![]() This journal article review addresses an article written by Jennifer Mnookin regarding her Finally, whether her article advances research or solutions will be discussed. This will relate more to the value of eyewitness testimony than to pre-made expert testimony as there is no other research on that topic. Support or lack thereof for her hypothesis will then be reviewed, followed by looking at how her article fits with other thoughts on the subject. This review will examine Mnookin’s experience and qualifications to comment on the topic, her hypothesis, and her theory. The contribution of this work lies in its presentation of new ideas to equalizing and streamlining trials. Mnookin hypothesizes that such “pre-made” testimony will reduce trial costs and make expert witnesses available to a wider array of defendants, making trials fairer for those accused. questioning and cross-examination patterns that recur in like patterns throughout courtrooms. Support will be found mainly in other reports regarding the repetitiveness of witness testimony and the. ![]() ![]() Mnookin presented this argument in 2015 in the Texas Law Review This is a novel idea and lacks previous research. This journal article review addresses an article written by Jennifer Mnookin regarding her idea to use a “made-in-advance” system for introducing expert testimony into a courtroom.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |