Over the last several decades, refinements in psychological research methodology as applied to litigation risk assessment have led to increased validity and precision, making it possible to accurately forecast jury awards in many cases. Rigorous application of scientific research design principles has obviated the need to guess, or make hunches, in determining probable damages outcomes in litigation. The continuing lack of use of such scientific research tools raises ethical questions as to whether cases are being settled for amounts that diverge substantially from what an actual jury would do with the case.
In this article understand:
- Research validity
- Jury consulting evaluation criteria
- Reasons for resistance to investing in valid research
- Ethical questions surrounding the lack of use of scientific research
Why Legal Teams Trust CSI
A proven, science-based approach to data collection and analysis by Ph.D.-level researchers ensures you can trust the results that drive your decisions.
Ph.D.-level experts in social and neuroscience modify behavior of witnesses for optimal performance and deliver predictive accuracy of juror decisions.
Experienced support teams assist with records retrieval, court reporting, and depositions so your team can focus on more pressing legal matters.
What our clients are saying...
Michael G. Martin
Attorney, Graves & King LLP
Shannon M. Skelly
Litigation Paralegal, Charleston, South Carolina