@article{ref1,
title="Knowing How to Sleepwalk: Placing Expert Evidence in the Midst of an English Jury Trial",
journal="Science technology and human values",
year="2010",
author="Scheffer, T.",
volume="35",
number="5",
pages="620-644",
abstract="In this case study I argue that experts, to gain relevance in a jury trial, need to fit into a manifold division of knowing. They do so by borrowing and sharing diverse knowledges. These exchanges place the modest expert testimony right into an authoritative and powerful decision-making apparatus. This argument derives from an ethnographic study of a &quot;sleepwalking defense.&quot; The division of knowing embraces the certified facts, the instructed case, the competing expertise, and the common sense. As a conclusion, I identify the experts’ twofold relevance. Experts perform the case as undecided and decidable. They provide exclusive knowledge and affirm a set of other knowledges. By &quot;knowing&quot; and &quot;not knowing,&quot; the experts perform individual modesty and systemic immodesty by the same token.<p />",
language="",
issn="0162-2439",
doi="10.1177/0162243909340269",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243909340269"
}