In this case study I argue that experts, to gain relevance in a jury trial, need to fit into a manifold division of knowing. They do so by borrowing and sharing diverse knowledges. These exchanges place the modest expert testimony right into an authoritative and powerful decision-making apparatus. This argument derives from an ethnographic study of a ‘‘sleepwalking defense.’’ The division of knowing embraces the certified facts, the instructed case, the competing expertise, and the common sense. As a conclusion, I identify the experts’ twofold relevance. Experts perform the case as undecided and decidable. They provide exclusive knowledge and affirm a set of other knowledges. By ‘‘knowing’’ and ‘‘not knowing,’’ the experts perform individual modesty and systemic immodesty by the same token.
Akera, A.2007. Constructing a representation for an ecology of knowledge: Methodological advances in the integration of knowledge and its various contexts . Social Studies of Science37 (3):413-41.
2.
Albrow, M., and E. King.1981. Globalization, knowledge and society . London: SAGE.
3.
Atkinson, J.M., and P. Drew.1979. Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London: Macmillan.
4.
Blok, A.2007. Experts on public trial: On democratizing expertise through a Danish consensus conference. Public Understanding of Science16 (2):163-82.
5.
Bonkalo, A.1974. Impulsive acts and confusional states during incomplete arousal from sleep: Criminological and forensic implications. Psychiatric Quarterly48 (3):400-9.
6.
Cole, S.A.2006. Witnessing creation. Social Studies of Science36 (6):855-60.
7.
Coles, E.M., and H.O.F. Veiel.2001. Expert testimony and pseudoscience: How mental health professionals are taking over the courtroom. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry24 (6):607-25.
8.
Collins, H.M.1999. Regulating contracts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
Collins, H.M., and R. Evans.2002. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science32 (2):235-96.
10.
Cramer Bornemann, M.A., M.W. Mohawald, and C.H. Schenck.2006. Parasomnias: Clinical features and forensic implications. Chest. The Cardiopulmonary and Critical Care Journal130 (2):605-10.
11.
Foucault, M.2003. Abnormal. Lectures at the College de France 1974-1975. Trans. Graham Bruchell. New York: Picador.
12.
Fuller, S.2001. A critical guide to knowledge society newspeak: Or, how not to take the great leap backward. Current Sociology49 (4):177-201.
13.
Garfinkel, H.1972. Common sense knowledge of social structures: The documentary method of interpretation. In Symbolic interaction: A reader in social psychology, 2nd ed edited by J. Manis and B. Meltzer.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
14.
Haraway, D.J.1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium. FemaleMan(Meets_ OncoMouseTM: Feminism and technoscience. New York: Routledge.
15.
House of Commons.2005. Forensic science on trial. Seventh report of session 2004-05. HC 96-I. Published on March 29, 2005, by Authority of the House of Commons, London: The Stationary Office Limited.
16.
Jasanoff, S.1995. Science at the bar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17.
---. 2005. Law’s knowledge: Science for justice in legal settings . American Journal of Public Health95 (1):49-58.
18.
Konradi, A.1997. Too little, too late: Prosecutors’ pre-court preparation of rape survivors. Law and Social Inquiry22 (1):1101-54.
19.
Lynch, M., and R. McNally.2003. Science, common sense, and DNA evidence: A legal controversy about the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science12 (1):83-103.
20.
Lynch, M., and S. Cole.2005. Science and technology studies on trial: Dilemmas of expertise. Social Studies of Science35 (2):269-311.
21.
Mahowald, M.2003. Parasomnias: Sleepwalking and the law. Sleep Medicine Reviews4 (4):321-39.
22.
McSherry, B.2000. R v Stone [1999] 2 SCR 290: Case commentary. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law7:279-83.
23.
Mooney, J.2000. Gender, violence and the social order. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
24.
Nelken, D.2006. Law and knowledge/law as knowledge. Social Legal Studies15 (4):570-3.
25.
Olesen, F., and R. Markussen.2001. How to place material things from essentialism to material-semiotic analysis of sociotechnical practice. Paper presented on the conference ‘Doing Things with Things’ at Copenhagen University in September.
26.
Ploscowe, M.1935. The expert witness in criminal cases in France, Germany, and Italy. Law and Contemporary Problems2 (4):504-9.
27.
Ragin, C., and H.S. Becker.1992. What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social enquiry. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Rosenfeld, D.S., and A.J. Elhajjar.1998. Sleepsex: A variant of sleepwalking . Archives of Sexual Behavior27 (3):269-78.
29.
Saks, M.J.1990. Expert witnesses, nonexpert witnesses, and nonwitness experts. Law and Human Behavior14 (4):291-313.
30.
Scheffer, T.2007a. The duplicity of testimonial interviews: Unfolding and utilising multiple temporalisation in compound procedures and projects. Forum Qualitative Social Research8(1), Art. 15. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/205/454
31.
Scheffer, T.2007b. On procedural discoursivation - Or how local utterances are turned into binding facts. Language & Communication27:1-27.
32.
Scheffer, T.2007c. Relating event and process: An exercise in analytical ethnography. Human Studies30 (3):167-97.
33.
Scheffer, T., K. Hannken-Illjes, and A. Kozin.2009. How courts know. Comparing English crown court, U.S.-American State Court, and German District Court. Space and Culture12 (2):183-204.
34.
Shapin, S.1994. A social history of truth. Civility and science in seventeenth-century England. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
35.
Shapin, S., and S. Schaffer.1985. Leviathan and the air-pump. Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
36.
Shapiro, C.M., N.N. Trajanovic, and J.P. Fedoroff.2003. Sexsomnia: A new parasomnia? Canadian Journal of Psychiatry48 (5):311-7.
37.
Shuy, R.W.1993. Language crimes: The use and abuse of language evidence in the courtroom. Oxford: Blackwell .
38.
---. 2002. Breaking into language and law. The trials of the insider-linguist . In Linguistics, language and the professions: education, journalism, law, medicine and technology, ed. J. E. Alatis, H. Hamilton and A.-H. Tan, 67-80. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
39.
Slovenko, R.1999. Responsibility of the psychopath. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology6 (1):53-5.
40.
Stake, R.E.2000. Case method. In Handbook of qualitative research, ed. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 435-454. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
41.
Stichweh, R.2004. Wissensgesellschaft und wissensschaftssystem. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Soziologie30 (2):147-65.
42.
Stygall, G.2001. A different class of witnesses: Experts in the courtroom . Discourse Studies3 (3):327-51.
43.
Temkin, J.2000. Prosecuting and defending rape: Perspectives from the bar. Journal of Law and Society27 (2):219-48.
44.
Thomas, T.N.1997. Sleepwalking disorder and mens rea: A review and case report. Journal of Forensic Science42 (1):17-24.
45.
Tomlins, C.L.2000. Framing the field of law’s disciplinary encounters: A historical narrative. Law & Society Review34 (4):911-72.
46.
Valverde, M.2003. Law’s dream of common knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
47.
Walby, S., and J. Allen.2004. Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings from theBritish crime survey. Home Office Research Study276:73-88.
48.
Weihofen, H.1935. An alternative to the battle of experts: Hospital examination of criminal defendants before trial. Law and Contemporary Problems2 (4):419-35.
49.
---. 1950. Eliminating the battle of experts in criminal insanity cases. Michigan Law Review48 (7):961-82.
50.
Wells, H., and P.R. Wilson.2004. The role of expert witnesses in psychological blow automatism cases. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law11 (1):167-73.
51.
Williams, C.R.2000. Development and change in insanity and related defences . Melbourne University Law Review28:711-30.
