Implicit Jury Bias

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Implicit Bias ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Educational Methods ◽  
Jury Instructions ◽  
Jury Bias

The purpose of this chapter is to consider whether educational methods are—or could be—an effective way of tackling the implicit jury biases that threaten the fairness of trials. First, the chapter introduces the key ingredients of implicit bias, focusing particularly on their consequences for juries. It then reviews the efforts that have been made to use educational interventions to address implicit jury bias, as well as others that have been proposed. These existing and proposed interventions include jury orientation, jury instructions, expert testimony, individuation, and race salience. The chapter concludes by reviewing some of the primary obstacles to these kinds of efforts.

Improving Judge & Jury Evaluation of Scientific Evidence

Daedalus ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 147 (4) ◽  
pp. 164-180
Author(s):  
Valerie P. Hans ◽  
Michael J. Saks
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Technical Information ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Expert Evidence

The role of the expert witness in trials is a paradox. Judges and jurors need help with matters beyond their understanding, and judges are expected to act as gatekeepers to ensure that jurors are not fooled by misleading expert testimony. Yet, as gatekeepers, judges might not effectively distinguish sound from unsound expert testimony. As factfinders, judges and jurors both might have difficulty comprehending expert evidence, intelligently resolving conflicts between experts, and applying the scientific and technological evidence they hear to the larger dispute before them. This essay explores those problems and a variety of possible solutions, ranging from more effective ways parties might present technical information at trial, to educational interventions supervised by the court, to making juries more effective in performing their task, to more controversial measures, such as replacing conventional juries with special juries and replacing generalist judges with expert judges.

scholarly journals The Intractability of Inaccurate Eyewitness Identification

Daedalus ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 147 (4) ◽  
pp. 90-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jed S. Rakoff ◽  
Elizabeth F. Loftus
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Eyewitness Identification ◽  
Human Perception ◽  
Eyewitness Testimony ◽  
Wrongful Convictions ◽  
Jury Instructions ◽  
Eyewitness Identifications ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Made In

Inaccurate eyewitness testimony is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. As early as 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized this danger, but the tests it promulgated to distinguish reliable from unreliable eyewitness testimony were based largely on surmise. More recently, substantial research has demonstrated that, while significant improvements can be made in the manner in which lineups, photo arrays, and other identification procedures are conducted, inherent limitations of human perception, memory, and psychology raise, in many cases, intractable barriers to accurate eyewitness testimony. Where barriers to accurate eyewitness testimony exist, one response is to sensitize jurors to the limitations of eyewitness identifications, but studies to date have not shown that special jury instructions can accomplish that purpose. Moreover, research on expert testimony has produced mixed results, with some studies showing that it helps jurors discriminate between good and bad eyewitness evidence, and other studies showing that it merely creates overall skepticism.

Implicit Bias and Caring for Diverse Populations: Pediatric Trainee Attitudes and Gaps in Training

2021 ◽  
pp. 000992282110352
Author(s):  
Hannah Barber Doucet ◽  
Valerie L. Ward ◽  
Tiffani J. Johnson ◽  
Lois K. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Implicit Bias ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Skill Level ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Pediatric Residents ◽  
Gender Nonconforming ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Diverse Patient Populations

The objective of this study was to determine the attitudes, skill level, and preferred educational interventions of pediatric residents related to implicit bias and caring for diverse patient populations. A cross-sectional survey of pediatric residents at a single, large urban residency program was utilized. Surveys were completed by 88 (55%) residents who were 69% female and 35% non-White or mixed race. Almost all residents felt that it was very or extremely important to receive training on health disparities, diverse patient populations, and implicit bias. Self-assessment of skill level revealed that residents felt confident in areas often covered by cultural competency curricula, such as interpreter use, but were less confident in other areas. The top 3 areas identified for further training included implicit bias, working with transgender and gender nonconforming patients, and weight bias. For the majority of diversity and bias-related skills, prior training was significantly correlated with higher skill level ( P < .05).

scholarly journals Mitigating Implicit Bias in Patient-Clinician Communication in Clinical Encounters: Early Insights from the COmmuNity-engaged SimULation Training (CONSULT) Trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Tjia ◽  
Michele Pugnaire ◽  
Joanne Calista ◽  
Nancy Esparza ◽  
Olga Valdman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Training Program ◽  
Simulation Training ◽  
Implicit Bias ◽  
Cluster Randomized Trial ◽  
Pressure Control ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Clinical Encounters ◽  
Community Stakeholders ◽  
On Line ◽  
Cluster Randomized

Abstract BackgroundTo address the gap in knowledge about how to design feasible and acceptable trainings for clinicians that aim to mitigate implicit bias in clinical encounters, we report the early insights from the COmmuNity-engaged SimULation Training for Blood Pressure Control (CONSULT) Trial.MethodsWe engaged academic and community stakeholders to design, pilot test and implement a training program addressing healthcare disparities knowledge, bias awareness, and communication skills focused on bias mitigation. A stepped wedge cluster randomized trial was developed to determine intervention dose effects. We assessed the CONSULT training program through structured feedback using online surveys, real-time comments, and individualized feedback from trainees, faculty and standardized patients.ResultsThe first training cohort completed the intervention (N = 64). Feedback prompted training program revisions as follows: reducing overall time burden and the number of implicit bias assessments; supplementing on-line learning with augmented in-person interactive sessions. Feedback also reinforced the critical importance of having highly skilled facilitators versed in implicit bias.ConclusionsIterative stakeholder engagement is essential for developing and revising educational interventions aimed at raising bias awareness and mitigating the effects of implicit bias.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT 03375918. Registered December 18, 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03375918?id=NCT+03375918&draw=2&rank=1

scholarly journals Implicit Bias Training in Residency Program: Aiming for Enduring Effects

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (8) ◽  
pp. 677-681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle D. Sherman ◽  
Jason Ricco ◽  
Stephen C. Nelson ◽  
Sheila J. Nezhad ◽  
Shailendra Prasad
Keyword(s):  
Focus Groups ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Racial Bias ◽  
Implicit Bias ◽  
Residency Training Program ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Institutional Capacity ◽  
Structural Racism ◽  
Implicit Biases ◽  
National Expert

Background and Objectives: Implicit bias often affects patient care in insidious ways, and has the potential for significant damage. Several educational interventions regarding implicit bias have been developed for health care professionals, many of which foster reflection on individual biases and encourage personal awareness. In an attempt to address racism and other implicit biases at a more systemic level in our family medicine residency training program, our objectives were to offer and evaluate parallel trainings for residents and faculty by a national expert. Methods: The trainings addressed how both personal biases and institutional inequities contribute to structural racism, and taught skills for managing instances of implicit biases in one’s professional interactions. The training was deliberately designed to increase institutional capacity to engage in crucial conversations regarding implicit bias. Six months after the trainings, an external evaluator conducted two separate 1-hour focus groups, one with residents (n=18) and one with program faculty and leadership (n=13). Results: Four themes emerged in the focus groups: increased awareness of and commitment to addressing racial bias; appreciation of a safe forum for sharing concerns; new ways of addressing and managing bias; and institutional capacity building for continued vigilance and training regarding implicit bias. Conclusions: Both residents and faculty found this training to be important and empowering. All participants desired an ongoing programmatic commitment to the topic.

State-by-State Use of AMA Guides

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 3-7, 16
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Narrow Range ◽  
The United States ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Federal Employees ◽  
Permanent Disability ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
History Of ◽  
Canadian Provinces

Abstract This article presents a history of the origins and development of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), from the publication of an article titled “A Guide to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment of the Extremities and Back” (1958) until a compendium of thirteen guides was published in book form in 1971. The most recent, sixth edition, appeared in 2008. Over time, the AMA Guides has been widely used by US states for workers’ compensation and also by the Federal Employees Compensation Act, the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as well as by Canadian provinces and other jurisdictions around the world. In the United States, almost twenty states have developed some form of their own impairment rating system, but some have a narrow range and scope and advise evaluators to consult the AMA Guides for a final determination of permanent disability. An evaluator's impairment evaluation report should clearly document the rater's review of prior medical and treatment records, clinical evaluation, analysis of the findings, and a discussion of how the final impairment rating was calculated. The resulting report is the rating physician's expert testimony to help adjudicate the claim. A table shows the edition of the AMA Guides used in each state and the enabling statute/code, with comments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document