Decisional Dimensions in Expert Witness Testimony – A Structural Analysis

The relationship between forensic science and legal adjudication is intricate mainly because the need to inform fact-finders on issues going beyond the layman’s knowledge poses challenges both on empirical and normative dimensions, in particular with regards to the specific role and duties of the di...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Alex Biedermann, Kyriakos N. Kotsoglou
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-10-01
Series:Frontiers in Psychology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02073/full
id doaj-ee2ce6d21c84402d969e13b3b576a61e
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ee2ce6d21c84402d969e13b3b576a61e2020-11-24T21:49:46ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782018-10-01910.3389/fpsyg.2018.02073381463Decisional Dimensions in Expert Witness Testimony – A Structural AnalysisAlex Biedermann0Alex Biedermann1Kyriakos N. Kotsoglou2School of Criminal Justice, Faculty of Law, Criminal Justice and Public Administration, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, SwitzerlandLitigation Law Unit, University of Adelaide Law School, Adelaide, SA, AustraliaSchool of Law, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, United KingdomThe relationship between forensic science and legal adjudication is intricate mainly because the need to inform fact-finders on issues going beyond the layman’s knowledge poses challenges both on empirical and normative dimensions, in particular with regards to the specific role and duties of the different participants in the legal process. While rationality is widely upheld as one of the aspirations of the legal process across many modern jurisdictions, a pending question is how to remedy the uneasy relationship between general propositions (and knowledge claims) conditioning expert witness testimony, and individualized decisions taken by fact-finders. The focus has hitherto been put on the utilization of model-based and formal methods of reasoning while, regrettably, the concepts of judgment and decision-making have not received equal attention. A first aspiration of our paper will thus be to further clarify the nature of this systemic relationship in the particular area of the legal process involving scientific experts, by conducting a critical transversal analysis of current empirical, normative and doctrinal understandings of expert witness testimony. As a second aim, we will use this insight to argue in favor of the view that structural features of expert witness testimony are embedded in a decision-making process, and that the understanding of this decisional dimension is important for clarifying the respective roles of expert witnesses and fact-finders, and for favoring their mutual understanding thereof. To substantiate this perspective, and attest to its growing recognition as a frontier understanding, we will provide real-world examples from forensic science reporting practice and policy documents of professional bodies.https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02073/fullexpert evidencelegal processdecision analysisnormative approachdecision-making prerogativeexpert witness fallacy
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Alex Biedermann
Alex Biedermann
Kyriakos N. Kotsoglou
spellingShingle Alex Biedermann
Alex Biedermann
Kyriakos N. Kotsoglou
Decisional Dimensions in Expert Witness Testimony – A Structural Analysis
Frontiers in Psychology
expert evidence
legal process
decision analysis
normative approach
decision-making prerogative
expert witness fallacy
author_facet Alex Biedermann
Alex Biedermann
Kyriakos N. Kotsoglou
author_sort Alex Biedermann
title Decisional Dimensions in Expert Witness Testimony – A Structural Analysis
title_short Decisional Dimensions in Expert Witness Testimony – A Structural Analysis
title_full Decisional Dimensions in Expert Witness Testimony – A Structural Analysis
title_fullStr Decisional Dimensions in Expert Witness Testimony – A Structural Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Decisional Dimensions in Expert Witness Testimony – A Structural Analysis
title_sort decisional dimensions in expert witness testimony – a structural analysis
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Psychology
issn 1664-1078
publishDate 2018-10-01
description The relationship between forensic science and legal adjudication is intricate mainly because the need to inform fact-finders on issues going beyond the layman’s knowledge poses challenges both on empirical and normative dimensions, in particular with regards to the specific role and duties of the different participants in the legal process. While rationality is widely upheld as one of the aspirations of the legal process across many modern jurisdictions, a pending question is how to remedy the uneasy relationship between general propositions (and knowledge claims) conditioning expert witness testimony, and individualized decisions taken by fact-finders. The focus has hitherto been put on the utilization of model-based and formal methods of reasoning while, regrettably, the concepts of judgment and decision-making have not received equal attention. A first aspiration of our paper will thus be to further clarify the nature of this systemic relationship in the particular area of the legal process involving scientific experts, by conducting a critical transversal analysis of current empirical, normative and doctrinal understandings of expert witness testimony. As a second aim, we will use this insight to argue in favor of the view that structural features of expert witness testimony are embedded in a decision-making process, and that the understanding of this decisional dimension is important for clarifying the respective roles of expert witnesses and fact-finders, and for favoring their mutual understanding thereof. To substantiate this perspective, and attest to its growing recognition as a frontier understanding, we will provide real-world examples from forensic science reporting practice and policy documents of professional bodies.
topic expert evidence
legal process
decision analysis
normative approach
decision-making prerogative
expert witness fallacy
url https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02073/full
work_keys_str_mv AT alexbiedermann decisionaldimensionsinexpertwitnesstestimonyastructuralanalysis
AT alexbiedermann decisionaldimensionsinexpertwitnesstestimonyastructuralanalysis
AT kyriakosnkotsoglou decisionaldimensionsinexpertwitnesstestimonyastructuralanalysis
_version_ 1725887648010076160