Federal Judicial Center The results of 3 surveys (1 each of federal judges in 1991 and 1998 and another of attorneys in 1999) indicate that practices and beliefs concerning expert testimony have changed in the wake of the 1993 Supreme Court decision on admissibility in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Reporting both on their general experience with expert testimony and on their most recent civil trial involving such testimony, judges and attorneys indicated that judges were more likely in 1998 than in 1991 to scrutinize expert testimony before trial and then limit or exclude proffered testimony. The results describe common problems with expert testimony, the characteristics of trials in which expert testimony is introduced, and the types of experts who testify.
State and federal courts are increasingly using videoconferencing to hold proceedings in criminal cases, including first appearances and arraignments. However, little systematic information is available about the extent of its use, the proceedings for which it is used, how it is implemented, and, most importantly, whether videoconferencing affects the behavior or perceptions of participants in a way that violates a defendant's fundamental rights. In this article we review the legal and empirical issues raised by the use of videoconferencing in criminal cases and describe empirical research that could and, we argue, should, inform policy decisions concerning its use.
Memory issues arise in the law in many different ways. At the most fundamental level, assumptions about memory are inherent in both substantive laws and procedural rules that govern the operation of the legal system. For example, the rules and procedures used to govern the conduct of jury trials reflect a great deal of faith in jurors' ability to understand and retain information over long periods of time, often with much intervening information. Memory issues also arise in the context of individual cases. For example, the ability of an attorney to satisfactorily prosecute or defend a case on behalf of a client often relies largely upon the completeness and accuracy of the memory of the client and other witnesses. This paper discusses examples of memory issues in the law and describes how applied research on these issues can be used to inform basic memory theory, particularly with respect to the relationship between emotion and memory.
Many have questioned the wisdom of using traditional juries to decide cases involving complex scientific and technical evidence. Alternative decision‐makers that have been proposed include: judges; expert arbitrators; special juries composed of people who possess either a minimum level of higher education or knowledge especially relevant to the issues in the particular trial; and panels of experts in the particular field, acting as either a jury or a non‐jury tribunal. These alternatives differ from the traditional jury not only in their composition but also, to varying degrees, in terms of the resources available to them and the procedures under which they operate. In this article, we explore the advantages that these alternative decision‐makers have over juries and discuss how the same resources and procedures enjoyed by the alternatives could be made available to and enhance the abilities of the traditional jury in cases involving complex evidence.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.