In Daubert, the Supreme Court opined that opposing expert testimony, cross-examination, and judicial instruction on the burden of proof are effective safeguards against junk science in the courtroom. Previous research on these safeguards suggests that without modification, the safeguards are not effective mechanisms to help jurors make better decisions when they are presented with flawed scientific testimony. In particular, previous research on using opposing experts to train jurors about methodological flaws suggests that the presence of opposing expert testimony caused jurors to be skeptical of all expert testimony rather than sensitizing them to flaws in the other expert's testimony. Given these findings, it is important to understand why an opposing expert was an ineffective safeguard so that we can improve the safeguard to assist jurors in making better decisions when presented with junk science. Was the opposing expert unsuccessful simply because of the adversarial nature of the expert? Or, was the opposing expert unsuccessful because jurors became skeptical of the because of the disagreement between the two experts? To answer these questions, the PI will conduct two studies. The first study will explore why an opposing expert was an ineffective safeguard against junk science. In the second study, we are going to examine whether a court appointed expert is a more successful safeguard against junk science in the courtroom compared to an opposing expert. The results of these studies will help inform the courts about methods to improve the quality of jury decision-making in the courtroom.
