Daubert in the Juryroom: Juror Assessments of Scientific Validity and Reliability

专家证词一直是法律中的一个特殊问题，最高法院最近的判决强调了初审法院法官作为科学证据把关人的作用，并要求他们评估专家证据的可靠性，以确定其可接受性。 如果被采纳，陪审员有责任评估证据对他们的裁决的影响。 可靠性可以是陪审员确定他们是否以及如何受到专家证词影响的手段。 人们对法官是否有能力适当评价复杂的专家证词的可靠性表示关切。 即使法官能够区分可靠和不可靠的证据，可靠性也可能是律师争论的问题。 因此，可靠性可能是陪审员在确定给予专家证词的权重时要评估的一个问题。 陪审员也可能无法区分可靠和不可靠的证词。 不可靠的证词不仅可能被接受，而且可能在陪审员的裁决决定中受到严重依赖。 认识到这一潜在问题，最高法院提出了几项法律的保障措施，以防止陪审员依赖不可靠的专家。 这些保障措施包括交叉询问、陪审团指示和反对专家证词。 拟议研究的目的是确定陪审员是否对可靠性敏感，检查法院建议的每项保障措施的有效性，最大限度地提高陪审员对科学可靠性的敏感性，因为使用这些保障措施，并提供有关陪审员信息处理的额外信息。 这将通过操纵心理专家证词的可靠性的各种指标，并通过操纵使用和类型的保障，以确定他们的存在是否和在多大程度上增加陪审员的敏感性，以证据的可靠性。 在这些研究中，交叉询问的类型，陪审团的指示，和反对的专家证词将被操纵，以测试关于保障措施和证据可靠性的相互作用的假设。 这些假设来自陪审员决策过程的理论基础上的阐述可能性模型和使用的推理。 为了检验这些理论，复杂性将被操纵，以确定何时有关专家证词的可靠性的信息是外围或集中处理。 拟议的研究将对本科教学，学院，代表性不足的群体，研究界和社会的参与产生更广泛的影响。

Expert testimony has been a special problem in the law, and recent Supreme Court decisions have emphasized the trial court judge's role as the gatekeeper of scientific evidence and have required them to evaluate the reliability of expert evidence to determine its admissibility. If admitted, jurors have the responsibility of evaluating the influence that evidence will have in their verdict decisions. Reliability could be the means by which jurors determine if and how they will be influenced by expert testimony. Concerns have been raised about whether judges are capable of appropriately evaluating the reliability of complex expert testimony. Even if judges are able to distinguish reliable from unreliable evidence, reliability could be an issue argued by the attorneys. Therefore, reliability could be an issue for jurors to evaluate when determining the weight to give to expert testimony. Jurors also may be unable to distinguish between reliable and unreliable testimony. Unreliable testimony might not only be admitted, but it might be heavily relied upon in jurors' verdict decision making. Recognizing this potential problem, the Court suggested several legal safeguards to prevent jurors from relying on unreliable experts. These safeguards included cross-examination, jury instructions, and opposing expert testimony. The purpose of the proposed studies is to determine if jurors are sensitive to reliability, to examine the effectiveness of each of the Court's suggested safeguards, to maximize the increase in juror sensitivity to scientific reliability due to the use of these safeguards, and to provide additional information about jurors' information processing. This will be accomplished by manipulating various indicia of reliability for psychological expert testimony and by manipulating the use and type of the safeguards to determine if and to what degree their presence increases juror sensitivity to evidentiary reliability. In these studies, the type of cross-examination, jury instructions, and opposing expert testimony will be manipulated to test hypotheses regarding the interplay of safeguards and evidence reliability. These hypotheses are derived from theories about the processes underlying juror decision making based on the elaboration likelihood model and on the use of heuristics. To test these theories, complexity will be manipulated to determine when information about the reliability of expert testimony is processed peripherally or centrally. The proposed research will have a broader impact on undergraduate teaching, the college, the involvement of underrepresented groups, the research community, and on society.