Educating the jury about junk science through an opposing expert witness

在Daubert案中，最高法院认为，反对专家证词、交叉询问和关于举证责任的司法指示是防止法庭上出现垃圾科学的有效保障。以前对这些保障措施的研究表明，如果不进行修改，这些保障措施就不是帮助陪审员在看到有缺陷的科学证词时做出更好决定的有效机制。特别是，以前关于利用对立的专家对陪审员进行方法缺陷培训的研究表明，对立的专家证词的存在导致陪审员对所有专家证词持怀疑态度，而不是使他们对另一位专家证词中的缺陷敏感。鉴于这些发现，重要的是理解为什么对立的专家是一个无效的保障措施，以便我们能够改进保障措施，以帮助陪审员在面对垃圾科学时做出更好的决定。对方的专家之所以不成功，仅仅是因为专家的对抗性？或者，对方的专家之所以不成功，是因为陪审员因为两位专家之间的分歧而对案件持怀疑态度？为了回答这些问题，国际和平研究所将进行两项研究。第一项研究将探索为什么对立的专家是对抗垃圾科学的无效保障。在第二项研究中，我们将检验，与相反的专家相比，法院指定的专家是否更能有效地防止法庭上的垃圾科学。这些研究的结果将有助于法院了解提高法庭陪审团决策质量的方法。

In Daubert, the Supreme Court opined that opposing expert testimony, cross-examination, and judicial instruction on the burden of proof are effective safeguards against junk science in the courtroom. Previous research on these safeguards suggests that without modification, the safeguards are not effective mechanisms to help jurors make better decisions when they are presented with flawed scientific testimony. In particular, previous research on using opposing experts to train jurors about methodological flaws suggests that the presence of opposing expert testimony caused jurors to be skeptical of all expert testimony rather than sensitizing them to flaws in the other expert's testimony. Given these findings, it is important to understand why an opposing expert was an ineffective safeguard so that we can improve the safeguard to assist jurors in making better decisions when presented with junk science. Was the opposing expert unsuccessful simply because of the adversarial nature of the expert? Or, was the opposing expert unsuccessful because jurors became skeptical of the because of the disagreement between the two experts? To answer these questions, the PI will conduct two studies. The first study will explore why an opposing expert was an ineffective safeguard against junk science. In the second study, we are going to examine whether a court appointed expert is a more successful safeguard against junk science in the courtroom compared to an opposing expert. The results of these studies will help inform the courts about methods to improve the quality of jury decision-making in the courtroom.