Physicians widely believe that jury verdicts are unfair. This Article tests that assumption by synthesizing three decades of jury research. Contrary to popular belief the data show that juries consistently sympathize more with doctors who are sued than with patients who sue them. Physicians win roughly half of the cases that expert reviewers believe physicians should lose and nearly all of the cases that experts feel physicians should win. Defendants and their hired experts, it turns out, are more successful than plaintiffs and their hired experts at persuading juries to reach verdicts contrary to the opinions of independent reviewers
Pity the civil jury, seen by some as the sickest organ of a sick system. Yet the jury has always bee...
The Supreme Court\u27s Daubert trilogy places judges in the unenviable position of assessing the rel...
“Blind expertise” has been proposed as an institutional solution to the problem of bias in expert wi...
Legislation is pending in both houses of Congress to transfer medical malpractice cases from civil j...
This article undertakes the first detailed critique of the proposal from Common Good and the Harvard...
Beginning in the late 1980s, the Texas Supreme Court saw a slew of conservative judges elected to th...
AbstractThe famous Miranda warnings include the phrase “anything you say can and will be used agains...
Juries in medical malpractice trials are viewed as incompetent, anti-doctor, irresponsible in awardi...
“Experts” appear in the modern American courtroom on the jury as well as in the witness box, posing ...
The expert witness is indispensable in a medical malpractice case. However, there are three main def...
Three experiments examine how expressions of probability concerning why a risk involved in a medical...
Attorneys understand that presenting evidence consists of a series of strategic choices. Yet legal s...
Brief of Neil Vidmar, et al. Amici Curiae in support of Respondent, Phillip Morris, USA v. Williams,...
The purpose of this study was to examine Oklahoma judges' and district attorneys' perceptions of com...
Medical malpractice litigation is challenging for both plaintiffs and defendants. The intersection o...
Pity the civil jury, seen by some as the sickest organ of a sick system. Yet the jury has always bee...
The Supreme Court\u27s Daubert trilogy places judges in the unenviable position of assessing the rel...
“Blind expertise” has been proposed as an institutional solution to the problem of bias in expert wi...
Legislation is pending in both houses of Congress to transfer medical malpractice cases from civil j...
This article undertakes the first detailed critique of the proposal from Common Good and the Harvard...
Beginning in the late 1980s, the Texas Supreme Court saw a slew of conservative judges elected to th...
AbstractThe famous Miranda warnings include the phrase “anything you say can and will be used agains...
Juries in medical malpractice trials are viewed as incompetent, anti-doctor, irresponsible in awardi...
“Experts” appear in the modern American courtroom on the jury as well as in the witness box, posing ...
The expert witness is indispensable in a medical malpractice case. However, there are three main def...
Three experiments examine how expressions of probability concerning why a risk involved in a medical...
Attorneys understand that presenting evidence consists of a series of strategic choices. Yet legal s...
Brief of Neil Vidmar, et al. Amici Curiae in support of Respondent, Phillip Morris, USA v. Williams,...
The purpose of this study was to examine Oklahoma judges' and district attorneys' perceptions of com...
Medical malpractice litigation is challenging for both plaintiffs and defendants. The intersection o...
Pity the civil jury, seen by some as the sickest organ of a sick system. Yet the jury has always bee...
The Supreme Court\u27s Daubert trilogy places judges in the unenviable position of assessing the rel...
“Blind expertise” has been proposed as an institutional solution to the problem of bias in expert wi...