STATE TRIAL JUDGE USE OF COURT APPOINTED EXPERTS: SURVEY RESULTS AND COMPARISONS

State trial judges from Texas, Michigan, Indiana, and Arizona were surveyed about their use of court-appointed experts. This article discusses the survey results concerning the types of experts most frequently appointed by judges in this sample and comparing their use by judge gender, docket (civil,...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Jurimetrics (Chicago, Ill.) Ill.), 2010-03, Vol.50 (3), p.371-389
Hauptverfasser: Domitrovich, Stephanie, Merlino, Mara L., Richardson, James T.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:State trial judges from Texas, Michigan, Indiana, and Arizona were surveyed about their use of court-appointed experts. This article discusses the survey results concerning the types of experts most frequently appointed by judges in this sample and comparing their use by judge gender, docket (civil, criminal, family, and combined), and type of expert appointment (statutorily mandated or discretionary). Many judges reported either appointing their own experts or being willing to do so. Significant differences were found in type of docket, type of expert, and type of expert appointment. Judges' reasons for choosing or not choosing to appoint experts are discussed, as are comparisons with findings in the few other studies of this topic.
ISSN:0897-1277
2154-4344