Abstract
The impact of court-appointed (nonadversarial) expert testimony was examined in a jury simulation experiment. A total of 686 registered voters (540 deliberating jurors and 146 nondeliberating alternates) watched a videotaped reenactment of a rape trial in which various aspects of expert testimony were manipulated in a 2(type: rape trauma syndrome vs. polygraph) x 2(mode of presentation: adversarial vs. nonadversarial) x 2(content: one-sided vs. balanced) between-subjects factorial design with an independent no-expert control group. Results indicated that jurors did not accord more weight to nonadversarial expert testimony, nor did nonadversarial expert testimony negatively affect evaluations of trial fairness or judge competence. Deliberating jurors, however, were less responsive to the content of nonadversarial expert testimony than to the content of adversarial expert testimony. Possible mediating mechanisms and implications are discussed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
