There are many problems that are associated with expert testimony focused around testimony invading the province of the jury, it being too adversarial and not impartial, taking too much of a courts time, introducing irrelevant information, and it is often founded on an insufficient scientific base.
Smith (1989) cited eight potential problems with expert testimony. One problem is that the scientific base for the testimony is inadequate and can lead to unreliable information and potentially incorrect verdicts. Another is that testimonies tend to have limited relevance and wastes the courts time. Experts often are permitted to testify about “ultimate issues”, for example if the defendant was insane, which is an issue since in the end it is for …show more content…
Though opposing attorneys do not select a jury the judge does give them a certain number of potential jurors that they can exclude from the jury. There are two mechanisms, challenges for cause and preemptory challenges in which someone can be excluded from serving on a jury.
Challenges for cause, are exclusions based on a jurors inflexible biases or prejudice, or they have a relationship to the parties, or the issues that create an appearance of bias. It is possible that a judge may exclude a panelist for cause without either attorney requesting it. In criminal cases prospective jurors who have been victims and their experience would affect their ability to be fair jurors would be dismissed.
The other device for a panelist exclusion is the peremptory challenge. Peremptory challenge is when either side may exclude a chosen number of prospective jurors without reason or review without being subject to the court’s control. These challenges allow attorneys to challenge potential jurors whom they believe will be unsympathetic to their client, as well as, providing a symbolic function. “When the parties in a lawsuit play a role in selecting the people who decide the outcome, they may be more satisfied with that outcome.”(Saks, 1997) The Supreme Court has ruled that peremptory challenges may not be based solely on a juror’s race or
Smith (1989) cited eight potential problems with expert testimony. One problem is that the scientific base for the testimony is inadequate and can lead to unreliable information and potentially incorrect verdicts. Another is that testimonies tend to have limited relevance and wastes the courts time. Experts often are permitted to testify about “ultimate issues”, for example if the defendant was insane, which is an issue since in the end it is for …show more content…
Though opposing attorneys do not select a jury the judge does give them a certain number of potential jurors that they can exclude from the jury. There are two mechanisms, challenges for cause and preemptory challenges in which someone can be excluded from serving on a jury.
Challenges for cause, are exclusions based on a jurors inflexible biases or prejudice, or they have a relationship to the parties, or the issues that create an appearance of bias. It is possible that a judge may exclude a panelist for cause without either attorney requesting it. In criminal cases prospective jurors who have been victims and their experience would affect their ability to be fair jurors would be dismissed.
The other device for a panelist exclusion is the peremptory challenge. Peremptory challenge is when either side may exclude a chosen number of prospective jurors without reason or review without being subject to the court’s control. These challenges allow attorneys to challenge potential jurors whom they believe will be unsympathetic to their client, as well as, providing a symbolic function. “When the parties in a lawsuit play a role in selecting the people who decide the outcome, they may be more satisfied with that outcome.”(Saks, 1997) The Supreme Court has ruled that peremptory challenges may not be based solely on a juror’s race or