Amicus Brief: Kumho Tire v. Carmichael

In response to the US Supreme Court case of Kumho Tire Com. Ltd. v. Carmichael (1999) the defendant/petitioner (Kumho) and amici for the defendant made assertions that juries have known tendencies to be improperly influenced by expert evidence. This brief addresses the issue of jury performance and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Law and human behavior 2000-08, Vol.24 (4), p.387-400
Main Authors: Vidmar, Neil, Lempert, Richard O, Diamond, Shari Seidman, Hans, Valerie P, Landsman, Stephan, MacCoun, Robert, Sanders, Joseph, Hosch, Harmon M, Kassin, Saul, Galanter, Marc, Eisenberg, Theodore, Daniels, Stephen, Greene, Edith, Martin, Joanne, Penrod, Steven, Richardson, James, Heuer, Larry, Horowitz, Irwin
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accidents, Traffic - legislation & jurisprudence
Decision making
Defendants
Empirical evidence
Evidence
Experimentation
Expert Testimony
Expert Testimony - legislation & jurisprudence
Human
Humans
Juries
Jurors
Legal evidence
Liability, Legal
Petitioners
Plaintiffs
Products liability
Responses
Social sciences
State court decisions
Testimony
Trials
United States
Verdicts
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In response to the US Supreme Court case of Kumho Tire Com. Ltd. v. Carmichael (1999) the defendant/petitioner (Kumho) and amici for the defendant made assertions that juries have known tendencies to be improperly influenced by expert evidence. This brief addresses the issue of jury performance and jury responses to expert testimony. It reviews and summarizes a substantial body of research evidence about jury behavior that has been produced over the past quarter century. The body of empirical research findings conducted contradicts the petitioner's assumptions. Surveys of both federal and state judges show that the overwhelming majority believe that juries are competent and conscientious. Studies comparing judges' opinions of the evidence at trial show substantial agreement with verdicts rendered by juries. Evidence challenges the view that jurors abdicate their responsibilities as fact-finders when faced with expert evidence or that they are pro-plaintiff, anti-defendant, and anti-business. This brief sharply challenges the view expressed in the petitioners' and amici' briefs that juries are composed of persons who suspend critical reasoning skills whenever experts testify in a trial. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
ISSN:0147-7307
1573-661X
DOI:10.1023/A:1005588112385