How do jurors accomplish the task of awarding damages in a civil lawsuit? To what extent are they ixffluenced by expert testimony? These questions were addressed in a mock juror simulation in which jurors from El Paso County (Colorado) read one of three versions of a trial manuscript involving an age discrimination claim in which liability was already determined. They awarded damages and answered follow-up questions. In one version, there was no expert testimony; in a second version, they received plaintiff expert testimony on lost future wages and other economic matters; and in the third version, they received both plaintiff and defense expert testimony. Monetary awards were significantly higher when expert(s) testified. Moreover, jurors were strongly influenced by the expert testimony: Nearly haft of them selected a damage award that exactly matched the amounts suggested. Finally, jurors itnfrequently considered exponential calculations in assessing damages.Jurors in civil cases face a difficult task when they determine damage awards. The difficulty arises for several reasons. First, the instructions that jurors receive

Civil damage awards in wrongful death cases and experimental data from jury simulations reveal that male decedents are typically awarded substantially higher monetary damages than are similarly situated female decedents. These differences in treatment may arise because female decedents are perceived as worth less, female survivors are perceived as more needy, and/or male decedents are perceived to have a longer lost income stream than any female decedents. Mock jurors received written summaries of wrongful death cases stipulating to the liability of the defendant. They were asked to award an appropriate sum in damages and about the factors they considered in making these awards. Male decedents received higher awards in two separate studies. While mock jurors were sensitive to the perceived needs of the surviving spouse, the disparity in awards was primarily attributable to differences in the estimated lost income of the male and female decedents.

No abstract

The use of social framework testimony by social psychologists in employment discrimination cases is expanding. After reviewing the legal background of this type of testimony, we describe its content and discuss an important Title VII case of sex discrimination where the testimony played a critical role. We also distinguish social framework testimony from other types of expert testimony by psychologists.

The empirical evidence summarized in the APA amicus brief in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins was initially presented at trial, subject to quality control measures contained in the Federal Rules of Evidence and an oppommity for cross-examination. This evidence was incorporated into the adjudicative facts determined by the trial judge. These unique circumstances rendered the APA brief more akin to a guild brief than to a typical APA science translation or Brandeis brief. As such, the brief was effective. However, the debate about the brief highlights shortcomings in the existing system for evaluating social science facts presented for the first time by a friend of the court. Recommendations are made to take into account the consensus of experts in the field and adverse findings when presenting empirical evidence for the first time in an appeal brief.