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...

amara in jurisprudential sources is said to any evidence which indicate the fact. indication is not definitively in the sight of foghaha and osooliyeen, but due to the prevailing conjecture which can be achieved from that evidence. witnesses’ testimony (bayyinah) as valid evidence in the jurisprudence and law is known as an “amara” in the sight of jurists witch its validity is from legislator. ...

testimony is one of the most important reasons that legislator has accounted for proving the litigation and it is of special importance. witness is the most important pillar of testimony. due to great and special influence of testimony to prove or disprove the litigations, it is necessary to qualify the witness. one of the most important qualifications of the witness is his justice. justice is ...

Experimental psychologists increasingly are asked to give expert testimony in court, especially with regard to issues of eyewitness reliability. Whether or not experimental psychologists should give expert testimony on these matters is a controversial issue. The empirical literature suggests that potential jurors do not have a good understanding of the variables influencing eyewitness accuracy ...

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...