Expert evidence, the adversary system, and the jury

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 95, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2005, Pages

  Vidmar, Neil ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPETENCE; CONFLICT; EXPERT WITNESS; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; PERFORMANCE; REVIEW;

CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT TESTIMONY; HUMANS; JUDICIAL ROLE; LIABILITY, LEGAL; MALPRACTICE; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC POLICY; SCIENCE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 22744456715     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.044677     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Hans V, Vidmar N. Judging the Jury. New York, NY: Plenum; 1986.
2. Danieb S, Martin J. Civil Juries and the Politics of Reform. Evanston. III: Northwestern University Press; 1995.
3. Angell M. Science on Trial: The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case. New York, NY: Norton; 1996.
4. Allison v McChan Medical Corporation, 184 F3d 1300(11th Cir) 1999.
5. Vidmar N. The performance of the American civil jury. Ariz Law Rev. 1989;40:849-899.
6. Heuer L, Penrod S. Trial complexity: a field investigation of its meaning and effects. Law Human Behav. 1994;18:29-51.
7. Vidmar N, Diamond S. Juries and expert evidence. Brooklyn Law Rev. 2001:66:1121-1180.
8. Kutjnak Ivkovich S, Hans V. Jurors' evaluations of expert testimony: judging the messenger and the message. Law Soc Inquiry. 2003;28:441-482.
9. Frankel M. The search for truth: an imperial view. Univ Penn Law Rev. 1975;123:1031-1059.
10. Damaska M. The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press: 1986.
11. Landsman S. The Adversary System: A Description and Defense. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute; 1984.
12. Diamond S, Vidmar N, Rose M, Ellis L, Murphy B. Juror discussion during civil trials: studying an Arizona innovation. Ariz Law Rev. 2003;45:1-81.
13. Dann M. "Learning lessons" and "speaking rights": creating educated and democratic juries. Ind Law Rev. 1993;68:1229-1279.
14. Gross S. Data on the use of expert witnesses in California civil trial. Unpublished work, 1990.
15. Champagne A, Shuman D, Whitaker E. Expert witnesses in the courts: an empirical examination. Judicature. 1992;76:5-10.
16. Manual of Model Civil Jury Instructions for the Ninth Federal Circuit, 2001. St Paul, Minn: West Publishing: 2002.
17. Kalven H, Zeisel U. The American Jury. Boston, Mass: Little Brown; 1966.
18. Heuer L, Penrod S. Trial complexity: a field investigation of its meaning and effects. Law Hum Behav. 1994;18:29-51.
19. Hannaford P, Hans V, Munsterman G. Permitting jury discussions during trial: impact of the Arizona jury reform. Law Hum Behav. 2000;24:359-381.
20. Eisenberg T, et al. Judge-jury agreement in criminal cases: a partial replication of Kalven & Zeisel's the American jury. J Empir Legal Stud. 2005;2:171-207.
21. Vidmar N. Medical Malpractice and the American Jury: Confronting the Myths About Jury Incompetence, Deep Pockets, and Outrageous Jury Awards. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press; 1995.
22. Taragin M, Willet L, Wilczek A, Trout R, Carson J. The influence of standard of care and severity of injury on the resolution of medical malpractice claims. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:780-784.
23. Sloan F, Githerns P, Clayton E, Hickson G, Gentile D, Partlett D. Suing for Medical Malpractice. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press; 1993.
24. Farber H, White M. Medical malpractice: an empirical examination of the litigation process. Rand J Econ. 1991;22:199-217.
25. Lempert R. Civil juries and complex cases: taking stock after twelve years, In: Litan R, ed. Verdict: Assessing the Civil Jury System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution; 1993, 181-247.
26. Moore K. Judges, juries, and patent cases-an empirical peek inside the black box. Mich Law Rev. 2000; 99:365-409.
27. Vidmar N. Pap and circumstance: what jury verdict statistics can tell us about jury behavior and the tort system. Suffolk Univ Law Rev. 1994;28: 1205-1234.
28. Schuman D, Whitaker E, Champagne A. An empirical examination of the use of expert witnesses in the courts-part 11: a three city study. Jurimetrics J. 1994; 34:193-308.
29. Schuman D, Champagne A. Removing the people from the legal process: the rhetoric and research on judicial selection and juries. Psychol Public Policy Law. 1997;3:242-258.
30. Selvin M, Picas L. The Debate Over Jury Performance. Santa Monica, Calif: Institute for Civil Justice; 1987.
31. Sanders J. The jury deliberation in a complex case: Havener v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Justice Syst J. 1993;16:45-67.
32. Special Committee on Jury Comprehension of the American Bar Association Section on Litigation. 1988. Chicago: American Bar Association.
33. Vidmar N. Amicus brief: Kumho Tire v Carmichae/. Law Hum Behav. 2000;24:387-400.
34. Koehler J, Chia A, Lindsey S. The random match probability in DNA evidence: irrelevant and prejudi-cial? Jurimetrics. 1995;37:201-219.
35. Schklar J, Diamond S. Juror reactions to DNA evidence: errors and expectancies. Law Hum Behav. 1999; 23:159-184.
36. ForsterLee L, Horowitz I, Athaide-Victor E, Brown N. The bottom line: the effect of written expert witness statements on juror verdicts and information processing. Law Hum Behav. 2000;24:259-270.
37. Forster Lee L, Horowitz I. The effects of jury-aid innovations on juror performance in complex trials. Judicature. 2003;86:184-190.
38. Horowitz I, Forster Lee L, Brolly I. Effects of trial complexity on decision making. J Appl Psychol. 1996; 81:757-768.
39. Horowitz I, Burdens K. An experimental investigation of procedural issues in complex tort trials. Law Hum Behav. 1990;14:269-285.
40. Diamond S, Casper J. Blindfolding the jury to verdict consequences: damages, experts and the civil jury. Law Soc Rev. 1992;26:513-564.
41. Finkel N. Commonsense Justice: Jurors' Notions of the Law. Washington, DC: APA Books; 1995.
42. Roberts C, Golding S. The social construction of criminal responsibility and insanity. Law Hum Behav. 1991;15:349-376.
43. Ellsworth P., Bukaty R., Cowan C., Thompson W. The death-qualified jury and the defense of insanity. Law Hum Behav. 1984;8:81-94.
44. Sundby S. The jury as critic: an empirical look at how capital juries perceive expert and law testimony. Virg Law Rev. 1997;83:1109-U08.
45. Monahan J, Walker L. Social frameworks: a new use of social science evidence in law. Virg Law Rev. 1987;73:559-598.
46. Vidmar N, Schuller R. Juries and expert evidence: social framework testimony. Law Contemp Prob. 1989; 52:133-176.
47. Shuman D, Sales D. The impact of Daubert and its progeny on the admissibility of behavioral and social science evidence. Psychol Public Polity Law. 1999; 5:3-15.
48. Kovera M, McAuliff PB. The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: are judges effective gatekeepers? J Appl Psychol. 2000;85:574-586.
49. Wells G. Naked statistical evidence of liability: is subjective probability enough? J Personal Social Psychol. 1992;62:739-752.
50. Guthrie C, Rachlinski J, Wistrich A. Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Rev. 2001;86:777-830.
51. Gatowski S, Dobbin S, Richardson J, Ginsburg G, Merlino M, Dahir V. Asking the gatekeepers: a national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law Hum Behav. 2001;25:433-458.
52. Diamond S, Vidmar N, Rose M, Ellis L, Murphy B. Juror discussion during civil trials: studying an Arizona innovation. Ariz Law Rev. 2003;45:1-81.
53. Diamond S, Vidmar N. Jury room ruminations on forbidden topics. Virg Law Rev. 2001;87:1857-1915.
54. Vidmar N. Listening to jurors and asking them questions. Trial Briefs. 2002;36:9-14.
55. Pennington N, Hastie R. A cognitive theory of juror decision making: the story model. Cardozo Law Rev. 1991;13:519-557.