Judge and attorney experiences, practices, and concerns regarding expert testimony in federal civil trials.

Abstract

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.

Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations.

“…(e.g., DeMatteo, et al, 2014;Murrie et al, 2008;Murrie, Boccaccini, Turner, Meeks, Woods, & Tussey, 2009) and in Canada (Lloyd, Clark, & Forth, 2010). Beyond these studies, surveys of judges and attorneys consistently reveal their concern about bias among experts as well (e.g., Krafka, Dunn, Johnson, Cecil, & Miletich, 2002;Shuman, Whitaker, & Champagne, 1994). In short, there is ample literature, from multiple perspectives, to bolster the case for investigating mental health evaluators' potential biases and the strategies they use to attempt to correct for perceived biases.…”

Criminal barristers' opinions and perceptions of mental health expert witnesses

“…Previous research has investigated civil lawyers' perceptions of the contribution of expert witnesses (Bach & Gudjonsson, 1999;Krafka, Dunn, Johnson, & Miletich, 2002) and the perspectives of mental health psychology experts (Gudjonsson, 1996a(Gudjonsson, , 1996b. The opinions of criminal barristers have not been reported.…”

Jurors' Evaluations of Expert Testimony: Judging the Messenger and the Message

“…In contrast, medical doctors constituted respectively 49% and 56% of the Gross and Rand cases (Gross 1991). Medical experts account for about half the experts in federal trials (Krafka et al 2002). Although this issue has not yet been extensively explored, jurors may respond quite differently to expert psychological claims about human behavior, which they may feel they are more able to judge independently, than to medical or economic testimony (Shuman et al 1996b), so the overemphasis on psychological testimony may be misleading.…”

“…The Federal Judicial Center undertook surveys of U.S. district court judges and attorneys during the 1990s to obtain information about the use of expert testimony in federal trials pre-and post-Daubert (Krafka et al 2002). Judges reported information on their most recent trial involving expert witnesses.…”