Jane Goodman

Determining damages: The influence of expert testimony on jurors' decision making.

How do jurors accomplish the task of awarding damages in a civil lawsuit? to what extent are they influenced by expert testimony? These questions were addressed in a mock juror simulation in which jurors from El Paso County (Colorado) read one of three versions of a trial manuscript involving an age discrimination claim in which liability was already determined. They awarded damages and answered follow-up questions. In one version, there was no expert testimony; in a second version, they received plaintiff expert testimony on lost future wages and other economic matters; and in the third version, they received both plaintiff and defense expert testimony. Monetary awards were significantly higher when expert(s) testified. Moreover, jurors were strongly influenced by the expert testimony: Nearly half of them selected a damage award that exactly matched the amounts suggested. Finally, jurors infrequently considered exponential calculations in assessing damages.

Money, Sex, and Death: Gender Bias in Wrongful Death Damage Awards

Civil damage awards in wrongful death cases and experimental data from jury simulations reveal that male decedents are typically awarded substantially higher monetary damages than are similarly situated female decedents. These differences in treatment may arise because female decedents are perceived as worth less, female survivors are perceived as more needy, and/or male decedents are perceived to have a longer lost income stream than any female decedents. Mock jurors received written slimmaries of wrongful death cases stipulating to the liability of the defendant. They were asked to award an appropriate sum in damages and about the factors they considered in making these awards. Male decedents received higher awards in two separate studies. While mock jurors were sensitive to the perceived needs of the surviving spouse, the disparity in awards was primarily attributable to differences in the estimated lost income of the male and female decedents.

Inferring the criminal mind: Toward a bridge between legal doctrine and psychological understanding

Criminal law is concerned with defining when people commit prohibited acts accompanied by culpable mental states (criminal intent, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence). An experiment focused on how laypeople, asked to serve as jurors, interpret and apply legal instructions on the definitions of culpable mental states. The results pinpoint differences between legal mental state definitions that jurors are expected to apply in deciding criminal cases and laypersons understanding of those mental states. Laypeople do not comprehend mental state distinctions that are differentiated in legal doctrine. The results are discussed in terms of attribution theory, and practical suggestions are made that may be useful to attorneys.

Expert Testimony on Decision Processes in Employment Cases

The 1991 Civil Rights Act and recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have modified standards applicable to psychometric or statistical proof of discrimination in employment cases. Changes in the legal standards have increased the role for psychological experts to prove or rebut allegations of disparate impact of hiring or promotional criteria, whether those criteria caused the observed disparities in the workforce, and whether the legitimate needs of the employer were substantially served by the employers selection criteria. Three different methods or approaches to meet the legal standards are discussed: (a) reliance on traditional psychometric validity analyses; (b) regression analysis or the “policy-capturing” method; and (c) the survey data approach. These techniques are illustrated by reference to three cases in which experts successfully presented this evidence. While the application of the 1991 Civil Rights Act remains somewhat unclear, these approaches may prove useful in future employment discrimination cases.