Judges’ socio-technical review of contested expertise

Abstract

This article investigates how civil court judges practice meta-expertise in cases that feature contradictory and inconclusive medical expertise. The empirical case study consists of a sample of eleven Helsinki district court verdicts from 2014–2017, drawn from a larger number of similar traffic insurance compensation cases. The case-type features a medical controversy concerning traumatic brain injury (TBI) diagnostics. I contend that the difficulties judges face in evaluating the medical expertise result from epistemic asymmetries between legal and medical professionals. This study highlights the importance of explaining and understanding how judges overcome uncertainty and discriminate between expert positions. Drawing from earlier studies on meta-expertise and judges’ practice of evaluating expertise in court, I introduce the concept ‘socio-technical review’ to describe judges’ practice of facilitating highly technical and esoteric scientific expertise to needs of judicial decision making. I argue that socio-technical review is a special form of practicing meta-expertise, which effectively allows meta-experts to manage epistemic asymmetries. In examining how meta-expertise is practiced in the TBI case-type, the paper contributes to general sociological understanding of decision-making under uncertainty and suggests further studies in comparable settings.

Keywords

law and science meta-expertise socio-technical review traumatic brain injury

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aronson

(2007) Genetic Witness: Science, Law, and Controversy in the Making of DNA Profiling. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Burns

(2001) Think your darkest thoughts and blacken them: Judicial mediation of large money damage disputes. Human Studies 24: 227–249.

Burns

(2008) Demonstrating ‘reasonable fear’ at trial: Is it science or junk science? Human Studies 31(2): 107–131.

Caudill

LaRue

(2006) No Magic Wand: The Idealization of Science in Law. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Collins

Weinel

(2011) Transmuted expertise: How technical non-experts can assess experts and expertise. Argumentation 25: 401–413.

Collins

Evans

Weinel

(2015) Expertise revisited, part II: Contributory expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 56: 103–110.

Collins

Evans

(2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Coopmans

Button

(2014) Eyeballing expertise. Social Studies of Science 44(5): 758–785.

Derksen

(2000) Towards a sociology of measurement: The measurement error in the case of DNA profiling. Social Studies of Science 30(6): 803–845.

10.

Edmond

(2000) Judicial representations of scientific evidence. Modern Law Review 63(2): 216–251.

11.

Edmond

(2001) The law-set: The legal-scientific production of medical propriety. Science, Technology & Human Values 26(2): 191–226.

12.

Edmond

Mercer

(1997) Scientific literacy and the jury: Reconsidering jury ‘competence’. Public Understanding of Science 6: 329–357.

13.

Edmond

Mercer

(2000) Litigation life: Law-science knowledge construction in (Bendectin) mass toxic tort litigation. Social Studies of Science 30(2): 265–316.

14.

European Commission (2017) Special Eurobarometer 461: Designing Europe’s future: Trust in institutions, globalisation, support for the Euro, opinions about free trade and solidarity. Report, Directorate-General for Communication Brussels, April.

15.

Golan

(2004) The emergence of the silent witness: The legal and medical reception of X-rays in the USA. Social Studies of Science 34(4): 469–499.

16.

Goldman

(2001) Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63: 85–110.

17.

Horwitz

(2008) Three facts of deference. Notre Dame Law Review 83(3): 1061–1146.

18.

Jasanoff

(1993) What judges should know about the sociology of science. Judicature 77(2): 77–82.

19.

Jasanoff

(1995) Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

20.

Jasanoff

(1998) The eye of everyman: Witnessing DNA in the Simpson trial. Social Studies of Science 28(5): 713–740.

21.

Jasanoff

(2005) Law’s knowledge: Science for justice in legal settings. American Journal of Public Health 95(Suppl. 1): S49–S58.

22.

Jones

Marois

Farah

et al . (2013) Law and neuroscience. Journal of Neuroscience 33(45): 17624–17630.

23.

Kirkland

(2012) Credibility battles in the autism litigation. Social Studies of Science 42(2): 237–261.

24.

Kutrovátz

(2010) Knowing with experts: Contextual knowledge in and around science. Theory of Science 32(4): 479–505.

25.

Lynch

(2004) Circumscribing expertise: Membership categories in courtroom testimony. In: Jasanoff

(ed.) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London: Routledge, 161–180.

26.

Lynch

(2007) Expertise, scepticism and cynicism. Spontaneous Generations 1(1): 17–24.

27.

Lynch

(2014) From normative to descriptive and back. In: Soler

Zwart

Lynch

al.

(eds) Science after the Practice Turn in the Philosophy, History, and Social Studies of Science. New York: Routledge, 93–113.

28.

Lynch

Cole

(2005) Science and technology studies on trial: Dilemmas of expertise. Social Studies of Science 35(2): 269–311.

29.

Lynch

Cole

McNally

et al . (2008) Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Fingerprinting. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

30.

Ministry of Justice, Finland (n.d.) Code of judicial procedure: Unofficial English translation. Available at: https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1734/en17340004_20150732.pdf (accessed 1 May 2019).

31.

Prainsack

Kitzberger

(2009) DNA behind bars: Other ways of knowing forensic DNA technologies. Social Studies of Science 39(1): 51–79.

32.

Redmayne

(1999) Expert evidence and scientific disagreement. University of California, Davis Law Review 30: 1027–1080.

33.

Shapin

(1995) Cordelia’s love: Credibility and the social studies of science. Perspectives on Science 3(3): 255–275.

34.

Shapin

(1999) Rarely pure and never simple: Talking about truth. Configurations 7: 1–14.

35.

Soler

Zwart

Israel-Jost

et al . (2014) Introduction. In: Soler

Zwart

Lynch

al.

(eds) Science after the Practice Turn in the Philosophy, History, and Social Studies of Science. New York: Routledge, 1–43.

36.

Tadei

Finnilä

Reite

et al . (2016) Judges’ capacity to evaluate psychological and psychiatric expert testimony. Nordic Psychology 68(3): 204–217.

37.

Turner

(2014) The Politics of Expertise. New York: Routledge.

38.

Wortzel

Tsiouris

Filippi

(2014) The potential for medicolegal abuse: Diffusion tensor imaging in traumatic brain injury. American Journal of Bioethics (AJOB) Neuroscience 5(2): 9–15.