Social Frameworks

Question 1

Walker/Monahan
Social Frameworks (Dukes v. Walmart)

Answer 1

i. General conclusions from social science research used to determine factual issues in a specific case
ii. Unlike adjudicative/social facts, frameworks do not involve the specific parties to the case
iii. Unlike legislative facts/social authority, frameworks are not introduced to create a rule of law
iv. Rather, frameworks provide empirical contexts to inform the jury
v. Frameworks should be communicated like law: by instructions from the judge

vi. Frameworks should be applied-or not-as the jury sees fit
1) Counter: Henderson shows instructions can preclude expert testimony
2) Professor says critics have a point: expert testimony may be more effective than jury instructions
Live testimony may be more understandable

Question 2

Dukes v. Walmart

Answer 2

a. Dr. Bielby (expert) established social framework of gender discrimination
i. Connected general research to specific facts of case
ii. Walmart’s practices contribute to a disparate impact on basis of gender

b. Professor says attorneys should be permitted to argue linkage between general studies and case specifics (not experts)

c. SCOTUS holding:
i. Class (all Walmart women) far too broad
ii. Dr. Bielby couldn’t specifically say what percentage was occurring
iii. Dr. Bielby is criticized by the very people he quoted (including Professor)
iv. Class certification is issue in mass torts
Certification means finding commonality in experiences of plaintiffs

Question 3

Diagnostic v. Framework

Answer 3

a. When can an expert make inferences from group data to a specific case

i. When a scientist testifies about social framework, they are a “framework expert”
1) i.e. sociologists

ii. When an expert who applies scientific data to an individual case, they are “diagnostic expert”
1) Doctors often testify about a specific case

b. BLUF: Sociologists provide framework, doctors testify about specific case
Probabilistic testimony from experts should be prohibited (i.e. “the D probably committed the crime”)

Question 4

Case specific sociological inference

Answer 4

a. Consumer confusion in trademark law
b. Community standards in obscenity law (specific movie in specific area)
c. Study of specific criminal (Newsome)–>study shows likelihood to misidentify specific Defendant
d. Tester studies in employment, banking, and housing discrimination (Defendants pose as applicants in study–> not social framework data because it concentrates on specific facts)