Jury Appeal

I just read a fascinating study on how the public accepts or doesn’t accept scientific consensus in contested areas like global warming or nuclear energy.  It turns out that certain personality types are unwilling to believe there is scientific consensus on any issues that can cast doubt on their overall world view.  This supports what we see at trial, which is wholesale disregard for expert testimony by many jurors.  One theory on jurors and expert testimony is that jurors, when forced to choose between battling experts, made their decisions based on how compelling the actual testimony presents.  However, what this study points out is that, at least in part, jurors might reject experts because their testimony breaches pre-existing juror beliefs no matter how compelling the actual testimony was presented.

This is yet another example of how our unconscious rules the mind and keeps rational weighing of the evidence from occurring.  It also points out that just because your expert is from Harvard and the opposition expert is from Southwest State, the academic pedigree won’t have much bearing on which expert will be believed!  Better to build the emotional appeal of your case to a point where your expert will be believed no matter what s/he says!  Better yet to have your fact witnesses demonstrate credibility and authenticity on the witness stand.  If the doctor you are defending comes off as caring, competent and likeable you are well on your way to winning no matter what the plaintiff’s expert testifies to!