Publication Type: Poster Paper
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The purpose of this examination of Wyoming Supreme Court cases is to report on the use of expert witnesses in the Wyoming state court system. Clearly, expert witness testimony is needed in certain court cases, especially ones that deal with areas of testimony that require extensive training to interpret test results or behavior that may not be viewed as the norm in society. In Wyoming, which is known for its rural communities, it is hard not to imagine that one of the most difficult challenges for a rural trial court is to remain unbiased, and this study seems to show they can not. This research has attempted to answer several questions, among others: 1) How important were the use of expert witnesses in these cases?, 2) Is there a difference between the attempted use of expert testimony by prosecution and defense?, 3) Do the courts treat the prosecution’s request for expert witness testimony the same as they treat the defendant’s attempts to use expert testimony? Based on content analysis, the study examined a sample of approximately 50 cases and their appeals. Each had one thing in common: its use, or request for use, of expert testimony. From the information gathered in this study, it appears as if the courts have two lines which they abide by creating inequities between guidelines for the prosecution and more stringent limitations for the defense. Indeed these potentially allow for misconduct on the part of prosecutors.

Publication Type: Symposium Paper
Abstract: This study examined jurors’ (N=248) ability to detect internal validity threats in expert evidence. We varied the internal validity (valid, missing control group, confound, experimenter bias) and ecological validity (high, low) of an expert’s study across eight conditions. Ratings of expert evidence quality and expert credibility were higher for the valid versus missing control group study. Variations in internal validity did not influence verdict or plaintiff credibility ratings. No differences emerged as a function of ecological validity. Ratings of expert evidence quality and expert/plaintiff credibility were positively correlated with verdict. Implications for trials containing expert testimony will be discussed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In Daubert, the Supreme Court opined that opposing expert testimony is an effective safeguard against junk science in the courtroom. This safeguard is necessary, given that judges might not be able to judge the validity of proffered expert evidence (e.g., Kovera & McAuliff, 2000), and therefore unreliable evidence may be presented to jurors. Although jurors may not be unable to identify flaws in scientific research independently, research suggests that people can be trained to make more sophisticated judgments about scientific quality. Previous research exploring whether an expert could help jurors make better decisions concerning science demonstrated that an opposing expert might not enable jurors to evaluate scientific validity, and that this may be, in part, due to heuristics used by jurors in making their decision (Levett & Kovera, 2006). In this study, we explored whether counteracting those heuristics by changing the role of the opposing expert would result in a more effective safeguard. That is, does the adversarial status of the expert result in juror skepticism? Would an opposing expert called as a court appointed expert be more effective in educating jurors? Mock jurors read a summary of a sexual harassment trial in which we manipulated the validity of the plaintiff expert’s testimony (valid vs. invalid), the content of the opposing expert’s testimony (absent v. present – traditional v. present – educative) and the status of the opposing expert (adversarial v. court appointed). Results supported both sensitivity and skepticism effects. Implications and future directions for research will be discussed.

Publication Type: Symposium Paper
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine how variations in the type of opposing expert testimony presented (none, standard, educational, or a combination), and the strength of educational opposing testimony (strong vs. weak), influence mock jurors’ understanding of reliability factors set forth by Daubert. Participants watched a trial in which the reliability of the expert and the presence of opposing expert testimony were varied. Our results suggest that opposing expert testimony tends increase juror skepticism, and that it may hold some promise as an effective safeguard by sensitizing jurors to the unreliability of primary expert testimony.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Tensions between expert culture and everyday experience continue to manifest and the medical field as expert culture is gaining resistance. With increased Internet use, this new public sphere allows individuals to educate themselves and challenge the experts. By exploring how an online support group of women suffering from Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome provides empowerment and resistance to expert culture within the health field, a greater understanding of alternative models results as everyday experience subverts expert culture.