Skip to main content

Who are we?

Author Bios

Dr. William Crozier is currently a postdoctoral researcher at Duke University Law School. He earned a B.S. in psychology from Penn State, and his PhD in psychology from The Graduate Center and John Jay College, CUNY, working with Dr. Deryn Strange. His research focuses on identifying problems created by memory fallibility and distortion throughout the legal process, and applying cognitive and social psychology to find solutions. Current project topics include interrogations, confessions, alibis, jury decisions, and how people remember and evaluate evidence. Outside of the lab, he enjoys the geekier things in life, such as Doctor Who, board games, and science fiction in all forms. He's a proud Ravenclaw, and married to a wonderful, amazing, and inspiring Hufflepuff. Cooking, reading about the Supreme Court, stressing over whether his cats love him, cheering for Penn State football, and wearing bowties are among his other passions. He hopes to one day again own an El Camino. Will's CV can be found here and Open Science Framework Profile can be found here. On Twitter: @WlliamCrozierIV

Dr. Timothy J. Luke (RabbitSnore) is an American expat, currently employed as a Senior Lecturer of Legal Psychology at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Like Will, Timothy received his PhD from John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Graduate Center, CUNY. His research – often funded by US federal grants – has primarily concerned interviewing and interrogation, deception and its detection, and confessions. He generally uses experimental methods and conducts laboratory-based research. When he isn’t interrogating people in a psychology laboratory, Timothy can often be found in a classroom. He has taught undergraduate- and graduate-level courses on research methods, statistics, perception, the history of psychology, and the psychology of investigation. According to one review on ratemyprofessors.com, he is "good at explaining hard and boring topics" -- which is just about the nicest thing anyone has ever said about him. Between research and teaching, he somehow finds the time to collect rare books, drink single-malt scotch, and memorize passages from Moby-Dick. Timothy's Open Science Framework Profile can be found here. On Twitter: @RabbitSnore

Timothy and Will shared an office at John Jay for several years and have ongoing research collaborations applying memory and cognitive theory to issues in investigations and interrogations. They also share a passion for craft beer and a deep, abiding love of Star Trek.

Popular posts from this blog

You have the right to remain silent....unless you are free to leave

Guest post by Fabiana Alceste.

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.” These words have likely been burned into our collective consciousness by the ubiquitous and fantastic TV series Law & Order (in my case, Law & Order: SVU). These words are often spoken as Olivia Benson and Elliot Stabler handcuff the main suspect of the episode—the last words trail off as they walk offscreen and the show cuts to a commercial break. We know this scene, and we know the words…but why do these warnings exist and for whom are they intended?
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, custodial interrogations are sometimes characterized by the use of police intimidation, trickery or other psychological tactics, a restriction of one’s personal liberty, and a feeling of compulsion to speak against one’s will1. Recognizing this, in 1966’s infam…

An international collaborative replication study

Will and Timothy are joined by guest Dr. Mario Baldassari, for a chat about an international collaboration to replicate a previously published study.
In this chat format, we gather regular authors and guests in Slack and have a moderated conversation, guided by prompts and questions selected in advance. Participants get to respond to each other's points, make comments, and ask each other questions in real-time.
The transcript has been lightly edited.


Will Crozier &#x1F419 Welcome to another Exercise in Exceptions chat! Today we’re joined by Dr. Mario Baldassari to talk about an issue that isn’t directly related to psych and law, but science in general. Mario was recently a part of a team that did an internationally collaborative replication – that is, a large team of researchers across the world ran a previously-published psychology study, to see if it still worked (or how far the effects generalized).
Big international collaborations that produce replications are a bit of a new …

We find the defendant....

If you’ve ever heard the jury foreman give a jury’s decision, you’ll notice that they never say the defendant is “innocent.” Instead, they’ll conclude that the defendant is “not guilty.” Although the terms may sound interchangeable, “not guilty” and “innocent” actually mean two different things. “Not guilty” is a legal conclusion, whereas “innocent” means the person didn’t commit the crime. For example, think of O.J. Simpson. In a court of law, he was found “not guilty” of killing his ex-wife – but if you ask the majority of Americans, they’ll tell you he’s not innocent. Here, we’re going to talk a bit about the distinction between the two conclusions – and why it matters to psychology and law researchers*.

When we say that “not guilty” is a legal decision, we mean that it’s a decision based on criteria described by laws – namely in the U.S., if the prosecutor can convince the jury of the defendant’s guilt. This is based partially on the amount of evidence that points toward the defend…