7 Drexel L. Rev. 239 (2014-2015)
Jury Evaluation of Expert Testimony under the Federal Rules

handle is hein.journals/drexel7 and id is 251 raw text is: JURY EVALUATION OF EXPERT TESTIMONY UNDER
THE FEDERAL RULES
Hon. Mark I. Bernstein*
ABSTRACT
The purpose of expert testimony is to communicate to this body of ordi-
nary persons the wisdom and understanding necessary for the triers to ex-
ercise sound judgment in determining the issues in controversy .... [Tihe
examination should be conducted in such manner that a juror should be
able to say, 'My conclusion is in accord with the opinion of the expert, not
because he has expressed the opinion, but because he made me understand
the facts in such a way that my opinion is the same as his.1
- Mason Ladd
[T]he prosecutor could . . . substitute experts for all kinds of people
making out-of-court statements .... [T]he State could sneak it in through
the back. What a neat trick- but really, what a way to run a criminal jus-
tice system. No wonder five Justices reject it.2
- Justice Kagan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IN TRODU  CTIO N  ............................................................................... 240
A .  The  Problem   .................................................................... 241
B. The Oath-Takers; Compurgation .................................... 244
C .  C hanges  ........................................................................... 245
I. THE PREREQUISITE FOR THE ADMISSION OF ANY EVIDENCE:
DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OR AUTHENTICATION ........................... 246
II. THE BATTLE ABOUT EXPERTS: THE CREDIBILITY OF PROPERLY
* Mark I. Bernstein is a sitting Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia Coun-
ty. He teaches Advanced Evidence at the Thomas R. Kline School of Law. The author would
like to thank the many law students who participated in the research necessary for this article
including Scott Florida, Abbie Heller, Eric Bodzin, and John Mercogliano. The author especial-
ly thanks Tudor Farcas without whose tremendous research abilities this article would never
have been completed. The author would also like to thank Gwen Stem, Mark Bookman, Judge
Daniel J. Anders, and his wife, Linda Bernstein, for their substantive suggestions and support.
1. Mason Ladd, Expert Testimony, 5 VAND. L. REV. 414, 428 (1952). Mason Ladd served as
dean of the Iowa College of Law from 1939 to 1966 and is best known for his scholarship on
evidence. See generally Ronald L. Carlson, Mason Ladd -In Memoriam, 66 IOWA L. REV. 685
(1981).
2. Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221, 2272 (2012) (Kagan, J., dissenting).

239

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?