Abstract

In the Anglo-American legal system, courts rely heavily on experts who perform an essential social function in supplying information to resolve disputes. Experts are the vehicles through which facts of any technical complexity are brought out. The adversarial nature of this legal system places expert witnesses in a quandary. Enjoined to serve the court and their profession with unbiased, independent opinion, expert witnesses nevertheless do not work directly for the court: they are employed by advocates (lawyers) who aim to win a high stakes debate for their clients. The system is imperfect. Pressures (whether real or perceived) on experts to please their clients may cause truth to be the victim. We use examples from our experience, and reports of statisticians commenting on theirs, to show how statistical evidence can be honestly and effectively used in courts. We maintain it is vital for would-be experts to study the rules of the legal process and their role within it. (The present article is a step toward that end.) We explain what the legal process looks for in an expert and present some ways in which an expert can maintain their independence and avoid being co-opted by the lawyer who sponsors them. Statisticians contribute in sometimes unique ways to the resolution of disputes, including in forums like negotiations, mediation, arbitration, and regulatory hearing, where the misuse and abuse of statistical procedures occur too often. It is a challenge for statisticians to improve that situation, but they can find professional opportunities and satisfaction in doing so. Because this discussion pertains generally to the application and communication of statistical thinking, statisticians in any sphere of application should find it useful.

摘要

在英美法律体系中，法院严重依赖专家，他们在提供信息以解决争端方面发挥着重要的社会功能。专家是揭示任何技术复杂性事实的工具。这种法律制度的对抗性使专家证人陷入困境。受命为法院及其职业提供公正、独立的意见，专家证人并不直接为法院工作：他们受雇于旨在为其客户赢得高风险辩论的倡导者（律师）。系统不完善。专家为取悦客户而施加的压力（无论是真实的还是感知的）可能会导致真相成为受害者。我们使用我们经验中的例子，以及统计学家评论他们的报告，展示如何在法庭上诚实有效地使用统计证据。我们认为，潜在专家研究法律程序的规则及其在其中的作用至关重要。（本文是朝着这个目标迈出的一步。）我们解释了法律程序对专家的要求，并介绍了专家可以保持独立性并避免被赞助他们的律师增选的一些方法。统计学家有时会以独特的方式解决争端，包括在谈判、调解、仲裁和监管听证会等论坛中，滥用和滥用统计程序的情况经常发生。统计学家改善这种情况是一项挑战，但他们可以在这样做时找到专业机会和满足感。