May 2007 Vol. 105 No. 7 THE REVIEW

Doctors & Juries

Phillip G. Peters, Jr.

Physicians widely believe that jury verdicts are unfair. This Article tests that assumption by synthesizing three decades of jury research. Contrary to popular belief, the data show that juries consistently sympathize more with doctors who are sued than with patients who sue them. Physicians win roughly half of the cases that expert reviewers believe physicians should lose and nearly all of the cases that experts feel physicians should win. Defendants and their hired experts, it turns out, are more successful than plaintiffs and their hired experts at persuading juries to reach verdicts contrary to the opinions of independent reviewers.

   //  VIEW PDF
& Other Current Events

What's In A Name? A Brief Study of Legal Aptonyms

Law and literature ranges wide. Scholars use Shakespeare to illuminate issues of justice, Dickens to understand...

Rethinking Reporter's Privilege

Forty years ago, in Branzburg v. Hayes, the Supreme Court made its first and only inquiry into...

Standing's Expected Value

This Article argues in favor of standing based on expected value of harm. Standing doctrine has been...

Counsel's Control over the Presentation of Mitigating Evidence During Capital Sentencing

The Sixth Amendment gives a defendant the right to control his defense and the right to a lawyer's...

Law-Enforcement Officers and Self-Help Repossession: A State-Action Approach

Repossession of secured collateral is a fundamental component of the consumer credit industry. The...
MAILING LIST
Sign Up to Join Our Mailing List