Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-lfk5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-21T19:43:52.958Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jurors' Evaluations of Expert Testimony: Judging the Messenger and the Message

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Sanja Kutnjak Ivković  and
Valerie P. Hans
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Jurors are laypersons with no specific expert knowledge, yet they are routinely placed in situations in which they need to critically evaluate complex expert testimony. This paper examines jurors' reactions to experts who testify in civil trials and the factors jurors identify as important to expert credibility. Based on in-depth qualitative analyses of interviews with 55 jurors in 7 civil trials, we develop a comprehensive model of the key factors jurors incorporate into the process of evaluating expert witnesses and their testimony. Contrary to the frequent criticism that jurors primarily evaluate expert evidence in terms of its subjective characteristics, the results of our study indicate that jurors consider both the messenger and the message in the course of evaluating the expert's credibility.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , Spring 2003 , pp. 441 - 482
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2003 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

American Bar Association Special Committee of Jury Comprehension, Litigation Section. 1989. Jury Comprehension in Complex Cases. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
Brekke, Nancy, and Eugene, Borgida. 1988. Expert Psychological Testimony in Rape Trials: A Social-Cognitive Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55: 372–86.Google Scholar
Brief Amici Curiae of Neil Vidmar et al. in Support of Respondents. 1998. Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 1997 U. S. Briefs 1709.Google Scholar
Casper, Jonathan D., and Shari, Seidman Diamond. 1993. Estimating Damages and Predicting Violence: The Influence of Experts in the Courtroom. Paper presented at the meeting of the Law and Society Association, Chicago, May 1993.Google Scholar
Cecil, Joe S., Valerie, P. Hans, and Elizabeth, C. Wiggins. 1991. Citizen Comprehension of Difficult Issues: Lessons From Civil Jury Trials. American University Law Review. 40: 727–74.Google Scholar
Champagne, Anthony, Daniel, W. Shuman, and Elizabeth, Whitaker. 1992. Expert Witness in the Courts: An Empirical Examination. Judicature 76 (June-July): 5–10.Google Scholar
Chesler, Mark A., Joseph, Sanders, and Debra, S. Kalmuss. 1988. Social Science in Court: Mobilizing Experts in the School Desegregation Cases. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, Joel, and Isaac, M. Neuhaus. 2000. The “Hired Gun” Effect: Assessing the Effect of Pay, Frequency of Testifying, and Credentials on the Perception of Expert Testimony. Law and Human Behavior 24: 149–71.Google Scholar
Cooper, Joel, Elizabeth, A. Bennett, and Holly, L. Sukel. 1996. Complex Scientific Testimony: How Do Jurors Make Decisions Law and Human Behavior 20: 379–94.Google Scholar
DeWitt, John S., James, T. Richardson, and Lyle, G. Warner. 1997. Novel Scientific Evidence and Controversial Cases: A Social Psychological Examination. Law and Psychology Review 21: 1–23.Google Scholar
Diamond, Shari Seidman, and Jonathan, D. Casper. 1992. Blindfolding the Jury to Verdict Consequences: Damages, Experts, and the Civil Jury. Law and Society Review 26: 513–63.Google Scholar
Faigman, David L., and Baglioni, A. J. 1998. Bayes' Theorem in the Trial Process. Law and Human Behavior 12: 1–17.Google Scholar
Finkel, Norman S., Kristen, H. Meister, and Deirdre, M. Lightfoot. 1991. The Self-Defense Defense and Community Sentiment. Law and Human Behavior 15: 585–602.Google Scholar
Follingstad, Diane R., Darlene, S. Polek, Elizabeth, S. Hause, Lenne, H. Deaton, Michael, W. Bulger, and Cynthia, D. Conway. 1989. Factors Predicting Verdicts in Cases Where Battered Women Kill Their Husbands. Law and Human Behavior 13: 253–69.Google Scholar
Goodman, Jane, Edith, Greene, and Elizabeth, F. Loftus. 1985. What Confuses Jurors in Complex Cases. Trial (November): 65–68.Google Scholar
Gross, Samuel R. 1990. Data on the Use of Expert Witnesses in California Civil Trials. Typescript.Google Scholar
Gross, Samuel R. 1991. Expert Evidence. Wisconsin Law Review 1991: 1113–232.Google Scholar
Gross, Samuel R., and Kent, D. Syverud. 1996. Don't Try: Civil Jury Verdicts in a System Geared to Settlement. UCLA Law Review 44: 1–64.Google Scholar
Guthrie, C., Jeffrey, J. Rachlinski, and Andrew, J. Wistrich. 2001. Inside the Judicial Mind. Cornell Law Review 86: 777–830.Google Scholar
Hans, Valerie P. 2000. Business on Trial: The Civil Jury and Corporate Responsibility. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hans, Valerie P., and William, S. Lofquist. 1994. Perceptions of Civil Justice: The Litigation Crisis Attitudes of Civil Jurors. Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 12: 181–96.Google Scholar
Huber, Peter. 1991. Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Jacoubovitch, M. Daniel, Gordon, Bermant, Geraldine, T. Crockett, William, McKinley, and Alan, Sanstad. 1977. Juror Responses to Direct and Mediated Presentations of Expert Testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 7: 227–38.Google Scholar
Kalven, Harry Jr. and Hans, Zeisel. 1966. The American Jury. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kassin, Saul M., Lorri, N. Williams, and Courtney, L. Saunders. 1990. Dirty Tricks of Cross-Examination. Law and Human Behavior 14: 373–84.Google Scholar
Kovera, Margaret Bull, Robert, J. Levy, Eugene, Borgida, and Steven, D. Penrod. 1994. Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse Cases. Law and Human Behavior 18: 653–74.Google Scholar
Krafka, Carol, Meghan, A. Dunn, Molly, Treadway Johnson, Joe, S. Cecil, and Dean, Miletich. 2002. Judge and Attorney Experiences, Practices, and Concerns Regarding Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 8: 309–32.Google Scholar
Landsman, Stephan, and Richard, F. Rakos. 1994. A Preliminary Inquiry into the Effect of Potentially Biasing Information on Judges and Jurors in Civil Litigation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 12: 113–26.Google Scholar
Linz, D., and Steven, D. Penrod. 1982. The Use of Experts in the Courtroom. In Social Psychology, ed. Steven, D. Penrod. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Marshall, Catherine, and Gretchen, B. Rossman. 1989. Designing Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Memon, Amina, and Daniel, W. Shuman. 1998. Juror Perception of Experts in Civil Disputes: The Role of Race and Gender. Law and Psychology Review 22: 179–97.Google Scholar
Nisbett, Richard E., and Lee, Ross. 1980. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Human Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Saks, Michael J., and Roselle, L. Wissler. 1984. Legal and Psychological Bases of Expert Testimony: Surveys of the Law and of Jurors. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 2: 435–49.Google Scholar
Sanders, Joseph. 1993. Jury Deliberation in a Complex Case: Havner v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Justice System Journal 16: 45–48.Google Scholar
Sanders, Joseph, Shari, S. Diamond, and Neil, Vidmar. 2002. Legal Perceptions of Science and Expert Knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 8: 139–53.Google Scholar
Schklar, Jason, and Shari, S. Diamond. 1999. Juror Reactions to DNA Evidence: Errors and Expectancies. Law and Human Behavior 23: 159–84.Google Scholar
Schuller, Regina A. 1990. The Impact of Battered Woman Syndrome Testimony on Jury Decision Making: Lavallee v. R. Considered. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 10: 105–26.Google Scholar
Schuller, Regina A., and Neil, Vidmar. 1992. Battered Woman Syndrome Evidence in the Courtroom: A Review of the Literature. Law and Human Behavior 16: 273–91.Google Scholar
Selvin, Molly and Larry, Picus. 1987. The Debate over Jury Performance: Observations from a Recent Asbestos Case. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
Shuman, Daniel W., and Anthony, Champagne. 1997. Removing the People from the Legal Process: The Rhetoric and Research on Judicial Selection and Juries. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law 3: 242–58.Google Scholar
Shuman, Daniel W., Anthony, Champagne, and Elizabeth, Whitaker. 1996a. Assessing the Believability of Expert Witnesses: Science in the Jurybox. Jurimetrics Journal 37: 23–33.Google Scholar
Shuman, Daniel W., Anthony, Champagne, and Elizabeth, Whitaker. 1996b. Juror Assessments of the Believability of Expert Witnesses: A Literature Review. Jurimetrics Journal 36: 371–82.Google Scholar
Shuman, Daniel W., Elizabeth, Whitaker, and Anthony, Champagne. 1994. An Empirical Examination of the Use of Expert Witnesses in the Courts-Part 2: A Three City Study. Jurimetrics Journal 34: 193–208.Google Scholar
Smith, Brian C., Steven, D. Penrod, Amy, L. Otto, and Roger, C. Park. 1996. Jurors' Use of Probabilistic Evidence. Law and Human Behavior 20: 49–82.Google Scholar
Strauss, Anselm L. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Sciences. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, William C., and Edward, L. Schumann. 1987. Interpretation of Statistical Evidence in Criminal Trials: The Prosecutor's Fallacy and the Defense Attorney's Fallacy. Law and Human Behavior 11: 167–87.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Vidmar, Neil. 1994. Are Juries Competent to Decide Liability in Tort Cases Involving Scientific/Medical Issues? Some Data from Medical Malpractice. Emory Law Journal 43: 885–911.Google Scholar
Vidmar, Neil. 1995. Medical Malpractice and the American Jury: Confronting the Myths about Jury Incompetence, Deep Pockets, and Outrageous Damage Awards. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Vidmar, Neil, and Shari, S. Diamond. 2001. Juries and Expert Evidence. Brooklyn Law Review 66: 1121–80.Google Scholar
Vondergeest, Lynelle, Charles, R. Honts, and Mary, K. Devitt. 1993. Effect of Juror and Expert Witness Gender on Jurors' Perceptions of an Expert Witness. Modern Psychological Studies 1: 1–6.Google Scholar