Sammanfattning
We examined the criteria judges in Finland perceive as important when evaluating the quality
of expert testimony, and how judges question psychological and psychiatric expert witnesses to
determine the reliability of their testimony. The 87 participating judges rated the importance of
the following criteria for the credibility of expert testimony: expert’s work experience, expert’s
research activity, falsifiability, error rate, peer-reviewed research, scientific acceptance, and practical
acceptance. The judges were thereafter given five vignettes describing expert testimony
and asked about the questions they would present to the expert witness about each case. The
results show that the judges considered the expert’s work experience to be the most important
criterion when judging the reliability of expert evidence. Also, the questions they would ask to
assess the reliability of the testimony are consistent with these results. However, as the judges
mostly asked questions that could not directly be categorized into any of the seven categories,
additional categories were created. These additional categories reveal that many judges ask a
more general question concerning the testimony. The present study indicates that the judges are
not sufficiently equipped to correctly evaluate expert testimony.