AbstractUnlike other expert witnesses, cultural anthropologists must not only provide expert evidence on the case but also convince judges of its validity for meeting the Daubert standard. In this article, I juxtapose two expert testimony reports I have written in criminal and asylum cases. For the first, I conducted cultural consensus analysis, a formal quantitative technique, to gather data on beliefs about co‐sleeping behavior among Mexican migrants. For the second, I relied on discursive practice to signal the facts as meeting the standard of evidence. I argue that despite anthropology not being an “exact science,” our locus at the intersection of the sciences, social sciences, and humanities provides us with a range of tools to assert the reliability and validity of our testimony.
Read full abstract