HISTORY BACKGROUND ACADEMIC PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS PUBLICATIONS PRESENTATIONS LETTER TO THE EDITOR RECOGNITIONS WRITTEN ABOUT JAMES CLIENTS CREDO CONTACT US

 

WHAT IS WRITTEN ABOUT: James Shellow

 

Professor Christopher B. Mueller writes
Finally, I think that juries are even less likely than judges to conclude that credentialed witnesses with scientific expertise are mistaken. The eye-opening article in this Symposium by criminal defense lawyer James Shellow claims, on the basis of experience, that jurors cannot understand or follow cross-examination aimed at revealing “flaws in methodology,” and that effective cross requires essentially peripheral tactics, such as attacks on character or a demonstration that the expert’s opinion is contradicted by published texts. The burden of the examples cited by Mr. Shellow is that the cross-examiner should exploit any unwillingness of the witness to acknowledge the authority of texts by casting that very fact as a demonstration of mendacity. This practitioner’s view supports empirical evidence described by Professor Sanders indicating that jurors do not effectively come to grips with scientific evidence.

Seton Hall Law Review

< Return