Jump to content

Draft:Margaret Bull Kovera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Margaret Bull Kovera is an American social psychologist who is currently a Professor of Psychology and a Presidential Scholar at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City.[1] Her work in eyewitness identification and legal decision making is internationally recognized.[1]

Margaret Bull Kovera
Occupation(s)Professor, researcher, expert witness
Known forEyewitness identification and legal decision making
TitleProfessor of Psychology
Academic background
Alma materUniversity of Minnesota; Northwestern University
Academic work
DisciplineSocial Psychology
InstitutionsJohn Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY

Career

[edit]

Education

[edit]

Kovera received her Bachelor of Arts Degree in Psychology (with departmental honors) from Northwestern University (1984-1988) and her Doctorate in Social Psychology from the University of Minnesota (1988-1994).[1]

Research

[edit]

In the beginning of her career, Kovera focused mainly on child witnesses and expert testimony in child sexual abuse trials.[3] Shortly thereafter, the majority of her work examined the assumptions the legal system makes about the behavior of "legal actors", such as attorneys, police officers, jurors, judges, and witnesses.[4] In the mid 2000s, Kovera began looking into eyewitness identification procedures and lineups.[3] In 2020, she worked on the American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS) white paper. This included appointing a subcommittee to modernize the 1998 scientific review paper on guidelines for eyewitness identification procedures.[5] From 2021-present, Kovera's more recent articles discuss racial bias in various settings, such as the judges' bench and eyewitness identification.[3] Currently, Kovera serves as the director of the Legal Decision Making and Witness Behavior (LAW) laboratory[6] at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She and her doctoral team conduct research in three areas: expert evidence, eyewitness identification, and jury selection.[6]

Expert Evidence

[edit]

Kovera and her team examined various psychological issues regarding judges’ abilities to distinguish between legitimate and junk science, and the effectiveness of procedural safeguards against junk science.[7] Investigating adversarial allegiance (expert witnesses' propensity to assess the evidence in a way which benefits the party that hired them) and potential strategies for mitigating this bias have become the focus of the laboratory's recent work.[7]

Eyewitness Identification

[edit]

A lineup in which the lineup administrator is blind to the identification of the suspect is known as a double-blind lineup.[8] A witness' stated confidence in the accuracy of their lineup selection may be impacted if they are aware of a lineup administrator.[8] Kovera and her team examined whether the investigator’s knowledge of the suspect’s identity influences the accuracy of eyewitness identifications.[8] The research suggests the effect of a double-blind lineup administration may be strongest when other factors are present that decrease the reliability of the eyewitness identifications, which occurs unbeknownst to either the lineup administrator or the witness.[9]

Jury Selection

[edit]

Legal psychologists have long explored what combinations of factors predict jury verdicts. Kovera and her team examined whether social psychological processes influence how and when such characteristics affect verdicts.[10] Such psychological processes include, but are not limited to, attitudes and beliefs, confirmation bias, and implicit bias.

Professional Input

[edit]

Kovera has been included in news articles regarding high-profile cases concerning jury selection. The first article was released in March 2021, which included the murder and man-slaughter case against former Minneapolis police officer, Derek Chauvin.[11] The second article was published in April 2024, pertaining to the criminal trial of former President Donald Trump. Both articles mention the challenges with the process, including finding people who can remain impartial, detecting any bias, and weighing the risk of serving a personal agenda.[11][12] In the case against Chauvin, Kovera stated how methods will help uncover hidden biases since expressing such behavior is not socially beneficial.[11] In the case against Former President Trump, Kovera stated that although the selection of such individuals will be tricky, it is not impossible.[12] Furthermore, she believes the right individuals will make a decision based on the law and the evidence that is presented.[12]

Common Collaborators

[edit]

Kovera's doctoral team includes Nikoleta Despodova, Andrew J. Evelo, Karima Modjadidi, and Amanda Nicholson Bergold. Former LAW laboratory members include Jacqueline Austin Chorn (PhD), Tracey L. Carpenter (PhD), Kellye S. Hebert (PhD), Lora M. Levett (PhD), Caroline Crocker Otis (PhD), Lindsey Rhead (PhD), Marisa Collett Burke (PhD), Sarah M. Greathouse (PhD), Julia Busso Kennard (PhD), Bradley D. McAuliff (JD, PhD), Jennifer Torkildson Perillo (PhD), and David Zimmerman (PhD).[6]

[edit]

With more than 25 years of experience, Kovera assists attorneys with trial preparation and expert testimony.[13] Regarding trial preparation, she focuses on community surveys to evaluate publicity effects and aid in jury selection, and conducts jury simulations to test different presentation strategies.[13] Regarding expert testimony, Kovera focuses on the reliability of eyewitness identification, including, but not limited to, system and estimator variables.[13]

Funding

[edit]

During her time at FIU, Kovera was the recipient of a $110,772 grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) organization of the Division of Social and Economic Sciences to examine the effects of heuristic cues, evidence quality, and reasoning ability. Results from this study provides insight on cognitive psychological theory about the processes used to evaluate scientific evidence in a forensic context.[14] Furthermore, it may suggest the necessary training to assist legal professionals in evaluating such evidence.[14]

In 2017, Kovera was the recipient of a $20,000 grant from the NSF organization of the Division of Social and Economic Sciences to examine extra-legal information transference during eyewitness identification.[15] Results from this study support the adoption of double-blind identification procedures, even if there is a potential loss in guilty suspect identifications.[15]

To date, Kovera has received continuous funding (over $2.8 million) from federal agencies, including the National Science Foundation and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, for her research on eyewitness identification, jury decision-making, and scientific evidence.[1]

Books[16]

[edit]
  • Kovera, M. B. (Ed). (2017). The psychology of juries. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.[17]
  • Kovera, M. B. & Cutler, B. L. (2013). Jury selection. New York: Oxford University Press.[18]
  • Cutler, B. L., & Kovera, M. B. (2010). Evaluating eyewitness identification. New York: Oxford University Press.[19]
  • Bottoms, B. L., Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (Eds.) (2002). Children, social science, and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.[20]

Selected Articles

[edit]

Expert Evidence:

  • Levett, L. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2009). Psychological mediators of the effects of opposing expert testimony on juror decisions.[21]
  • Kovera, M. B., et al. (1997). Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis.[22]
  • Kovera, M. B., et al. (1994). Expert witnesses in child sexual abuse cases: Effects of expert testimony and cross-examination.[23]

Eyewitness Identification:

  • Wells, G. L., et al. (2020). Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence.[24]
  • Greathouse, S. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2009). Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification.[25]
  • Phillips, M., et al. (1999). Double-blind lineup administration as a safeguard against investigator bias.[26]

Jury Selection:

  • Kovera, M. B., & Austin, J. L. (2016). Juror bias: Moving from assessment and prediction to a new generation of jury selection research.[27]
  • Greathouse, S. M., et al. (2011). The potentially biasing effects of voir dire in juvenile waiver cases.[28]
  • Crocker, C. B., & Kovera, M. B. (2010). The effects of rehabilitative voir dire on juror bias and decision making.[29]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d "Margaret Kovera | Psychology".
  2. ^ a b c d e "Margaret Kovera | John Jay College, CUNY - Academia.edu". johnjay.academia.edu.
  3. ^ a b c "Margaret Kovera Google Scholar".
  4. ^ "Margaret Bull Kovera, PhD, Social Psychologist". www.apa.org. 2014.
  5. ^ Wells, Gary L.; Kovera, Margaret Bull; Douglass, Amy Bradfield; Brewer, Neil; Meissner, Christian A.; Wixted, John T. (2020). "Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence". Law and Human Behavior. 44 (1): 3–36. doi:10.1037/lhb0000359. ISSN 1573-661X.
  6. ^ a b c "Margaret Kovera Research". Retrieved 2024-09-29.
  7. ^ a b "Expert Evidence". Retrieved 2024-09-29.
  8. ^ a b c "Eyewitness Identification". Retrieved 2024-09-29.
  9. ^ Greathouse, Sarah M.; Kovera, Margaret Bull (2009). "Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification". Law and Human Behavior. 33 (1): 70–82. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9136-x. ISSN 1573-661X.
  10. ^ "Jury Selection". Retrieved 2024-09-29.
  11. ^ a b c Xiong, Chao; Olson, Rochelle (March 7, 2021). "Chauvin Trial Brings a Challenge: How to Choose an Impartial Jury". FRONTLINE.
  12. ^ a b c Peltz, Jennifer (2024-04-12). "For history-making case against a former president, Manhattan court must first find a dozen jurors". PBS News.
  13. ^ a b c "Consultation". Retrieved 2024-09-29.
  14. ^ a b "National Science Foundation Grant no. 9711225". 1997.
  15. ^ a b "National Science Foundation Grant no. 1728938". www.nsf.gov. 2017.
  16. ^ "Margaret Bull Kovera". kovera.socialpsychology.org. Retrieved 2024-10-14.
  17. ^ Kovera, Margaret Bull, ed. (2017). The psychology of juries. Washington: American Psychological Association. ISBN 1-4338-2704-2.
  18. ^ Bull Kovera, Margaret; Cutler, Brian L. (2012). Jury Selection. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-532301-6.
  19. ^ Cutler, Brian; Bull Kovera, Margaret (2010). Evaluating Eyewitness Identification. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-537268-7.
  20. ^ Ramsey, Sarah H. (2003-04-01). "Book Review: Bette L. Bottoms, Margaret Bull Kovera, and Bradley D. McAuliff, eds., Children, Social Science and the Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002". Family Court Review. 41 (2): 276–277. doi:10.1177/1531244502250795. ISSN 0000-0000.
  21. ^ Levett, Lora M.; Kovera, Margaret Bull (2009). "Psychological mediators of the effects of opposing expert testimony on juror decisions". Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 15 (2): 124–148. doi:10.1037/a0016309. ISSN 1939-1528.
  22. ^ Kovera, Margaret Bull; Gresham, April W; Borgida, Eugene; Gray, Ellen; Regan, Pamela C (1997). "Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis". Journal of Applied Psychology. 82 (1): 178–191. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.178. ISSN 1939-1854.
  23. ^ Kovera, Margaret Bull; Levy, Robert J.; Borgida, Eugene; Penrod, Steven D. (1994). "Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: Effects of expert evidence type and cross-examination". Law and Human Behavior. 18 (6): 653–674. doi:10.1007/BF01499330. ISSN 1573-661X.
  24. ^ Wells, Gary L.; Kovera, Margaret Bull; Douglass, Amy Bradfield; Brewer, Neil; Meissner, Christian A.; Wixted, John T. (2020). "Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence". Law and Human Behavior. 44 (1): 3–36. doi:10.1037/lhb0000359. ISSN 1573-661X.
  25. ^ Greathouse, Sarah M.; Kovera, Margaret Bull (2009). "Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification". Law and Human Behavior. 33 (1): 70–82. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9136-x. ISSN 1573-661X.
  26. ^ Phillips, Mark R.; McAuliff, Bradley D.; Kovera, Margaret Bull; Cutler, Brian L. (1999). "Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias". Journal of Applied Psychology. 84 (6): 940–951. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.940. ISSN 1939-1854.
  27. ^ Kovera, Margaret Bull; Austin, Jacqueline L. (2016), Willis-Esqueda, Cynthia; Bornstein, Brian H. (eds.), "Identifying Juror Bias: Moving from Assessment and Prediction to a New Generation of Jury Selection Research", The Witness Stand and Lawrence S. Wrightsman, Jr., New York, NY: Springer, pp. 75–94, doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2077-8_6, ISBN 978-1-4939-2077-8, retrieved 2024-09-30
  28. ^ Greathouse, Sarah M.; Sothmann, F. Caitlin; Levett, Lora M.; Kovera, Margaret Bull (2011). "The potentially biasing effects of voir dire in juvenile waiver cases". Law and Human Behavior. 35 (6): 427–439. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9247-z. ISSN 1573-661X.
  29. ^ Crocker, Caroline B.; Kovera, Margaret Bull (2010). "The effects of rehabilitative voir dire on juror bias and decision making". Law and Human Behavior. 34 (3): 212–226. doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9193-9. ISSN 1573-661X.
[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Margaret_Bull_Kovera&oldid=1251788068"