Summary
Jurors often do not understand the technical information provided by expert witnesses. Although these expert witnesses may make conflicting claims, both appear confident, leaving juries unable to assess how reliable their testimonies are.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Juries may be swayed by factors other than reliability in a trial with expert testimony.
A
There should be limits placed on how much technical information can be considered by both sides in preparing a legal case.
This is too strong. The stimulus does not advocate for any limits to be placed on technical information. It purely focuses on jurors’ ability to understand it.
B
Jury decisions in cases involving expert witness testimonies are not always determined by the reliability of those testimonies.
The stimulus argues that jurors often cannot assess the reliability of expert witness testimonies. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that decisions involving expert witness testimonies are not always determined by their reliability.
C
Jurors who understand the technical information presented in a case can usually assess its legal implications accurately.
The stimulus does not explain how jurors utilize accurately understood technical information. While it seems plausible, this is too much of an assumption.
D
Jury members should generally be selected on the basis of their technical expertise.
The stimulus does not argue for any change in how jurors should be selected. This requires many assumptions to be correct.
E
Expert witnesses who testify on opposite sides in legal cases are likely to agree in their evaluations of technical claims.
This is anti-supported. The stimulus says that expert witnesses on opposite sides make conflicting claims.