Court Opinion

ID: 9796161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:50:50.649293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:43.372274
License: Public Domain

GABBARD, J.,
specially concurring:
¶ 1 I write separately because of my concern about the use of trial simulations or mock trials as evidence in the case.
¶2 Mock or simulated trials increasingly are being used in civil and criminal pretrial preparation. Patterson, A.H. “Testing Your Case: How Trial Simulations Work,” The Practical Litigator, Vol. 1, No. 4, July 1990, pg. 37-42; 75 Am.Jur.2d Trial § 42 (1991). Like focus groups and public opinion polls, they can be valuable pretrial tools.
¶3 However, allowing the introduction of mock trial results into evidence is fraught with danger and should be generally condemned. Few, if any, standards exist to ensure that trial simulations accurately reflect the jury composition, evidence, and presentation of the relevant case. Few controlled studies exist to verify their predictive ability. Absent standardization, additional study and peer review, this evidence clearly cannot satisfy the requirements of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).
¶ 4 Moreover, such evidence has a potential for prejudice which outweighs its probative value. See 12 O.S.2001 § 2403. It raises the possibility that jurors will defer to the result of the mock trial jury, instead of deciding the case on the evidence before it.
¶ 5 Without standardization and scientific review of the predictive reliability of mock trials, there seems little reason to allow its admission into evidence. If a mock trial cannot be shown to be a reliable predictor of a trial’s outcome, it should not be allowed to prove justification for a decision to settle a lawsuit for $1.8 million, any more than it should be allowed to prove justification for refusing to pay an insurance or other claim. To hold otherwise opens up a grave potential for abuse.
¶ 6 Moreover, routine use of mock trials will unnecessarily increase the cost of pre-litigation expenses, and cause an additional financial burden on those least able to afford it. Future potential litigants may well believe that participating in a mock trial, or conducting their own mock trial for rebuttal purposes, is a necessary pre-litigation expense.
¶ 7 For these reasons, I would find that the introduction of the mock trial result was improper. However, in view of the trial court’s admonishment, it was harmless error under the facts and circumstances presented. *892Therefore, I concur in the majority’s conclusion.