In recent years, the introduction of expert testimony in court has become increasingly common. It has been estimated that scientific evidence is now presented in about a third of all trials and in almost every major civil case. Despite the importance of understanding how legal decisionmakers respond to and use scientific evidence presented in court, there is scant research on jurors or on the judiciary itself. Dr. Brekke seeks to tackle this important scientific issue with respect to the jury. She plans to undertake two experiments that focus on the impact of expert scientific testimony, specifically on how jurors evaluate expert testimony and on how personal and contextual factors (e.g., jurors' motivation, the complexity of the testimony, adversary versus nonadversary mode of presentation) influence these judgments. This work represents an important advance on the literature in several respects. Realistic case simulations (with the expert testimony embedded in a natural way) are used; experts are cross-examined or faced with testimony from opposing experts, and a broader range of potential impacts (including negative as well as positive effects) are examined. In addition, since jurors may be more skeptical of some forms of scientific evidence than others, these studies are designed to illuminate juror responses to various types of expert testimony.
