Improving Judge & Jury Evaluation of Scientific Evidence

Daedalus ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 147 (4) ◽  
pp. 164-180
Author(s):  
Valerie P. Hans ◽  
Michael J. Saks
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Technical Information ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Expert Evidence

The role of the expert witness in trials is a paradox. Judges and jurors need help with matters beyond their understanding, and judges are expected to act as gatekeepers to ensure that jurors are not fooled by misleading expert testimony. Yet, as gatekeepers, judges might not effectively distinguish sound from unsound expert testimony. As factfinders, judges and jurors both might have difficulty comprehending expert evidence, intelligently resolving conflicts between experts, and applying the scientific and technological evidence they hear to the larger dispute before them. This essay explores those problems and a variety of possible solutions, ranging from more effective ways parties might present technical information at trial, to educational interventions supervised by the court, to making juries more effective in performing their task, to more controversial measures, such as replacing conventional juries with special juries and replacing generalist judges with expert judges.

scholarly journals Performing Expertise: The Design of Audiovisual Links and the Construction of the Remote Expert Witness in Court

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 698-718
Author(s):  
Emma Rowden ◽  
Anne Wallace
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Load ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Mode Of Delivery ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Jury Trials ◽  
Technological Improvements ◽  
The Relationship

This article reports on empirical research conducted into the use of audiovisual links (videolinks) to take expert testimony in jury trials. Studies reveal ambivalent attitudes to court use of videolink, with most previous research focussed on its use for vulnerable witnesses and defendants. Our study finds there are issues unique to expert witnesses appearing by videolink, such as compromised ability to gesture and interact with exhibits and demonstrative tools, and reductions in availability of feedback to gauge juror understanding. Overall, the use of videolinks adds an additional cognitive load to the task of giving expert evidence. While many of these issues might be addressed through environmental or technological improvements, we argue this research has broader ramifications for expert witnesses and the courts. The use of videolinks for taking expert evidence exposes the contingent nature of expertise and the cultural scaffolding inherent in its construction. In reflecting on the implications of these findings, and on the way that reliability, credibility and expertise are defined and established in court, we suggest a more critical engagement with the relationship between content and mode of delivery by stakeholders.

scholarly journals The Admissibility of Scientific Expert Evidence Under Indonesian Criminal Justice System

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 152
Author(s):  
Wanodyo Sulistyani
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Process Reliability ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
The Impact

In many cases, such as corruption and forestry-related crimes, an expert has a significant role in explaining the impact of the crime. For instance, scientific expert evidence is required to disclose about the ecological destruction that occurred due to the defendant's criminal activities. In practices, the issue with scientific expert evidence is supposed to be about its admissibility in court. For this issue, the U.S. Court applies Rules of Evidence in considering the admissibility of scientific expert evidence at trial. Those are some requirements (prong test) to be met before expert testimony is admissible. In contrast, the Indonesian Criminal Procedural Law (KUHAP) or other laws do not set any prong test for presenting specialist scientific evidence to be acceptable. Lack of such proof may impact criminal justice process reliability and place expert under vulnerable position. Therefore, this paper will explore the issue on scientific expert evidence under Indonesian criminal law as well as its consequences and impacts for the Indonesian criminal justice process.

Effects of an Attorney's Line of Argument on Accountants' Expert Witness Testimony

2004 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 221-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
David N. Ricchiute
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness Testimony ◽  
Auditor Liability ◽  
Mock Trial ◽  
Trial Judges ◽  
Auditing Standards

I test whether hints at an attorney's line of argument influence accountants' expert witness testimony. In experiment 1, litigation services accountants review evidence adopted from a recent auditor-liability case and decide whether a defendant auditor complied with generally accepted auditing standards. I find that hints posed before the review of evidence result in decisions that are more consistent with the attorney's verdict preference. Motivated by a lack of research on the role of accountants' expert testimony in judges' decisions and by evidence that most auditor-liability cases settle, I find in experiment 2 that the certainty of decisions in an expert's report affects the settlement decisions of experienced lawyers, a proxy for trial judges. These findings show that hints at an attorney's line of argument can influence accountants' decisions about evidence documenting auditing issues, and that the certainty of decisions in an expert's report can affect the decisions of mock trial judges. The study has implications for drafting attorney-expert retention letters, and for training accounting experts and the judiciary about the role of hints in the attorney-expert setting.

scholarly journals Expert evidence and the courts 2. Proposals for reform, expert witness bodies and ‘the model report’

1999 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 154-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith J. B. Rix
Keyword(s):  
Justice System ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Civil Justice ◽  
Expert Report ◽  
Civil Justice System

In response to what are regarded as the two principal evils of the civil justice system, costs and delay, Lord Woolf, now Master of the Rolls, has presided over an inquiry which has resulted in some proposed reforms which should change radically the administration of civil justice. The implications for experts are best considered against the background of a brief overview of the proposed reforms. This paper then considers the role of the expert witness organisations and the medical version of ‘the model expert report’.

Expert Testimony

2014 ◽  
pp. 20-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Soloway ◽  
Bryan C. Shelby
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
General Electric ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness Testimony

Chapter 4 reviews the major cases related to the admissibility and presentation of expert witness testimony in the courtroom. The majority of the cases involve general standards for medical and scientific evidence (Frye v. U.S., Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, General Electric v. Joiner, Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael) that can be applied to psychiatry. The remaining cases (State v. Hurd, People v. Shirley, Rock v. Arkansas) relate to the admissibility—or not—of hypnotically refreshed testimony and hypnosis as a scientific practice.

scholarly journals Ensuring the Reliability of Conclusions in the Expert's Statement in the Course of a Forensic Construction Investigation

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 78-84
Author(s):  
A. Yu. Butyrin ◽  
Z. V. Trifonova
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
The Body ◽  
Forensic Investigation ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Assessment Criterion ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Witness Statement ◽  
The One

The appointment and production of forensic investigation is one of the most common procedural actions in modern legal proceedings, along with the evaluation of the expert witness statement by the body (person) that ordered the examination. The article deals with a number of problems associated with evaluating of the expert witness statement reflecting the progress and results of a forensic construction investigation. Reliability is the most complex and contradictory criterion in the evaluation of expert testimony. Taking into account the courts' constantly growing need for construction forensics expert services, on the one hand, and insufficient elaboration of this assessment criterion for this kind of expert evidence, on the other hand, the authors explore the subject in depth and present their interpretation of the notion of «reliability», as applied to the evaluation of construction forensics expert statements.

scholarly journals SAKSI AHLI SEBAGAI ALAT BUKTI DALAM HUKUM ACARA PIDANA INDONESIA

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 1423
Author(s):  
Luh Putu Kristyanti
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Documentary Evidence ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
Court Proceedings

Keterangan ahli/ saksi ahli merupakan salah satu alat bukti dalam hukum acara pidana Indonesia. Perlu ditelusuri lebih mendetail perihal keterangan ahli serta kondisi saat keterangan ahli termasuk alat bukti saksi atau alat bukti surat. Penelitian ini akan difokuskan pada peran saksi ahli dalam proses peradilan di pengadilan dalam memperoleh keadilan materiil. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode normatif dengan analisa kualitatif. Keterangan ahli dalam proses peradilan pidana jika diberikan secara tertulis termasuk pada alat bukti surat, namun ketika diberikan secara lisan di persidangan maka termasuk alat bukti keterangan saksi. Expert statement / expert witness is one of the evidence in Indonesian criminal procedure law. It needs to be explored in more detail regarding expert testimony and conditions when expert testimony includes witness evidence or letter evidence. This research will focus on the role of expert witnesses in court proceedings in obtaining material justice. This study uses a normative method with qualitative analysis. Expert testimony in the criminal justice process, if given in writing, includes documentary evidence, but when it is given orally in court, it includes evidence for witness testimony.

Scientific and Other Expert Evidence

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Saks ◽  
Barbara A. Spellman
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Human Mind ◽  
Routine Activities ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Teaching Techniques ◽  
System 1

Although most evidence that comes to court is non-technical—observations of everyday events by witnesses, records of business and other routine activities—an important and growing minority of evidence is scientific or technical. Such evidence has great potential for helping to resolve what might otherwise remain unfathomable. But expert evidence demands much of judges and juries. Judges must serve as gatekeepers, deciding whether the evidence meets standards for admissibility (under Daubert), but judges are poorly equipped to evaluate the claims of various disciplines. In their turn, jurors are expected to understand and rationally use expert testimony that is admitted. So we have a paradox. By its definition, expert evidence occupies intellectual territory beyond the competence of judges and jurors. Moreover, it typically comes to court skewed, exaggerated, and cherry-picked. Further, it will almost certainly be contested. How are judges and juries to intelligently sift for helpful truths under such conditions? Human minds did not evolve to intuit statistical (and especially not probability) data, but instead to be persuaded by stories, by conclusions asserted by proclaimed authorities, and by superficial characteristics of speakers (witnesses). The acceptance of “social truth” and the use of System 1 thinking predominate. Research psychologists have been seeking ways to present scientific evidence that are more consistent with how the human mind functions. In addition, researchers have been exploring rapid teaching techniques for bringing laypeople to higher levels of numeracy and inferential competence.

Expert Testimony

2019 ◽  
pp. 41-48
Author(s):  
Scott Soloway ◽  
Bryan C. Shelby ◽  
Heather Ellis Cucolo ◽  
Jeremy Colley
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
General Electric ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness Testimony

Chapter 4 reviews the major cases related to the admissibility and presentation of expert witness testimony in the courtroom. The majority of the cases involve general standards for medical and scientific evidence (Frye v. U.S., Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, General Electric v. Joiner, Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael) that can be applied to psychiatry. The remaining cases (State v. Hurd, People v. Shirley, Rock v. Arkansas) relate to the admissibility – or not – of hypnotically-refreshed testimony and hypnosis as a scientific practice. The newest (Buck v. Davis) involves the risk assessment testimony adn unconstitutionality of incorporating race as a factor.

Part VII Bringing and Defending Claims, 20 Proving Liability and Loss

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virgo John
Keyword(s):  
Expert Witness ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Financial Products

This chapter first discusses the potential need for expert evidence in claims involving allegations of the mis-selling of financial products. It then explains the use of expert evidence in court; the presentation of expert evidence for liability; the role of expert evidence in evaluating the quantum of a claim; expert witness' duties; and expert's immunity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document