Factors which may bias judges’ decisions to exclude accounting expert witnesses testimony

Madeline Ann Domino · Matthew Stradiot · Mariah Webinger

13 citations0/0 files storedAccounting Research Journal

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Legal processes and jurisprudence Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems Jury Decision Making Processes

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to investigate factors which may influence or bias judges’ decisions to exclude or admit the testimony of accounting expert witnesses, under the US judicial guidelines commonly known as the Daubert/Kuhmo standards. Accounting experts are increasingly providing expert testimony as a part of financial litigation support services. Design/methodology/approach – Judges’ decisions, in which opposing council evoked a Daubert/Kuhmo challenge to the testimony provided by 130 professional accountants serving as expert witnesses, were analyzed. The period of study was 2010 through 2014. Based on prior research, three variables believed to potentially influence or bias judges to systematically exclude expert testimony were examined: gender, complexity and familiarity. Findings – The results of binary logistic regression show that none of the variables has a significant relationship to the accounting expert witnesses’ probability of surviving a challenge to Daubert/Kuhmo standards. Findings suggest that judges are objective in evaluating the testimony provided by accounting experts under Daubert/Kuhmo guidelines and that they may be immune to biases based solely on gender, complexity and familiarity. Originality/value – These results will be of interest to judges, lawyers and forensic accountants acting as expert witnesses.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

References

2002Experimental research in financial accounting 1979Source credibility in social judgment: Bias, expertise, and the judge's point of view.2003The Effect of Information Complexity on Analysts' Use of That Information 1992Readability and Understandability: Different Measures of the Textual Complexity of Accounting Narrative 2002What's Gender Got to Do with It? Incivility in the Federal Courts 2000The effect of experience and complexity on order and recency bias in decision making by professional accountants 2016THE EFFECTS OF MONETARY INCENTIVES ON EFFORT AND DECISION PERFORMANCE: THE ROLE OF COGNITIVE CHARACTERISTICS 2008Bias in Judicial Citations: A Window into the Behavior of Judges?

Cited by

2024Obstacles Facing the Development of Forensic Accounting Curricula within Australian Universities: Exploring Perspectives of Practitioners and Educators 2020A Synthesis of Non-Fraud Forensic Accounting Research 2022Les effets des caractéristiques démographiques des arbitres sur les sentences arbitrales dans le secteur universitaire canadien

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.