The Age of Expert Testimony Science in the Courtroom: Report of a Workshop (2002) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 The Nature of Expert Evidence
3 The Nature of Expert Evidence
Pages 10-14
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 10... ...
One participant suggested that "junk" is a general term used to describe evidence that favors plaintiffs in product liability or toxic tort litigation. Another suggested that the term was sometimes applied to scientists employed or funded by corporations and who testify on behalf of those corporations.
|
From page 11... ...
Admitting scientific and other expert evidence that is unfamiliar to the average juror presents a fundamental shift in this paradigm, stated one participant. Further, noted the participant, there is a sharp difference between "conventional" evidence, to which non-experts on a jury may add personal life experiences that aid them in deliberations, and more specialized scientific evidence that "can only be deferred to." One danger seen by this participant is that judges, knowing that jurors may defer to evidence or opinions they do not understand, may be excessively rigorous in excluding expert evidence in order to "protect" jurors.
|
From page 12... ...
The judge may consider whether the theory or technique in question can be (or has been) tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, its known or potential error rate, the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation, and whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.
|
From page 13... ...
12 Steps that might be helpful include improving the educational tools provided to judges, developing model jury instructions, studying jury understanding of technical 1ONote that in his decision on Joiner, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that the Court of Appeals erred in its review of the exclusion of Joiner's experts' testimony, and wrote: "In applying an overly 'stringent' review to that ruling, it failed to give the trial court the deference that is the hallmark of abuse of discretion review." 1lThe potential for bias may be obvious in cases where a witness is an employee of the defendant, or paid by the defendant. But even witnesses who do not have a pecuniary stake in the outcome may want to bolster a pet theory, attack big business for personal reasons, or create an incentive for more research in which they may play a part.
|
From page 14... ...
A substantial debate was raised over the question of whether juries are asked to do too much in trials of technical complexity, such as patent cases. A judge argued strongly in favor of keeping juries for all trials.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.