This article explores contemporary debates about the competence of juries to assess scientific and technical evidence. Most existing approaches measure jury competence against an unproblematized yardstick of `the correct scientific understanding'. We will develop an alternative, more sociologically and epistemologically nuanced view of the jury comprehension of science which significantly reframes these issues for both proponents and opponents of the jury. In particular, by using examples surrounding the recent US litigation involving birth defects allegedly caused by use of the drug Bendectin, we will challenge the common claim that inconsistencies in jury findings provide support for restricting the role of the jury in matters involving science and technology based on alleged jury `incompetence'. We conclude by noting that jury competence is a politically charged ascription.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Bar Association , 1989, Jury Comprehension in Complex Cases (Chicago: ABA).
2.
Of course these approaches also problematize what is meant by the `public'. See Irwin, A., 1995, Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development (New York: Routledge).
3.
Hunter, J. , and Cronin, K., 1995, Evidence, Advocacy and Ethical Practice: A Criminal Trial Commentary (Sydney: Butterworths), pp. 96-145.
4.
Landsman, S. , 1993, The history and objectives of the civil jury system. Verdict Assessing the Civil Jury System, edited by R. Litan (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution), p. 29.
5.
[1670] Vaugh 135.
6.
Stone, J. , and Wells, W. A. N., 1991, Evidence: Its History and Policies (Sydney: Butterworths), p. 22.
7.
Some authors suggest the pervasive influence of the jury has not been adequately explored: Galanter, M., 1990, The civil jury as regulator of the litigation process. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 201-271.
8.
Malone, W. , 1946, The formative era of contributory negligence. Illinois Law Review, 41, 151-182.
9.
Findlay, M. , and Duff, P., 1988, Introduction. The Jury Under Attack, edited by M. Findlay and P. Duff (Sydney: Butterworths), p. 4.
10.
Mungham, G. , and Bankowski, Z., 1976, The jury in the legal system. The Sociology of Law, edited by P. Carlen (Keele: Sociological Review Monograph), p. 217.
11.
Schuck, P. H. , 1993, Mapping the debate on jury reform. Verdict Assessing the Civil Jury System, edited by R. Litan (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution), pp. 328-329.
12.
Kalven, H. , and Zeisel, H., 1966, The American Jury (Boston: Little, Brown), p. 318.
13.
Hans, V. , and Vidmar, N., 1986, Judging the Jury (New York: Plenum Press), p. 116.
14.
R v Duke (1979), 22 SASR 46 at 48.
15.
Jones, C. A. G. , 1994, Expert Witnesses: Science, Medicine, and the Practice of Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press), p. 119. However, Jones discusses the concern raised by such practices.
16.
See also Hans, V. P., and Vidmar, N., 1991, The American Jury at twenty-five years. Law and Social Inquiry, 16, 323-351.
17.
Roskill, Lord , 1986, Fraud Trials Committee Report (London: HMSO), p. 196.
18.
Freeman, M. D. A. , 1981, The jury on trial. Current Legal Problems, 34, 89.
19.
Jacobs, M. S. , 1993, Testing the assumptions underlying the debate about scientific evidence: a closer look at juror `incompetence' and scientific `objectivity'. Connecticut Law Review, 25, 1083-1115.
20.
Saks, M. J. , 1992, Do we really know anything about the behaviour of the tort litigation system—and why not?. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 140, 1239.
21.
Hans, V. P. , 1993, Attitudes toward the civil jury: a crisis of confidence?Verdict Assessing the Civil Jury System, edited by R. Litan (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution), p. 274.
22.
Those studies which have compared judicial and jury evaluations of cases have generally reported high levels of correspondence. The seminal work of Kalven and Zeisel reporting around 75-80 per cent agreement has been largely confirmed by subsequent studies: Kalven, H., and Zeisel, H., 1966, The American Jury (Boston: Little, Brown).
23.
New South Wales Law Reform Commission , 1985, The Jury in a Criminal Trial: A Discussion Paper for Community Consultation (Sydney), p. 130.
24.
Lempert, R. , Civil juries and complex cases: taking stock after twelve years. Verdict Assessing the Civil Jury System, edited by R. Litan (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution), pp. 202, 234.
25.
There are many similarities with the work of Baldwin, J., and McConville, M., 1979, Jury Trials (Oxford: Clarendon).
26.
New South Wales Law Reform Commission , 1985, The Jury in a Criminal Trial: A Discussion Paper for Community Consultation (Sydney), p. 43.
27.
Knittel, E. , and Seiler, D., 1971, The merits of trial by jury. Cambridge Law Journal, 30, 321.
28.
See also Lempert, R., Civil juries and complex cases: taking stock after twelve years. Verdict Assessing the Civil Jury System, edited by R. Litan (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution), pp. 181-247.
29.
Harding, R. W. , 1988, Jury performance in complex cases. The Jury Under Attack, edited by M. Findlay and P. Duff (Sydney: Butterworths), pp. 90-91.
30.
Hans, V. , and Vidmar, N., 1986, Judging the Jury (New York: Plenum), pp. 121, 129.
31.
Gibbs, H. (former Chief Justice, Australia), 1985, Keynote Address at the Opening of the Third International Conference of Appellate Judges, New Delhi, pp. 6-7.
32.
Heuer, L. , and Penrod, S., 1996, Increasing juror participation in trials through note taking and question asking. Judicature, 79, 256-262.
33.
American Bar Association , 1989, Jury Comprehension in Complex Cases (Chicago: ABA), Appendix 10.
34.
Daniels, S. , 1989, The question of jury competence and the politics of civil justice reform: symbols, rhetoric and agenda-building. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52(4), 269-310.
35.
Given that the vast majority (about 95 per cent), of cases `settle' before formal legal resolution, only those cases where there is `uncertainty' or some party has a pronounced interest in litigation (such as a pharmaceutical company desirous of `winning' and preventing further litigation), or obdurate parties, will proceed to trial. See Henderson, J. A., and Eisenberg, T. E., 1990, The quiet revolution in products liability: an empirical study of legal change. UCLA Law Review, 37, 491, 534-535.
36.
Saks, M. J. , 1992, Do we really know anything about the behaviour of the tort litigation system—and why not?University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 140, 1233.
37.
Lempert, R. , Civil juries and complex cases: taking stock after twelve years. Verdict Assessing the Civil Jury System, edited by R. Litan (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution), p. 202.
38.
Baldwin, J. , and McConville, M., 1979, Jury Trials (Oxford: Clarendon), p. 131.
39.
Kalven, H. , and Zeisel, H., 1966, The American Jury (Boston: Little, Brown and Company), pp. 9, 11.
40.
Cecil, J. S. , Hans, V. P., and Wiggins, E. C., 1991, Citizen comprehension of difficult issues: lessons from civil jury trials. American University Law Review, 40, 762, 764.
41.
Sunderland, E. R. , 1915, The inefficiency of the American jury. Michigan Law Review, 13, 302-316.
42.
Hans, V. P. , 1993, Attitudes toward the civil jury: a crisis of confidence?Verdict Assessing the Civil Jury System, edited by R. Litan (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution), p. 249.
43.
Edmond, G. , and Mercer, D., 1996, Manifest destiny: law and science in America. Metascience, 10, 40-58.
44.
113 S.Ct. 2786 at 2798 (1993).
45.
Freckelton, I. , 1994, Expert evidence and the role of the judiciary. Australian Bar Review, 12, 77-78, 84, 85, 90, 105.
46.
Edmond, G. , and Mercer, D., 1997, Keeping `junk' history, philosophy and sociology of science out of the courtroom: problems with the reception of Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.University of New South Wales Law Journal, 20, 48-100.
47.
Imwinkelried, E. J. , 1984, Judge versus jury: who should decide questions of preliminary facts conditioning the admissibility of scientific evidence. William and Mary Law Review, 25, 577-618.
48.
Wildavsky, A. , 1995, But Is It True: A Citizen's Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), pp. 395-409.
49.
Irwin, A. , 1995, Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development (New York: Routledge), pp. 9-17.
50.
Daniels, S. , 1989, The question of jury competence and the politics of civil justice reform: symbols, rhetoric and agenda-building. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52(4), 279ff.
51.
Oppenheimer, B. S. , 1937, Trial by jury. University of Cincinatti Law Review, 11, 142.
52.
Zeisel, H. , 1990, The debate over the civil jury in historical perspective. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 30.
53.
Griswold, E. N. , 1962-63, Harvard Law School Dean's Report, pp. 5-6.
54.
Wynne, B. , 1995, Public understanding of science. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen and T. Pinch (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), pp. 365-370.
55.
See also Samuels, A., 1968, The great unknown. The New Law Journal, 1132.
56.
Huber, P. W. , 1990, Junk science and the jury. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 273-302. Compare pp.275, 278, 280.
57.
Note, 1995, Confronting the new challenges of scientific evidence. Harvard Law Review, 108, 1583, 1585.
58.
Huber, P. W. , 1990, Junk science and the jury. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 290.
59.
Compare Janata, R., 1976, The pros and cons of jury trials. The Forum, 11, 590-599.
60.
Saks, M. J. , 1996, The smaller the jury, the greater the unpredictability. Judicature, 79, 263-265.
61.
Zeisel, H. , 1971,...And then there were none: the diminution of the federal jury. University of Chicago Law Review, 38, 717-719.
62.
Guinther, J. , 1988, The Jury in America (New York: Facts on File), pp. 198-217, 205.
63.
Walker, S. C. , 1993, `Chicken Little's' revenge: strict judicial scrutiny of scientific evidence. Cleveland State Law Review, 41, 718.
64.
Huber, P. W. , 1990, Junk science and the jury. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 297, 296, 293.
65.
Ostrom, B. J. , Rottman, D. B., and Goerdt, J. A., 1996, A step above anecdote: a profile of the civil jury in the 1990s. Judicature, 79, 233-248.
66.
Galanter, M. , 1983, Reading the landscape of disputes: what we know and don't know (and think we know), about our allegedly contentious and litigious society. UCLA Law Review, 31, 4-71.
67.
Chan, E. J. , 1995, The `Brave New World' of Daubert: true peer review, editorial peer review, and scientific validity. New York University Law Review, 70, 102.
68.
Bernstein, D. E. , 1996, Junk science in the United States and the Commonwealth. Yale Journal of International Law, 21, 181.
69.
In re Richardson-Merrell, Inc. `Bendectin' Products Liability Litigation 624 F.Supp. 1212, pp.1217-18 (S. D. Ohio 1985).
70.
Fed. Rules Evid. Rule 706 U. S. C. A. For a discussion of the Continental (French) system of `court-appointed' experts see McKillop, B., 1995, Forensic science in inquisitorial systems of criminal justice. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 7, 36-48.
71.
Nichols, K. G. , Technology on Trial: Public Participation in Decision-making Related to Science and Technology (Paris: OECD), pp. 97-101.
72.
Note, 1995, Confronting the new challenges of scientific evidence. Harvard Law Review, 108, 1584, 1604.
73.
Hans, V. , and Vidmar, N., 1986, Judging the Jury (New York: Plenum), p. 127.
74.
Concern with the public understanding of science has a much longer lineage with small but somewhat intermittent peaks of interest and differing emphases. See Shapin, S., 1990, Public understanding of science. Companion to the History of Modern Science, edited by R. C. Olbyet al. (London: Routlegde & Kegan Paul).
75.
We acknowledge that `positivist' and `constructivist' are ideal types and are aware of subtle differences in approach of studies within each category.
76.
Irwin, A. , 1995, Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development (New York: Routledge), pp. 9-36.
77.
This communication model possesses similar features to the engineering communication models of Shannon and Weaver and shares a number of its weaknesses: Fiske, J., 1990, Introduction to Communication Studies (London: Routledge).
78.
See also discussion in Irwin, A., 1995, Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development (New York: Routledge), pp. 43-52.
79.
Wynne, B. , 1995, Public understanding of science. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen and T. Pinch (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), p. 375.
80.
Levi, M. , 1988, The role of the jury in complex cases. The Jury Under Attack, edited by M. Findlay and P. Duff (Sydney: Butterworths), p. 97.
81.
Mercer, D., 1993, The NIEMR/EMF controversy: the social construction of scientific knowledge and science policy in the `Gibbs' powerline inquiry 1990/91. PhD thesis, University of Wollongong.
82.
Smith, R. , and Wynne, B., 1989, Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law (London: Routledge), p. 15.
83.
Hilgartner, S. , 1986, Telescoping policy relevant science: summaries of the evidence on dietary fibre and colon cancer. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting for the Society for Social Studies of Science.
84.
There are also some parallels between the processes of producing legally tractable knowledge with the processes of literary inscription documented by Latour, B., and Woolgar, S., 1979, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage). It is important to acknowledge that the rhetoric of simplification is not `distortion' but more of a necessary process of translation involved in reconstitution.
85.
Hilgartner, S. , 1990, The dominant view of popularization: conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20, 523.
86.
Mulkay, M. , and Gilbert, N., 1981, Putting philosophy to work: Karl Popper's influence on scientific practice. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 389-407.
87.
Wynne, B. , 1991, Knowledges in context. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16, 114.
88.
Hamm, M. , 1991, Textbook portrayals of science and technology: issues in a television age. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16, 88-98.
89.
and Edwards v. Aguillard 107 S.Ct. 2573 (1986).
90.
113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993)
91.
Quinn, P. , 1984, The philosopher of science as an expert witness. Science and Reality: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Science, edited by J. Cushing, C. Delaney and G. Gutting (University of Notre Dame Press).
92.
See the dissent of US Chief Justice Rehnquist in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S.Ct. 2786.
93.
Collins, H. , and Pinch, T., 1993, The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science (Cambridge University Press).
94.
Jasanoff, S. , 1995, Science at the Bar: Law Science, and Technology in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), pp. 3-4.
95.
Galanter, M. , 1990, The civil jury as regulator of the litigation process. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 215.
96.
Wynne, B. , 1982, Rationality and Ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decisions in Britain (Chalfont St. Giles: British Society for the History of Science), Chap. 7.
97.
Jasanoff, S. , 1995, Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), p. 11.
98.
Miller, J. D. , 1983, Scientific literacy: a conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112, 29-48.
99.
Ziman, J. , 1991, Public understanding of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16, 103.
100.
For example see Irwin, A., and Wynne, B., 1996, Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge University Press).
101.
The company manufacturing Bendectin has changed over the years but `Merrell' has always remained in the name. The pharmaceutical manufacturer will hereafter be called `Merrell'.
102.
Turpin v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 959 F.2d 1349 at 1351 (6th Cir. 1992)
103.
Foster, K. , Bernstein, D., and Huber, P., 1993, Phantom Risk: Scientific Inference and the Law (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
104.
Henderson, J. A. , and Eisenberg, T. E., 1990, The quiet revolution in products liability: an empirical study of legal change. UCLA Law Review, 37, 491, 534-535.
105.
Sanders, J. , 1993, From science to evidence: the testimony of causation in the Bendectin cases. Stanford Law Review, 46, 41, 27-49.
106.
Jasanoff, S. , 1995, Science at the Bar: Law Science, and Technology in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), pp. 45-52.
107.
See also Edmond, G., and Mercer, D., 1997, The secret life of (mass), torts: the `Bendectin litigation' and the construction of law-science knowledges. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 20 (forthcoming).
108.
Koller by and through Koller v. Richardson-Merrell, 737 F.2d 1038 (1984).
109.
Mekdeci by and through Mekdeci v. Merrell National Laboratories, 711 F.2d 1510, p.1517 (1983).
110.
624 F.Supp. 1212 (S. D. Ohio, Sept. 17, 1985).
111.
624 F.Supp. 1212, p.1250, Appendix A.
112.
624 F.Supp. 1212, p.1218.
113.
624 F.Supp. 1212, p.1244.
114.
624 F.Supp. 1212, p.1221.
115.
624 F.Supp. 1212, p.1222.
116.
624 F.Supp. 1212, p.1229.
117.
Sanders, J. , 1992, The Bendectin litigation: a case study in the life cycle of mass torts. Hastings Law Journal, 43, 339.
Sanders, J. , 1993, From science to evidence: the testimony of causation in the Bendectin cases. Stanford Law Review, 46, 10.
121.
Hull v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 700 F.Supp. 28 (S. D. Florida 1988).
122.
Ealy v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 897 F.2d 1159, pp.1160, 1161, 1163, 1164 (D. C. Cir. 1990).
123.
Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 884 F.2d 170; DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 911 F.2d 941, p.952.
124.
Faigman, D. L. , Porter, E., and Saks, M. J., 1994, Check your crystal ball at the courthouse door, please: exploring the past, understanding the present, and worrying about the future of scientific evidence. Cardozo Law Review, 15, 1811.
125.
Bernstein, D. E. , 1996, Junk science in the United States and the Commonwealth. Yale Journal of International Law, 21, 123-182.
126.
Oxendine v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 506 A.2d 1110, p.1105 (D. C. App. 1986).
127.
Goodwin, C. , 1994, Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96, 606-633.
128.
Lynch v. Merrell National Laboratories, 830 F.2d 1194 (1st Cir. 1987).
129.
For a more extended discussion of this section see Edmond, G., and Mercer, D., 1997, The secret life of (mass) torts: the `Bendectin litigation' and the construction of law-science knowledges. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 20 (forthcoming).
130.
Edmond, G. , 1997, Down by science: context and commitment in the lay response to incriminating scientific evidence during a murder trial. Paper presented to the Programme in the History, Philosophy and Politics of Science, University of Wollongong, July.
131.
Barnes, B. , 1994, How Not to Do the Sociology of Knowledge: Rethinking Objectivity, edited by A. Megill (Durham, NC: Duke University Press), pp. 21-35.
132.
Wildavsky, A. , 1995, But Is It True: A Citizen's Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), pp. 408, 395-409.
133.
Beck, U. , 1992, Risk Society: Toward a New Modernity, translated by M. Ritter (London: Sage).
134.
Wynne, B. , 1995, Public understanding of science. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen and T. Pinch (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), pp. 364-365.
