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
Purpose. The objective of this review was to give a broad overview of various biases associated with...
“Experts” appear in the modern American courtroom on the jury as well as in the witness box, posing ...
Abstract We tested whether an opposing expert is an effective method of educating jurors about scien...
Juries in medical malpractice trials are viewed as incompetent, anti-doctor, irresponsible in awardi...
Pity the civil jury, seen by some as the sickest organ of a sick system. Yet the jury has always bee...
The ability of juries to resolve malpractice suits was studied. Results showed that most of the time...
Abstract Juries in medical malpractice trials are viewed as incompetent, antidoctor, irresponsible i...
Physicians widely believe that jury verdicts are unfair. This Article tests that assumption by synth...
This article explores the policy issues raised by the choice between a custom-based standard of care...
A study analyzed the civil jury system and the difference in personal injury awards between automobi...
Many attorneys place considerable importance on the jury selection process. In order to more effecti...
“Blind expertise” has been proposed as an institutional solution to the problem of bias in expert wi...
In contrast to medical malpractice, legal malpractice is a phenomenon that has attracted little atte...
The rise in scientific evidence offered in American jury trials, along with court rulings thrusting ...
During the past decade, state jury reform commissions, many individual federal and state judges, and...
Purpose. The objective of this review was to give a broad overview of various biases associated with...
“Experts” appear in the modern American courtroom on the jury as well as in the witness box, posing ...
Abstract We tested whether an opposing expert is an effective method of educating jurors about scien...
Juries in medical malpractice trials are viewed as incompetent, anti-doctor, irresponsible in awardi...
Pity the civil jury, seen by some as the sickest organ of a sick system. Yet the jury has always bee...
The ability of juries to resolve malpractice suits was studied. Results showed that most of the time...
Abstract Juries in medical malpractice trials are viewed as incompetent, antidoctor, irresponsible i...
Physicians widely believe that jury verdicts are unfair. This Article tests that assumption by synth...
This article explores the policy issues raised by the choice between a custom-based standard of care...
A study analyzed the civil jury system and the difference in personal injury awards between automobi...
Many attorneys place considerable importance on the jury selection process. In order to more effecti...
“Blind expertise” has been proposed as an institutional solution to the problem of bias in expert wi...
In contrast to medical malpractice, legal malpractice is a phenomenon that has attracted little atte...
The rise in scientific evidence offered in American jury trials, along with court rulings thrusting ...
During the past decade, state jury reform commissions, many individual federal and state judges, and...
Purpose. The objective of this review was to give a broad overview of various biases associated with...
“Experts” appear in the modern American courtroom on the jury as well as in the witness box, posing ...
Abstract We tested whether an opposing expert is an effective method of educating jurors about scien...