Dr Louise Ellison's Publications
(2001) The Adversarial Process and the Vulnerable Witness (Oxford University Press). Oxford University Press.
(2000) Feminist Perspectives on Evidence. London: Cavendish.
(2009) “Jury Deliberation and Complainant Credibility in Rape Trials”, In: McGlynn C; Munro V (eds.) Rethinking Rape: International and Comparative Perspectives. Routledge. [Accepted]
(2001) “Cyber-stalking: Tackling Harassment on the Internet”, In: Wall D (eds.) Crime and the Internet. Routledge.
“Rape and the Culture of the Courtroom”, In: Childs M; Ellison LE (eds.) Feminist Perspectives on Evidence.
(2012) “Evidence in Court: Witness Preparation and Cross-Examination Style Effects on Adult Witness Accuracy”, Behavioral Sciences and the Law.
Witnesses play a clear and pivotal role in the criminal justice system and there is an obvious public interest in identifying procedures that both undermine and maximize the quality of evidence received by the criminal courts. This paper reports an investigation into the effects of witness familiarization and cross-examination type on adult witness accuracy that situates outcomes in both legal and psychological context. 60 mock witnesses observed a crime event and each witness was then cross-examined by a practising barrister in a moot courtroom according to two conditions - either via a scripted complex version of cross-examination or by a simpler but equivalent scripted examination. Mock witnesses were also allocated to two further conditions - half the participants received a guidance booklet on cross-examination and the other half received no familiarization to the process. Study outcomes showed that familiarization of witnesses to cross-examination processes increased accurate responses and reduced errors. The guidance seemingly allowed accessibility to cognitive information that enabled witnesses to process information more effectively. On this basis, advance written information about the nature of the cross-examination and potentially misleading tactics used by advocates could help to immunize against negative lawyerly influence. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
(2010) “‘Could you ask me that in a different way? Exploring the impact of courtroom questioning and witness familiarisation on adult witness accuracy’”, Criminal Law Review. November 2010: 823-839.
(2010) “Getting to (Not) Guilty: Examining Jurors’ Deliberative Processes in, and Beyond the Context of a Mock Rape Trial”, Legal Studies. 30.1: 74-97.
(2010) “A Stranger in the Bushes, or An Elephant in the Room? Critical Reflections Upon Received Rape Myth Wisdom in the Context of a Mock Jury Study,”, New Criminal Law Review. 13.4: 781-801.
(2009) “Of ‘Normal Sex’ and ‘Real Rape’: Exploring the Use of Socio-Sexual Scripts in (Mock) Jury Deliberation”, Social and legal Studies. 18.3: 1-22.
(2009) “Turning Mirrors into Windows? Assessing the Impact of (Mock) Juror Education in Rape Trials”, British Journal of Criminology. 49.3: 363-383.
(2009) “Use and Abuse of Psychiatric Evidence in Rape Trials”, International Journal of Evidence and Proof. 13.1: 28-49.
(2009) “Reacting to Rape: Exploring Mock Jurors’ Assessments of Complainant Credibility”, British Journal of Criminology. 49.2: 202-219.
(2005) “Closing the credibility gap: The prosecutorial use of expert witness testimony in sexual assault cases”, International Journal of Evidence and Proof. 9.4: 239-268.
(2001) “The mosaic art?: cross-examination and the vulnerable witness”, Legal Studies. 21.3: 353-375.
(1999) “The Protection of Vulnerable Witnesses in Court: An Anglo-Dutch Comparison”, International Journal of Evidence and Proof. 3.1: 29-43.
(1998) “Cross-examination in Rape Trials”, Criminal Law Review. : 605-615.
(1998) “Cyber-stalking: the Regulation of Harassment on the Internet”, Criminal Law Review. : 29-48.