The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors' liability verdicts

Psychology, Crime and Law

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 429-446

  Bornstein, Brian H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

Expert testimony; Juror decision making; Liability

Indexed keywords

EID: 3142711507     PISSN: 1068316X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1068316030001629292     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Ajzen, I. (1977). Intuitive theories of events and the effects of base-rate information on prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 303-314.
2. Backes v. The Valspar Corporation, 783 F.2d 77 (7th Cir. 1986).
3. Bank, S. C. and Poythress, N. G. (1982). The elements of persuasion in expert testimony. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 10, 173-204.
4. Bell, B. E. and Loftus, E. F. (1985). Vivid persuasion in the courtroom. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 659-664.
5. Berger, M. A. (2000). The Supreme Court's trilogy on the admissibility of expert testimony. In F. M. Smith (Ed.), Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 2nd edn (pp. 9-38). Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
6. Borgida, E. and Brekke, N. (1981). The base rate fallacy in attribution and prediction. In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes and R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New Directions in Attribution Research, vol. 3 (pp. 63-95). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
8. Brekke, N. J., Enko, P. J., Clavet, G. and Seelau, E. (1991). Of juries and court-appointed experts: the impact of nonadversarial versus adversarial expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 451-475.
9. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E. and Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
10. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A. and Jarvis. W. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: the life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253.
11. Cecil, J. S., Hans, V. P. and Wiggins, E. C. (1991). Citizen comprehension of difficult issues: lessons from civil jury trials. American University Law Review, 40, 727-774.
12. Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A. and Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: how do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379-394.
13. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 US 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
14. DeWitt, J. S., Richardson, J. T. and Warner, L. G. (1997). Novel scientific evidence and controversial cases: a social psychological examination. Law and Psychology Review, 21, 1-27.
15. Faigman, D. L. (1995). The evidentiary status of social science under Daubert: is it 'scientific,' 'technical,' or 'other' knowledge? Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 1, 960-979.
16. Faigman, D. L. (1999). Legal Alchemy: the Use and Misuse of Science in the Law. New York: Freeman.
17. Faigman, D. L. (2000). The law's scientific revolution: reflections and ruminations on the law's use of experts in year 7 of the revolution. Washington and Lee Law Review, 57, 661-684.
18. Faigman, D. L. and Baglioni, A. J. (1988). Bayes' Theorem in the trial process: instructing jurors on the value of statistical evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 1-17.
19. Faigman, D. L., Kaye, D. H., Saks, M. J. and Sanders, J. (1997). Modern Scientific Evidence: the Law and Science of Expert Testimony, vol. 1. St Paul, MN: West.
20. Faust, D. and Ziskin, J. (1988). The expert witness in psychology and psychiatry. Science, 241, 31-35.
21. Fienberg, S. E. (1989). The Evolving Role of Statistical Assessments As Evidence in the Courts. New York: Springer-Verlag.
22. Fulero, S. M. and Penrod, S. D. (1990). Attorney jury selection folklore: what do they think and how can psychologists help? Forensic Reports, 3, 233-259.
23. Gabora, N. J., Spanos, N. P. and Joab, A. (1993). The effects of complainant age and expert psychological testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 103-119.
24. Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L. and Dahir, V. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: a national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 433-458.
25. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 US 136, 118 S. Ct. 512 (1997).
26. Graziano, S. J., Panter, A. T. and Tanaka, J. S. (1990). Individual differences in information processing strategies and their role in juror decision making and selection. Forensic Reports, 3, 279-301.
27. Green, M. D. (1992). Expert witnesses and sufficiency of evidence in toxic substances litigation: the legacy of Agent Orange and Bendectin litigation. Northwestern University Law Review, 86, 643-699.
28. Gross, S. R. (1991). Expert evidence. Wisconsin Law Review, 1991, 1113-1232.
29. Gross, S. R. and Syverud, K. D. (1991). Getting to no: a study of settlement negotiations and the selection of cases for trial. Michigan Law Review, 90, 319-393.
30. Hart, H. L. A. and Honore, T. (1985). Causation in the Law, 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
31. Huber, P. W. (1991), Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. New York: Basic Books.
32. In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, 611 F. Supp. 1223, 1241 (EDNY 1985).
33. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction, Psychological Review, 80, 237-251.
34. Kaplan, M. F. (1982). Cognitive processes in the individual juror. In N. L. Kerr and R. M. Bray (Eds,), the Psychology of the Courtroom (pp. 197-219). New York: Academic Press.
35. Kaye, D. H. and Koehler, J. J. (1991). Can jurors understand probabilistic evidence? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 154, 75-81.
36. Koehler, J. J. (1992). Probabilities in the courtroom: an evaluation of the objections and policies. In D. K. Kagehiro and W. S. Laufer (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology and Law (pp. 167-184). New York: Springer-Verlag.
37. Koehler, J. J. (1996). The base rate fallacy reconsidered: descriptive, normative, and methodological challenges. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1-53.
38. Koehler, J. J. (2001). When are people persuaded by DNA match statistics? Law and Human Behavior, 25, 493-513.
39. Kovera, M. B., Levy, R. J., Borgida, E. and Penrod, S. D. (1994). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: effects of expert evidence type and cross-examination. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 653-674.
40. Kovera, M. B., Gresham, A. W., Borgida, E., Gray, E. and Regan, P. C. (1997). Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 178-191.
41. Kovera, M. B., McAuliff, B. D. and Hebert, K. S. (1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence: effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362-375.
42. Krauss, D. A. and Sales, B. D. (2001). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 7, 267-310.
43. Kruglanski, A. W., Friedland, N. and Farkash, E. (1984). Lay persons' sensitivity to statistical information: the case of high perceived applicability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 503-518.
44. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 US 137, 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999).
45. Landsman, S. (1995). Of witches, madmen, and products liability: an historical survey of the use of expert testimony. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 13, 131-157.
46. Lassiter, G. D., Slaw, R. D., Briggs, M. A. and Scanlan, C. R. (1992). The potential for bias in videotaped confessions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1838-1851.
47. Loftus. E. F. (1980). Psychological aspects of courtroom testimony. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 347, 27-37.
48. McAuliff, B. D. and Kovera, M. B. (2001), Need for cognition and juror sensitivity to methodological flaws in psychological science. Unpublished manuscript.
49. McAuliff, B. D., Nemeth, R. J., Bornstein, B. H. and Penrod, S. D. (2003). Juror decision making in the 21st century: confronting science and technology in court. In D. Carson and R. Bull (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology in Legal Contexts, 2nd edn (pp. 303-327). Chichester: Wiley.
50. Moran, G., Cutler, B. L. and De Lisa, A. (1994). Attitudes toward tort reform, scientific jury selection, and juror bias: verdict inclination in criminal and civil trials. Law & Psychology Review, 18, 309-328.
51. Niedermeier, K. E., Kerr, N. L. and Messé, L. A. (1999). Jurors' use of naked statistical evidence: exploring bases and implications of the Wells effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 533-542.
52. Nisbett, R. E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, C. and Kunda, Z. (1983). The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 90, 339-363.
53. Saks, M. J. (1992). Normative and empirical issues about the role of expert witnesses. In D. K. Kagehiro and W. S. Laufer (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology and Law (pp. 185-203). New York: Springer-Verlag.
54. Saks, M. J. and Wissler, R. L. (1984). Legal and psychological bases of expert testimony: surveys of the law and of jurors. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 2, 435-449.
55. Schuller, R. A. (1992). The impact of battered woman syndrome evidence on jury decision processes. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 597-620.
56. Smith, B. C., Penrod, S. D., Otto, A. L. and Park, R. C. (1996). Jurors' use of probabilistic evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 49-82.
57. Stanovich, K. E. and West, R. F. (1998). Who uses base rates and P(D/ ∼ H)? An analysis of individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 26, 161-179.
58. Thompson, W. C. and Schumann, E. L. (1987). Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: the prosecutor's fallacy and the defense attorney's fallacy. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 167-187.
59. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
60. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1980). Causal schemas in judgments under uncertainty. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in Social Psychology, vol. 1 (pp. 49-72). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
61. Viswanathan, M. (1993). Measurement of individual differences in preference for numerical information. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 741-752.
62. Wilson, M. G., Northcraft, G. B. and Neale, M. A. (1989). Information competition and vividness effects in on-line judgments. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 132-139.