The bottom line: the effect of written expert witness statements on juror verdicts and information processing.
Mock jurors recruited from jury rolls were either not given written statements of expert witnesses' direct testimony or were provided with such statements before or after the presentation of that testimony. Presentation of the statements before the testimony and cross-examination provided jurors with a schema that allowed them to distinguish more effectively among the claims of four differentially worthy plaintiffs because they processed more probative evidence than other jurors. Jurors in receipt of written statements before the testimony found the evidence to be more comprehensible than other jurors. Jurors provided with written statements following testimony and cross-examination were able to differentiate between the most and least severely injured plaintiffs, whereas jurors not in receipt of any written statements were unable to differentiate among any of the differentially worthy claimants. The limitations of this case management technique and of the study are discussed.
ForsterLee
L
L
Department of Psychology, Central Queensland University.
Horowitz
I
I
Athaide-Victor
E
E
Brown
N
N
D000328:Adult; D003416:Criminal Law; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011939:Mental Recall; D011340:Problem Solving; D014956:Writing