Expert Prevalence, Persuasion and Price: What Trial Participants Really Think About Experts

40 Pages Posted: 20 Jun 2015 Last revised: 23 Feb 2016

Date Written: Winter 2016

Abstract

The importance of expert witnesses to modern litigation is clear, but the lack of reliable data about experts and their effectiveness in court is remarkable. Several studies have touched on the issue in recent decades, but the most comprehensive research in the area is based upon survey responses collected in 1988 and 1991.

To fill the gap, this study offers a two-step analysis of experts in actual civil jury trials. First, judicial records of trials revealed both the percentage of cases with experts and the number of experts per case. Second, surveys of the trial participants – judges, attorneys, experts and jurors – revealed factors that make an expert persuasive as well as some surprise responses debunking conventional wisdom surrounding experts.

By empirically measuring the role of experts in actual litigation, we can establish what makes them effective, when different litigants disagree about experts and why, and how the handling of experts has changed over time.

Keywords: experts, litigation, persuasion, empirical, survey, torts, complex torts, products liability, medical malpractice, jurors, judges, judicial decisionmaking

Suggested Citation

Jurs, Andrew W., Expert Prevalence, Persuasion and Price: What Trial Participants Really Think About Experts (Winter 2016). 91 Indiana Law Journal 353, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2620398

Andrew W. Jurs (Contact Author)

Drake University Law School ( email )

2608 Forest Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50311
United States
515-271-2824 (Phone)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
133
Abstract Views
626
Rank
388,166
PlumX Metrics