Document Type
Brief
Publication Date
10-19-1998
Abstract
Amici are university professors or hold positions in independent research institutions. Each has conducted empirical research on juries. The interest of these amici in this case is to provide the Court with an accurate picture of what a substantial body of research says about jury competence and behavior as it pertains to the evaluation of expert testimony. Short biographies of each amicus are provided in Appendix A.
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 great weight of that 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.
The Petitioners and amici on behalf of petitioners make a number of overlapping, but empirically unsupported, assertions about jury behavior in response to expert testimony, namely that juries are frequently incapable of critically evaluating expert testimony, are easily confused, give inordinate weight to expert testimony, are awed by science, defer to the opinions of unreliable experts, and, implicitly, that in civil trials juries tilt in favor of plaintiffs and against corporations.
The body of empirical research findings conducted by independent researchers and published in leading social science journals, law reviews and books, taken as a whole, strongly contradicts the Petitioners' assertions. Surveys of both federal and state judges show that the overwhelming majority of judges believe that juries are competent and conscientious. Studies comparing judges' opinions of the evidence at trial show substantial agreement with the verdicts rendered by juries. Research comparing jury verdicts in cases in which expert evidence is a critical issue, moreover, shows positive correlations with independent criteria of performance. Case studies have produced similar findings. Experimental studies show mixed results but primarily support the jury system. Findings lend no support to the charge that, in general, juries hold pro-plaintiff biases or anti-business sentiments. In fact, the data tend to indicate that jurors are often skeptical of plaintiff claims.
Nothing in this amicus brief should be construed as a challenge to Daubert or Joiner. Nor does it take issue with a broad interpretation of FRE 403 and 702. The brief, however, does sharply challenge 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.
Recommended Citation
Ellsworth, Phoebe C. and Lempert, Richard C., "Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael: Brief Amici Curiae of Neil Vidmar, Richard O. Lempert, Shari Seidman Diamond, Valerie P. Hans, Stephan Landsman, Robert MacCoun, Joseph Sanders, Harmon M. Hosch, Saul Kassin, Marc Galanter, Theodore Eisenberg, Stephen Daniels, Edith Greene, Joanne Martin, Steven Penrod, James Richardson, Larry Heuer and Irwin Horowitz in Support of Respondents" (1998). Appellate Briefs. 9.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/briefs/9
Comments
Amicus: Vidmar, Professor Neil; Lempert, Professor Richard O.; Diamond, Shari S.; Hans, Professor Valerie P.; Landsman, Professor Stephan; MacCoun, Professor Robert; Sanders, Professor Joseph; Hosch, Professor Harmon M.; Kassin, Professor Saul; Galanter, Professor Marc; Eisenberg, Professor Theodore; Daniels, Stephen; Greene, Professor Edith; Martin, Joanne; Penrod, Professor Steven Ph.D.; Richardson, Professor James Ph.D.; Heuer, Professor Larry Ph.D.; Horowitz, Professor Irwin Ph.D.