Sociologists on trial: Theoretical competition and juror reasoning

Abstract

This paper examines the work of sociologists as expert witnesses and how sociological theory is used in criminal trials. The study describes how alternative sociological theories were propounded by sociologist expert witnesses and used by competing lawyers to establish the correct understanding of the case. The paper indicates that the sociological testimony was relevant to the deliberations and verdicts and details how the judge's and jurors' practical treatment of the law and evidence reconciled the adversaries' mutually exclusive, partisan positions and the theoretical bases for those positions.Sociologists participate directly in the legal process by serving as expert witnesses who offer evidence at trials involving disputed factual and legal matters. Sociologists played such a role in the famous United States Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education 347 US 483 (1954) involving school desegregation, with one party to the dispute arguing that discrimination produced negative effects on child development (Clark and Clark 1947). Indeed, such courtroom settings offer the unusual opportunity to study the dynamics of theoretical competition in applied social science since the dispute over the social scientific theories is conducted in a public forum, the adversaries each present a theory in support of a certain interpretation of the issues at hand, the opposing party typically disputes that theory and/or its interpretation, and there is a clear outcome to the dispute) In this paper we analyze such a perspicuous setting, the Reginald Denny beating trial (California v. Williams and Watson).

“Place or Character” of a Business: Environmental Criminology and Negligent Security Litigation

“…Negligent security cases are complex, and courts need methodologically trained and skilled experts to help judges and juries understand evidence, determine the facts of a case, and adjudicate between rival interpretations of facts. In recent years, scholars and researchers have published a variety of books and articles that offer suggestions and advice on how to apply social science methods and theories to assist the courts in rendering legal decisions (Burns 2008; Forsyth 2014; Gotham and Kennedy 2019; Hirsch and Quartaroli 2011; Kennedy 2013; Morewitz and Goldstein 2014; Otto and Weiner 2013; Peyrot and Burns 2001). Sociologists and criminologists who work as premises security experts not only have access to rich crime and security data but research results that derive from a case investigation can be valuable sources for making substantive, theoretical, and methodological contributions to academic sociology, criminology, and other social science disciplines and fields.…”

Demonstrating “Reasonable Fear” at Trial: Is it Science or Junk Science?

“…The methodology used is closely detailed and descriptive, and focuses on the core tasks involved in presenting (and challenging) expert testimony. The article draws on prior ethnographic and ethnomethodological research on court activities, plea negotiations and responsibility attributions (Burns 1996(Burns , 2000a(Burns , b, 2001(Burns , 2004Burns and Peyrot 2003;Emerson 1969;Garfinkel 1967;Holstein 1993;Lynch 1997;Lynch and Cole 2005;Peyrot 1982;Peyrot and Burns 2001;Pollner 1974Pollner , 1979. This research approach seeks to identify and analyze the claims, arguments, decision-making practices, understandings and institutionally specific competencies articulated, invoked and relied upon by court participants in handling specific cases.…”

“…The introduction of expert witness testimony at trial has become a highly complex and contested matter raising questions about whether experts unduly influence and prejudice jurors (Vidmar and Diamond 2001). Indeed, juries often reach their decisions about the guilt or innocence of criminal defendants based upon the opinions of the expert witnesses (Peyrot and Burns 2001;Wilson 1997a, b). Biomedical, psychiatric, psychological, sociological, and other scientific testimony of increasing sophistication is being presented by defendants in a growing number of cases to support an ever expanding range of claims and criminal law defenses (Monahan and Walker 1998).…”

“…As Shiela Jasanoff notes, litigation ''is particularly conducive to the de-construction of scientific facts, since it provides both the incentive (winning the lawsuit) and the formal means (cross-examination) for challenging the contingencies in the opponents' scientific arguments'' (Jasanoff 1992, p. 348; see Lynch and Cole 2005;Peyrot and Burns 2001). 1 Moreover, the partisan goal of winning, the dichotomous reasoning of the law, and the conclusiveness of the result favor the selection and use of experts who serve as zealous advocates for one side over the other, rather than as disinterested and purely objective witnesses assisting the jury in an impartial search for truth (Siegel 1995;Huber 1993;Jasanoff 1992).…”

“…During admissibility hearings, challenges are regularly made by the opposing side to the qualifications and expertise of the purported expert and/or to the scientific basis of his or her testimony. The adversary commonly characterizes the ''science'' in question as not widely accepted by others in the relevant field, as provisional knowledge claims at best, and/or as scientifically flawed in its assumptions, procedures, or conclusions (Lynch and Cole 2005;Peyrot and Burns 2001). Many times, the adversary argues that the testimony amounts to ''junk science'' (Huber 1993) and it is left up to the judge to sort things out and make a ruling.…”