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: Suggested Citation