Evaluating the influence of Daubert's cross-examination safeguard on attorneys' and jurors' judgments about scientific evidence
Item
-
Title
-
Evaluating the influence of Daubert's cross-examination safeguard on attorneys' and jurors' judgments about scientific evidence
-
Identifier
-
d_2009_2013:85fa0ff8732b:11882
-
identifier
-
12539
-
Creator
-
Austin, Jacqueline L.,
-
Contributor
-
Margaret Bull Kovera
-
Date
-
2013
-
Language
-
English
-
Publisher
-
City University of New York.
-
Subject
-
Psychology | Social psychology | Law | Cognitive psychology | attorneys | Daubert | expert testimony | jury decision making | legal decisions
-
Abstract
-
The Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc clarified that federal trial judges were to serve as evidentiary gatekeepers for scientific evidence, evaluating scientific reliability when determining admissibility. When judges fail at gatekeeping and admit unreliable expert testimony, the Court expresses faith in the ability of cross-examination to reveal the reliability of testimony for jurors. For cross-examination to function as the Court intends, attorneys must recognize scientific flaws and craft cross-examination questions that expose scientific threats. Moreover, these scientifically informed cross-examinations must act as a form of scientific training for jurors. I conducted two studies to empirically examine the Court's assumptions regarding cross-examination. In Study One, 95 attorneys read a trial summary that contained expert testimony regarding an intelligence test. I varied the validity (presence v. absence of experimenter bias threat) and reliability (moderate v. high reliability indices on test-retest, inter-observer, and internal consistency scores) of the intelligence test. Attorneys provided lower ratings of scientific quality when the test was unreliable but did not craft cross-examination questions designed to expose the low reliability indices of the scientific test. Attorneys did not provide lower ratings of scientific quality when the intelligence test was invalid; however, a proportion of attorneys did craft cross-examination questions to expose the validity threat. In Study Two, I again varied the reliability and validity of the intelligence test and whether the cross-examination educated jurors about the study's flaws (scientifically informed vs. naive). Either a judge or an attorney conducted the scientifically informed cross-examinations. Scientifically informed cross-examinations did not assist jurors with evaluating scientific reliability or validity. These studies suggest that cross-examinations may not function as a safeguard against flawed scientific evidence. Although some attorneys may be able to meet the Court's expectations, cross-examination may be an ineffective method of providing methodological training for jurors.
-
Type
-
dissertation
-
Source
-
2009_2013.csv
-
degree
-
Ph.D.
-
Program
-
Psychology
