Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Attitudinal (1)
- Blinders (1)
- Cognitive (1)
- Common (1)
- Empirical (1)
-
- Evidence (1)
- Expert testimony (1)
- Informational (1)
- Judge MtDNA Study (1)
- Judges (1)
- Juries (1)
- Jury MtDNA Study (1)
- Jury competence (1)
- Jury comprehension of scientific evidence (1)
- Jury trial innovations (1)
- Law (1)
- Mitochondrial DNA (1)
- MtDNA evidence (1)
- Per diem arguments (1)
- Repair (1)
- Response (1)
- Scientific evidence (1)
- State v. Pappas (1)
- Studies (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Circumventing Daubert In The Gene Pool, Erica Beecher-Monas
Circumventing Daubert In The Gene Pool, Erica Beecher-Monas
Law Faculty Research Publications
No abstract provided.
Judges, Juries, And Scientific Evidence, Valerie P. Hans
Judges, Juries, And Scientific Evidence, Valerie P. Hans
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
The rise in scientific evidence offered in American jury trials, along with court rulings thrusting judges into the business of assessing the soundness of scientific evidence, have produced challenges for judge and jury alike. Many judges have taken up the duty of becoming “amateur scientists.” But what about juries? Surely they too could benefit from assistance as they attempt to master and apply complex testimony about scientific matters during the course of a trial. Concerns about the jury’s ability to understand, critically evaluate, and employ scientific evidence in deciding complex trials have led to many suggestions for reform.
This article …
Evidentiary Wisdom And Blinders In Perspective: Thoughts On Misjudging, Elaine W. Shoben
Evidentiary Wisdom And Blinders In Perspective: Thoughts On Misjudging, Elaine W. Shoben
Scholarly Works
Empirical studies serve to enlighten the law, even when they simply confirm the wisdom of existing rules. Chris Guthrie's article, Misjudging, primarily serves that useful function—confirming the wisdom of existing rules—even though the author sought to establish something different. Guthrie's article applies insights from cognitive psychology to the resolution of legal disputes and presents some empirical proof of the effect of the application. He concludes that three sets of “blinders”—informational, cognitive, and attitudinal—affect the ability of judges to reach correct resolutions of disputes. He therefore recommends further appreciation of the ability of arbitration and mediation to avoid some of the …