Robust Trust in Expert Testimony
نویسندگان
چکیده
The standard of proof in criminal trials should require that the evidence presented by the prosecution is robust. This requirement of robustness says that it must be unlikely that additional information would change the probability that the defendant is guilty. Robustness is difficult for a judge to estimate, as it requires the judge to assess the possible effect of information that the he or she does not have. This article is concerned with expert witnesses and proposes a method for reviewing the robustness of expert testimony. According to the proposed method, the robustness of expert testimony is estimated with regard to competence, motivation, external strength, internal strength and relevance. The danger of trusting non-robust expert testimony is illustrated with an analysis of the Thomas Quick Case, a Swedish legal scandal where a patient at a mental institution was wrongfully convicted for eight murders.
منابع مشابه
Effective Factors on Children's Selective Trust in Other's Testimony
Children live socially from birth to adulthood, and learning is an integral part of their living. They won’t achieve the knowledge and skills for life without learning. However, childhood period is not lasting enough for learning all of the massive amounts of information and skills required for living in this world as adults and children aren’t able to acquire the whole of knowledge and skills ...
متن کاملAssessing the Admissibility of a New Generation of Forensic Voice Comparison Testimony
This article provides a primer on forensic voice comparison (aka forensic speaker recognition), a branch of forensic science in which the forensic practitioner analyzes a voice recording in order to provide an expert opinion that will help the trier-of-fact determine the identity of the speaker. The article begins with an explanation of ways in which human speech varies within and between speak...
متن کاملProsecutorial Use of Expert Witness Testimony in Sexual Assault Cases
Recent Home Office research indicates that complainants in sexual offence cases still struggle to gain credibility in the eyes of police, prosecutors and jurors. This article examines some of the credibility barriers confronting victims of sexual offences within the criminal process. In the USA, prosecutors have utilised expert witness testimony in an effort to educate jurors and restore credib...
متن کاملThe effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence.
We tested whether an opposing expert is an effective method of educating jurors about scientific validity by manipulating the methodological quality of defense expert testimony and the type of opposing prosecution expert testimony (none, standard, addresses the other expert's methodology) within the context of a written trial transcript. The presence of opposing expert testimony caused jurors t...
متن کاملA Defense of Reductionism about Testimonial Justification of Beliefs
This paper defends reductionism about testimonial justification of beliefs against two influential arguments. One is the empirical argument to the effect that the reductionist justification of our trust in testimony is either circular since it relies on testimonial evidence or else there is scarce evidence in support of our trust in testimony. The other is the transcendental argument to the eff...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2015