|
NSF PR 95-71 - October 12, 1995
This material is available primarily for archival purposes. Telephone
numbers or other contact information may be out of date; please see current
contact information at media
contacts.
NSF Study Yields Insights into Impact of Expert Testimony
Jurors' perceptions of expert testimony depend heavily
on whether the expert is paid or highly credentialed
-- or both according to NSF-funded research on the
effects of science and technology testimony in the
legal system. The effect of these factors is magnified
when the testimony is complex.
"The U.S. legal system in this age of technology increasingly
depends on testimony by science and technology experts,
particularly in civil litigation," said legal scholar
Joan Hall, a member of the research team. "That raises
some important questions, such as whether peripheral
factors influence jurors more than facts and testimony."
Princeton University psychologist Joel Cooper led
the research project which combined focus groups and
experiments to determine the effects of expert science
and technology testimony in the legal system. The
research specifically targeted product liability cases.
Among the studies' most interesting findings:
- When testimony was given in complex language,
jurors were more likely to form judgments based
on the credentials of the expert rather than the
validity of the testimony.
- Experts who are paid highly, and who jurors assumed
testified frequently, were considered hired guns
and were regarded less favorably, regardless of
their testimony.
- In medical liability cases, jurors' decisions
were affected by their own or others' past medical
experiences and by whether the defendant was an
individual or a corporation.
- A court appointed expert did not automatically
convince or influence jurors more than experts
called by the defense or prosecution.
According to Hall, the most effective expert witness
was one with strong credentials who used simple language.
However, the addition of pay complicated the findings.
An expert who was paid very highly and had strong
credentials was not always an effective witness, from
the jurors' point of view. "Perhaps jurors feel that
the highly paid and high- credentialed expert is using
his position to make money," said Hall.
Expert witnesses are used in 86 percent of civil cases,
with an average of four experts in every trial, according
to the study. "In an effort to validate the claims
that are in dispute, a rising number of expert witnesses
are being used in any given case, and sometimes they
contradict each other," Hall pointed out. "How is
a juror to determine which expert is correct, when
each claims to have the answer and the juror is unfamiliar
with the issue?" Based on this research at least,
jurors use peripheral factors, in addition to the
testimony itself, to make their judgments. According
to William P. Butz, NSF's division director for social,
behavioral and economic research, the findings have
implications for new technologies in this country.
"U.S. industry may be less likely to develop or market
major innovations, because of the risk that they will
not be able to convince juries with expert testimony,"
he said.
|
|