Credibility Assessment and Deception Detection in Courtrooms: Hazards and Challenges for Scholars and Legal Practitioners

Misconceptions About Nonverbal Cues to Deception: A Covert Threat to the Justice System?

“…However, research has not shown the existence of a body movement or a facial expression to confirm or disconfirm someone is remorseful (Bandes, 2014(Bandes, , 2016. These are just two among many examples (for more examples, see Denault, 2015;Denault and Dunbar, 2019).…”

Justice and Nonverbal Communication in a Post-pandemic World: An Evidence-Based Commentary and Cautionary Statement for Lawyers and Judges

“…For example, meta-analyses have shown that nonverbal cues to detect lies are largely faint and unreliable and that lie detection accuracy using common visual nonverbal cues rarely exceeds chance (Bond and DePaulo 2006 , 2008 ; DePaulo et al 2003 ; Leach et al 2016 ; Snook et al 2017 ; Vrij and Turgeon 2018 ). Furthermore, judges in bench trials and jurors in jury trials hold erroneous beliefs about the validity of nonverbal cues to detect lies (e.g., Denault and Dunbar 2019 ; Heath 2009 ; Strömwall and Granhag 2003 ). For example, the popular belief that liars act nervously is not supported by empirical evidence (The Global Deception Research Team 2006 ; Vrij 2008 ).…”

“…The same holds for erroneous beliefs about the validity of nonverbal cues to detect lies. Indeed, as Denault and Dunbar ( 2019 ) point out, expectations about how honest and dishonest witnesses are supposed to behave influence witness credibility assessments. And according to the Supreme Court of Canada, “credibility is an issue that pervades most trials, and at its broadest may amount to a decision on guilt or innocence” (R. v. Handy 2002 , p. 951).…”

“…In addition, novel lie detection techniques using verbal cues, and promoted as alternatives to nonverbal cues (Snook et al 2017 ; Vrij and Fisher 2016 ; Vrij and Granhag 2012 ; Vrij and Turgeon 2018 ), were developed for investigative interviews, not for real-life court proceedings (Denault and Jupe 2018 ; Denault et al 2019a ). As Denault and Dunbar ( 2019 ) argue, those techniques ignore characteristics of adversarial justice systems, including the more passive roles of judges and jurors. In addition, the nature of questions asked by lawyers during real-life examinations and cross-examinations are often different from those in experimental settings.…”

“…As Scheppele ( 1989 ) points out, Stories may diverge, then, not because one is true and another false, but rather because they are both self-believed descriptions coming from different points of view informed by different background assumptions about how to make sense of events. (p. 2082) Furthermore, arguing against in-person trials because of erroneous beliefs about the validity of nonverbal cues to detect lies overlooks the fact that triers of facts also hold erroneous beliefs about the validity of vocal and verbal cues to deception, and that “lawyers performing cross-examination can draw witnesses into these cues to make them appear nervous and untruthful” (Denault et al 2019a , p. 5; see also Denault and Dunbar 2017 , 2019 ; Denault et al 2019b ; Strömwall and Granhag 2003 ). For better or worse, common sense is an integral part of judicial reasoning (Burns 2016 ; Cochran 2013 ; Friedland 1989 ).…”