Improving judge & jury evaluation of scientific evidence

Valerie P. Hans, Michael Saks

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)164-180
Number of pages17
JournalDaedalus
Volume147
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2018

Fingerprint

expert
evaluation
evidence
gatekeeper
testimony
witness
Scientific Evidence
Evaluation
Juries
Jurors
Gatekeeper
Expert Testimony

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Political Science and International Relations
  • History and Philosophy of Science

Cite this

Improving judge & jury evaluation of scientific evidence. / Hans, Valerie P.; Saks, Michael.

In: Daedalus, Vol. 147, No. 4, 01.10.2018, p. 164-180.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hans, Valerie P. ; Saks, Michael. / Improving judge & jury evaluation of scientific evidence. In: Daedalus. 2018 ; Vol. 147, No. 4. pp. 164-180.
@article{6d50f8837bb74332bf85fee6bb27590f,
title = "Improving judge & jury evaluation of scientific evidence",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Hans, {Valerie P.} and Michael Saks",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1162/DAED_a_00527",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "147",
pages = "164--180",
journal = "Daedalus",
issn = "0011-5266",
publisher = "MIT Press Journals",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving judge & jury evaluation of scientific evidence

AU - Hans, Valerie P.

AU - Saks, Michael

PY - 2018/10/1

Y1 - 2018/10/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054037113&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85054037113&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1162/DAED_a_00527

DO - 10.1162/DAED_a_00527

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85054037113

VL - 147

SP - 164

EP - 180

JO - Daedalus

JF - Daedalus

SN - 0011-5266

IS - 4

ER -