Abstract

Judges and jurors in the American legal system are not presumed to possess any expertise; they are typically laypersons with respect to the scientific and technical subjects about which experts testify in legal trials. Yet judges and jurors are given the legal authority to resolve cases involving battles of experts, and their decisions can have far reaching consequences both for present litigants as well as the legal system in general. ;It is therefore imperative that judges and jurors, despite their lack of expertise, recognize what constitutes good scientific and technical reasoning. This project critically evaluates the current legal approaches for dealing with expert testimony and suggests alternative approaches that would better respect the diverse roles, duties, and abilities of judges, jurors, and experts within the legal system. In particular, I suggest treating expert testimony analogously to eyewitness testimony, a form of evidence with which the legal system is more familiar and comfortable