer, ABA Section of Litigation, 2015, Vol. 13, Issue 2, s. 1-4
  55. Yenisey Feridun, Nuhoğlu Ayşe, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku Ders Kitabı, 2.Basıdan, TBB Çapraz Sorgu Notu Yurtcan Erdener, Ceza Yargılaması Hukuku, B. 5, Alfa Yayınları, İstanbul, 1994, s. 142
  56. Zajac Rachel, Jury Emma, O’Neill Sarah, “The Role of Pscychosocial Factors in Young Children’s Responses to Crss-Examination Style Questioning”, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2009, 23: 918–935
  57. Zajac Rachel, Gross Julien, Hayne Harlene, “Asked and Answered: Questioning Children in The Courtroom”, Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 2003, 10:1, 199- 209