Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom explains what makes stories believable and how ordinary people connect complex legal arguments and evidence presented in trials to assess guilt and innocence. The explanation takes the core elements of narrative—the who, what, where, when, how, why—and shows how average people who hear hundreds of stories every day use the connections between these elements to assess credibility. A series of simple experiments outside the courtroom provides evidence for the explanation, showing that there is little relationship between the actual truth of a story and the degree to which the story is believed to be true by an audience of random listeners not familiar with the teller. So, how do jurors make a particular legal judgment? Based on courtroom observation, trial transcripts, and credibility experiments, Bennett and Feldman create a method of diagramming stories that shows exactly what makes some stories more believable than others. Prosecutors and defense attorneys can use this method of analyzing stories to weigh the strategies and tactics available to them; scholars can use it to assess the process of legal judgment. Now in its Second Edition, this much-cited resource adds a new preface by the authors, as well as new forewords from divergent perspectives. From his experience in law practice, William S. Bailey notes that the book offers “timeless insights” as its authors “adapt a broad structural framework of storytelling to the criminal trial context, making it come alive in the dynamic real world courtroom environment.” Law-and-society scholar Anna-Maria Marshall writes that the book's “emphasis on storytelling will resonate with scholars studying legal consciousness, where narrative plays an important theoretical and methodological role.... This new edition will be a welcome addition to the Law and Society community.” "Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom is as timely as it was when this classic was first published. Here Bennett and Feldman provide great insight into the importance of storytelling as a basis of justice in American criminal trials. It deserves very wide readership." — Elizabeth F. Loftus Distinguished Professor, University of California, Irvine Author, "Eyewitness Testimony" (1996) "This classic law and society study on the power of legal stories is a rich and compelling empirical analysis of the dynamics of story construction in trials. The book remains an essential resource for law students, litigators, academics, and any others who wish to understand the interpretive significance of the stories told in the courtroom." — Jeannine Bell Professor of Law and Neizer Faculty Fellow, Indiana University Maurer School of Law — Bloomington Author, "Hate Thy Neighbor" (2013) Part of the Classics of Law & Society Series from Quid Pro Books.

In this lively and persuasive critique, Franklin Strier doesn't simply describe problems with the American trial system; he proposes reforms. He offers a detailed blueprint of how to improve our basic adversarial system while blunting its excesses and inequities. Strier points out that the jury system was originally intended to diffuse the power of the government, but criticizes the method by which jurors are selected, patronized, and manipulated. Among his suggestions: eliminate peremptory challenges, give jurors the authority, and judges the responsibility, to ask questions of witnesses, and use neutral expert witnesses.

Increasingly in America s courtrooms lawyers, litigants, and expert witnesses attempt to recreate what it s like to be inside the litigant s mind. But is it really possible to claim this perception as evidence? Is seeing really believing? Can anyone really know what it s like to have another person s perceptual experiences, when only that person has direct access to them? And why should courts ever admit visual or auditory evidence that purports to convey what another person s consciousness is like? How might these simulations affect the ways that judges and jurors do justice? Experiencing Other Minds thoughtful explores this evidentiary and cognitive terrain. Whether a simulation actually provides reliable knowledge about the other person s inner experience, depends on the strength of our grounds for believing in it. And that depends largely on how the simulation was made. Primarily a descriptive and analytic work, Experiencing Other Minds conducts a legal anthropological inquiry into a novel and distinctive evidentiary practice, situating each example of digitally simulated subjective perception in its case context and drawing on cognitive psychology, media studies, science and technology studies, and other disciplines to understand how each simulation produces specific epistemological and rhetorical effects. By paying closer attention to the different kinds of simulation and the different knowledge claims they offer, we can develop best practices for responsibly incorporating such evidence in the courtroom, and thereby improve the quality of justice as well. "

"A groundbreaking book . . . revealing the systemic, everyday problems in our courts that must be addressed if justice is truly to be served."—Doris Kearns Goodwin Attorney and journalist Amy Bach spent eight years investigating the widespread courtroom failures that each day upend lives across America. What she found was an assembly-line approach to justice: a system that rewards mediocre advocacy, bypasses due process, and shortchanges both defendants and victims to keep the court calendar moving. Here is the public defender who pleads most of his clients guilty with scant knowledge about their circumstances; the judge who sets outrageous bail for negligible crimes; the prosecutor who habitually declines to pursue significant cases; the court that works together to achieve a wrongful conviction. Going beyond the usual explanations of bad apples and meager funding, Ordinary Injustice reveals a clubby legal culture of compromise, and shows the tragic consequences that result when communities mistake the rules that lawyers play by for the rule of law. It is time, Bach argues, to institute a new method of checks and balances that will make injustice visible—the first and necessary step to reform.

Seventeen thought-provoking essays in this sophisticated yet accessible reader demonstrate how political scientists conduct research on law, courts, and the judicial process, and at the same time answer interesting, substantive questions. Illustrating the breadth and depth of judicial politics studies, the essays convey to students the array of contemporary thinking -- both theoretical and methodological -- at work in the field. The book's five parts cover subjects taught in most judicial politics courses. Because each chapter stands alone, instructors have the flexibility of assigning less than the whole book or chapters in a different order. Topics examined range from information used by voters electing judges to the credibility of victims of sexualized violence. Accessible to both undergraduate and graduate students, Contemplating Courts offers fascinating views into both the law and courts field and the research process itself. Epstein provides in the first chapter an overview of the key elements of judicial process research and defines key terms. Technical notes and methodology appendices offer students additional guidance.

This book explores challenges posed by the use of DNA evidence to the traditional features, procedures and principles of the criminal trial. It examines the limitations of existing theories of criminal trial processes in the face of increasing use of scientific evidence in the court room. The research elucidates the interconnections at trial of three epistemologies, namely legal reasoning, as represented by counsel and trial judge, common sense manifested by the jury and scientific reasoning expounded by the expert witness. Sallavaci argues that while scientific reasoning is part of this hybrid of trial languages and practices, its extended use is producing specifically novel tensions which impact on the traditional criminal trial landscape. Through the lens of DNA evidence, the book investigates how far the use of scientific evidence in the fact finding process poses challenges for the adversarial character of the proceedings and rules of evidence; how it affects the role of the judge, jury and expert witness, as well as the principle of orality and continuity of the trial. In comparing the challenges faced in English common law trials to those of the USA, this book has international scope, and will be of great use and interest to students and researchers of Criminal Law and Practice, Policing, and the role of Forensics in Law.

Anyone who has sat on a jury or followed a high-profile trial on television usually comes to the realization that a trial, particularly a criminal trial, is really a performance. Verdicts seem determined as much by which lawyer can best connect with the hearts and minds of the jurors as by what the evidence might suggest. In this celebration of the American trial as a great cultural achievement, Robert Burns, a trial lawyer and a trained philosopher, explores how these legal proceedings bring about justice. The trial, he reminds us, is not confined to the impartial application of legal rules to factual findings. Burns depicts the trial as an institution employing its own language and styles of performance that elevate the understanding of decision-makers, bringing them in contact with moral sources beyond the limits of law. Burns explores the rich narrative structure of the trial, beginning with the lawyers' opening statements, which establish opposing moral frameworks in which to interpret the evidence. In the succession of witnesses, stories compete and are held in tension. At some point during the performance, a sense of the right thing to do arises among the jurors. How this happens is at the core of Burns's investigation, which draws on careful descriptions of what trial lawyers do, the rules governing their actions, interpretations of actual trial material, social science findings, and a broad philosophical and political appreciation of the trial as a unique vehicle of American self-government.

In Christian Science on Trial, historian Rennie B. Schoepflin shows how Christian Science healing became a viable alternative to medicine at the end of the nineteenth century. Christian Scientists did not simply evangelize for their religious beliefs; they engaged in a healing business that offered a therapeutic alternative to many patients for whom medicine had proven unsatisfactory. Tracing the evolution of Christian Science during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Christian Science on Trial illuminates the movement's struggle for existence against the efforts of organized American medicine to curtail its activities. Physicians exhibited an anxiety and tenacity to trivialize and control Christian Scientists which indicates a lack of confidence among the turn-of-the-century medical profession about who controlled American health care. The limited authority of the medical community becomes even clearer through Schoepflin's examination of the pitched battles fought by physicians and Christian Scientists in America's courtrooms and legislative halls over the legality of Christian Science healing. While the issues of medical licensing, the meaning of medical practice, and the supposed right of Americans to therapeutic choice dominated early debates, later confrontations saw the legal issues shift to matters of contagious disease, public safety, and children's rights. Throughout, Christian Scientists revealed their ambiguous status as medical practitioners and religious healers. The 1920s witnessed an unsteady truce between American medicine and Christian Science. The ambivalence of many Americans about the practice of religious healing persisted, however. In Christian Science on Trial we gain a helpful historical context for understanding late–twentieth-century public debates over children's rights, parental responsibility, and the authority of modern medicine.

Explaining in clear terms some of the main methodological approaches to legal research, the chapters in this edited collection are written by specialists in their fields, researching in a variety of jurisdictions. Covering a range of topics from Feminist Approaches to Law and Economics, each contributor addresses the topic of ‘lay decision makers in the legal system’ from their particular methodological perspective, explaining how they would approach the issue and discussing the suitability of their particular method. This focus on one main topic allows the reader to draw comparisons between methods with relative ease. The broad range of contributors makes Research Methods in Law well suited to an international audience, and it is ideal reading for PhD students in law, undergraduate dissertation students in law, LL.M Research students and early year researchers.