COMPLEX SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY: HOW DO JURORS MAKE DECISIONS?
Joel Cooper, Elizabeth A. Bennett & Holley L. Sukel
The article posed the question as to whether “regular” citizens sitting on juries are capable of understanding complex scientific data and how such complex data is processed and whether it is translated into a sound and rational verdict.
2) The methodology used
Of the fifty-four paid participants, forty participants, seventy-four (75%) percent, were selected from a local community college in the Princeton, New Jersey area while fourteen (14) participants, twenty-five (25%) percent, were from a local retirement community. Interestingly, one-hundred (100%) percent of the participants considered themselves upper-middle-lower middle class which is not consistent with either of these control groups. (So, there is a question as to how the question of middle class was worded on the questionnaire or whether the researchers were only basing their research on middle class America; thus, only pooled their subject from the middle class segment of society – which is not consistent with an actual jury pool – and thus, it appears flawed.)
3) The main findings
The data obtained was based on expert testimony and the credentials of the expert. The researchers based finding of the verdict on overall verdict and a higher percentage in favor for the plaintiff with an expert of high credentials. The researchers were weighing the complexity and the credentials in verdict determination and asserted that there is a direct correlation between high credentials of expert testimony and verdict determination. Notably, the researchers found a ninety-one (91%) percent correlation between high credentials/high complexity and a favorable verdict for the Plaintiff; however, they found only a sixty-four (64%) percent favorable verdict for the Plaintiff when the expert with high complexity/lower credentials. Their verdict findings are as follows:
The low-complexity/high credentials finding (in red) is curious because it would appear that the expert witness would be speaking to the jurors in laymen terms; thus, making it easy for them to understand, and therefore, it bringing into question why the 64% verdict would not be more in line with the 91% verdict of Highly Complexity / High Credentials, and it should have been discussed in greater detail since the premise of the paper is on jurors ability to process and understand complex scientific data in their verdict determination.
4) A critique of the article
The article is based on numerous studies and covers key elements of juries and jurors. It covers the juror’s affinity for the expert witness, complexity of testimony and credentials which are all valid points. However, it fails on many fronts. The first is the mock jury pool. The sample pool should have been widened to those outside of the “middle-class”. Additionally, it is assumed that all the mock jurors are of average intelligence with a Standard IQ of ninety-six (96). The ability of an individual to process data with an IQ of 88 or 91 is severely impaired, yet the person may look and act “normal”. Nonetheless, negating that variable, the average person has a difficult time wading through the legalese and jargon of the courts and its members. Finally, juror’s need not be “professional jurors” or any member of the court to make a fair and equitable determination, as numerous studies (not cited) have proven that juries tend to take their responsibility seriously and do not normally make flipped decisions.
5) Was the methodology appropriate given their research question?
Yes, except for the selection of the jurors – which I would have changed or expanded6) Did they overdraw their conclusion?
Somewhat, yes, and the researchers could have explained their findings in greater detail. I had to make the table to see their conclusions as they were convoluted just typed in paragraph form.
7) Is there a better way to do their study? No
8) Did you like their research (meaning was their methodology strong were their hypothesis interesting)? Much of their methodology is questionable but not necessarily wrong. It could be improved upon. Their hypothesis was moderate but lacked depth. I believe the researchers know what they are talking about but are weak in conveying their findings. Again, tables, charts & graphs work wonders even when writing to an experienced audience. In short, I follow the K.I.S.S. methodKeep it simple stupid. Otherwise, your audience loses interest.
9) At least one discussion question based on the article.
What is the one thing you want your audience to draw from your research, and how do you convey it in a manner that is both professional but in a manner that a “Simpleton” can understand it? Hint: Layout and formatting
