chapter 13 textbook Flashcards
roles of expert witnesses in court
Clarifying Complex Issues: Simplify intricate technical or scientific matters for the court to understand.
Providing Credible Opinions: Offer informed opinions that can influence the outcome of a case.
Assisting in Case Strategy: Help attorneys develop strategies by identifying strengths and weaknesses in the case.
Educating the Court: Inform the court about specific topics related to the case, aiding in informed decision-making.
criteria for admissibility of expert testimony
Testability: Whether the theory or technique can be tested.
Peer Review: Whether it has been subject to peer review and publication.
Error Rate: Known or potential error rate.
Standards and Controls: Existence of standards controlling its operation.
General Acceptance: Whether it is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community
Daubert standard
Established by the U.S. Supreme Court, this standard assesses the admissibility of expert testimony based on
challenges in evaluating expert testimony
Bias and Objectivity: Experts may have biases or conflicts of interest that can affect their testimony.
Overreliance on Experts: Courts and juries may place undue weight on expert opinions, potentially overshadowing other evidence.
Complexity of Testimony: Highly technical or specialized testimony may be difficult for the court to fully comprehend, leading to misinterpretation
tobacco industry lawsuit (LN v. Philip Morris)
Background: A woman (referred to as LN) sued the tobacco company Philip Morris, alleging that the company withheld information about the addictive nature of smoking and its health risks.
Jury Verdict: The jury awarded LN $56 million in compensatory damages and $244 million in punitive damages
Factors influencing the verdict in the tobacco case
Emotional Testimony: LN’s personal testimony about her health struggles may have influenced the jury.
Defensive Attribution: Jurors may have attributed blame to the tobacco company, viewing them as responsible for LN’s condition.
Precedent Setting: The large punitive award could set a precedent for future tobacco-related lawsuits.
ethical responsibilities of expert witnesses
Duty to the Court: Experts must provide honest and unbiased opinions, regardless of which party retains them.
Avoiding Advocacy: Experts should refrain from becoming advocates for the party that hired them, maintaining objectivity.
Transparency: Experts should disclose any potential conflicts of interest or biases that could affect their testimony
Daubert v Merrell Pharmaceuticals 1993
established that judges must serve as “gatekeepers” and assess the scientific validity of expert testimony using several criteria:
Can the theory be tested?
Has it been peer-reviewed?
What is its known error rate?
Are there standards controlling the technique?
Is it generally accepted in the relevant field?
Kumho Tire v Carmicheal 1999
The Court ruled that the Daubert standard applies to all expert testimony, not just scientific but also technical and other specialized knowledge (like that from a psychologist or engineer).
Judges must evaluate whether the expert’s methodology is valid and reliably applied to the case
General Electric Co. v Joiner, 1997
emphasized judicial discretion — if a trial judge excludes expert testimony under Daubert, that decision is hard to overturn on appeal unless it’s clearly unreasonable.
juries and expert witnesses
They may overvalue or undervalue an expert’s opinion depending on:
The clarity of the presentation.
The credentials of the expert.
The confidence and demeanor of the expert witness.
Whether the expert appears neutral or biased toward the side that hired them
persuasion techniques used by expert witnesses
Simplification: Breaking down complex concepts into everyday language.
Analogies and visuals: Helping jurors grasp abstract ideas (like fMRI scans or statistical probabilities).
Framing: How an expert frames their conclusions (confident vs. cautious) can influence jurors’ perception of guilt or innocence
experts impact on the jury
Medical malpractice
Psychological trauma
Insanity defense
Eyewitness memory/reliability
Some studies cited in the book suggest that juries are more likely to convict if a prosecution expert is seen as highly credible, even if the defense has equally strong scientific evidence
juror reforms
Allowing court-appointed neutral experts
Giving jurors expert evaluation checklists
Allowing note-taking and jury questions
