6 ms·
Expert testimony just mean two opposing claims paid for by the respective sides. The jury is in no position to determine which claim is more correct.
by gowld 8y ago
Expert testimony just mean two opposing claims paid for by the respective sides. The jury is in no position to determine which claim is more correct.
- will_brown 8y agoActually that is the exact position the jury is in, and they do it everyday. Do you have any evidence or studies to suggest juries can’t determine credibility of expert testimony?
- buzzdenver 8y agoIt's almost impossible to determine credibility in a field that you know nothing about. Any sufficiently complicated question can be argued using facts on both sides, and a non-expert will have no idea how much weight each fact should have. For example anyone in software could argue why using the cloud for anything is a horrible idea. And remember that jurors are not allowed to do research at home, and expert witnesses cannot directly debate the topics.
- checkyoursudo 8y ago> a non-expert will have no idea how much weight each fact should have In theory, that is the purpose of the lawyer(s) -- to try to ground the technical expertise in a way that the jury (and often the judge!) can understand and assign value/import/trustworthiness/credibility to the testimony and exhibits they are given. in theory.
- galvin 8y agoExperts testifying under oath present facts. The jury doesn't determine which experts are correct, they use the facts to evaluate the opposing claims.
- staticautomatic 8y agoExpert witnesses are there to present opinions. Fact witnesses are there to present facts.
- miguelmota 8y ago> The jury is in no position to determine which claim is more correct. Society determines what is correct or wrong. A jury is a random selection of society. Anyone who wants provide a good to a society must follow principles set by the society.
- ekianjo 8y agoAnd maybe Society gets things wrong right? We dont torture people to get confessions anymore (in most western countries at least) so surely our standards evolve over time. We are not at the Apex of everything yet.
- miguelmota 8y agoYes society sometimes gets things 'wrong' in retrospective
- UnFleshedOne 8y agoNot 'wrong', just wrong. There is such a thing as an objective truth (for a given question), and you can be relatively closer to or farther from it than the next guy (or next 8 billion guys).
- dhkxh 8y agoNo - the facts don't change just because a large enough number of people disagree.
- miguelmota 8y agoFacts in a society are what that society deems or 'proven to be as truth'. Most facts are indeed a fact because a large amount of people (in the respective field) agree that it is a 'fact' ('irrefutable truth' as seen by that society or group).
- dawnerd 8y agoJuries combine those expert testimonies with documents from discovery to try to piece together the real story. In this case they were likely trying to determine if the company new it was dangerous, if they knew it caused cancer, if they tried to cover it up, etc.
- rmrfrmrf 8y agoWhy would anyone else be more equipped?