I think that jurors respond to a “battle of the experts” by possibly getting confused.
The purpose of having an expert witness is to convince the jury that what their
professional opinion is, is the right one (Huss, 2014). If multiple experts are stating
different things, people who don’t have any background on the matter won’t know
who to believe and might make their opinion on the matter based on other factors
rather than on the factual information being given. I believe that the jurors will have
to rely on their indicts and the background of the expert. They will need to take into
account the background of the expert, the demeanor they have while testifying as
well as how well in-depth they can explain their reasoning behind their opinions. I
also believe that the attorneys have a part to play in these types of scenarios as
well. They can make the testimony of the expert simple and easy to understand for
the jurors. The attorneys can make sure the jurors understand all the technicalities
of the case, which can help them understand and make an informed decision.
The whole purpose of having an expert witness testify is to provide their specialized
knowledge and opinions on information that the average person would not know.
They bring in their professional ideas and knowledge to help the jurors understand
what has or is happening in the case. Unless their testimony is called into question,
making it “junk science” (Huss, 2014). The court system has found ways to protect
against such things and has set criteria to evaluate the allowance or “admissibility”
of the testimony given by the expert. It is called the Daubert standard (Huss, 2014).
This standard gives the judges the responsibility of determining if the testimony is
based on scientific methods and if it has been proven by others. It also must be
accepted throughout the scientific community regarding this matter. To better
improve this standard the courts could add in the determination of the validity of
the expert’s background, credibility, and possible biases. Also, another idea is the
courts could have their own independent experts that could evaluate the testimony
before it is even given to the jury. The judges themselves do not have on average
any scientific training so leaving the responsibility to the judge to determine what
should or shouldn’t be admissible on the stance of scientific knowledge, should be
in the hands of experts in that field.
Huss, M. T. (2014). Forensic psychology: Research, clinical practice, and applications. (2 Ed.)
nd
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
