Adversarial Medical and Scientific Testimony and Lay Jurors: A Proposal for Medical Malpractice Reform

Abstract

Pleas for reform of the legal system are common. One area of the legal system which has drawn considerable scholarly attention is the jury system. Courts often employ juries as fact-finders in civil cases according to the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved … .” The general theory behind the use of juries is that they are the most capable fact-finders and the bestsuited tribunal for arriving at the most accurate and just outcomes. This idea, however, has been under attack, particularly by those who claim that cases involving certain difficult issues or types of evidence are an inappropriate province for lay jurors who typically have no special background or experience from which to make informed, fair decisions. The legal system uses expert witnesses to assist triers of fact in understanding issues which are beyond their common knowledge or difficult to comprehend.

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.