Communicating Scientific Information to Juries/Judges: Why Experts May Differ With the Verdict. V. H. Sublet, Sublet & Associates, 827 Cherryfield Avenue, Columbus, OH 43235; E. Anderson, Sciences International, Inc., King Street Station, 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22314-2808; R. Cumming, 111 Netherlands Road, Oak Ridge, TN 37830; and P. Bittner, Sciences International, Inc., King Street Station, 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22314-2808
Over the last twenty-five years there has been a significant increase in the court cases requiring juries and judges to comprehend and evaluate evidence in the form of complex scientific information. This has been the situation in many recent industrial, pharmaceutical, environmental, and medical cases. To understand this information expert witnesses are often utilized. Although witnesses may have highly regarded professional reputations, the credibility of the expert is often related to how the expert is perceived by the jury rather than scrutiny of his scientific credentials. Therefore, the perceived validity of the testimony given often depends on the witness’ ability to communicate with the jury both verbally and nonverbally. The final outcome of the trial may be much different from what the expert witness would have predicted from the evidence. In fact, there have been a number of cases in which scientific facts seem to clearly contradict the verdict. As a result, many questions regarding the use of scientific information and the ability of experts to communicate well in the courtroom have arisen in our legal system. On April 28-29, 1997, a Forum was held in Washington, D.C. to examine how the communication of scientific information presented in testimony is perceived, interpreted, and ultimately judged by the court. IT utilized two case studies 1) DNA data and 2) Silicon Breast Implant data to explore these issues. This presentation will discuss the conclusions, recommendations, and evaluation resulting from this activity.