Self-study
Numerous studies suggest that when scientific evidence is presented in a trial, jurors regard that evidence as more credible than they would if they had encountered the same evidence outside of the courtroom context. Legal theorists have hypothesized that this effect is primarily due to the fact that judges prescreen scientific evidence and allow only credible scientific evidence to be presented in the courtroom.
8.
Which one of the following would be most useful to know in order to evaluate the legal theorists’ hypothesis?
a
whether jurors typically know that judges have appraised the scientific evidence presented at trial
Correct. (A) pokes a hole in the legal theorists’ hypothesis by pointing out the difference between facts and beliefs: put generally, just because something is true doesn’t mean this or that person believes it to be true.
Let’s say judges do in fact filter out bad studies – that would suggest courtroom science really is more credible than science presented elsewhere. But the phenomenon is that jurors believe courtroom science is more credible. The legal theorists’ explanation only works if jurors are aware judges filter out bad studies.
Plausibility
Plausibility
Presenting evidence that corroborates (in Strengthen) or conflicts (in Weaken) with the author's hypothesized explanation or the predictions that follow from that explanation.
b
whether jurors' reactions to scientific evidence presented at trial are influenced by other members of the jury
This gestures toward a potential alternate cause – maybe these jurors’ beliefs stem not from the judges filtering process but from some groupthink dynamic between all the jurors. The problem is there’s no reason to think influence specifically means influence in the direction of credibility. There are probably all kinds of influences in every direction.
c
how jurors determine the credibility of an expert witness who is presenting scientific evidence in a trial
For starters, this answer choice shifts the concept of credibility from applying to
The substantive reason (C) is wrong, though, is that regardless of the method jurors use to determine credibility in the courtroom, we need to explain the difference between that method and the methods they use outside the courtroom. Let’s say jurors use a coin flip in the courtroom to determine credibility. The immediate question is what do they use outside the courtroom?
d
whether jurors typically draw upon their own scientific knowledge when weighing scientific evidence presented at trial
As with (C), we need to explain the difference between what jurors believe in the courtroom and what they believe in other settings. In real life, jurors probably do draw upon their own scientific knowledge in the courtroom – but they also probably do the same thing outside the courtroom. We would need (D) to suggest they draw on their own knowledge way more or way less in the courtroom than they do outside.
Even then (D) would still be pretty weak, though. There’s no reason to think drawing on your own knowledge relates strongly to finding things credible (or not credible).
e
how jurors respond to situations in which different expert witnesses give conflicting assessments of scientific evidence
Like (C) and (D), this answer choice fails to explain the difference between what jurors believe in the courtroom and what they believe in other settings. Any fact we add to the story about what happens in the courtroom also needs some clear relation to what happens outside. Let’s say jurors respond to conflicting studies by paying a lot of attention – is that super different from how they respond outside the courtroom, or is it the same?