{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01155115511551155, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004125412541254125, 'mean_word_length': 5.521505376344086, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Jurors' views on the value and objectivity of mental health experts testifying in sexually violent predator trials.

Although psychologists and psychiatrists often testify in court, we know relatively little about the extent to which jurors value the testimony they hear from these experts. We surveyed 161 jurors who rendered opinions in 14 sex offender civil commitment trials after hearing testimony from psychologists and psychiatrists serving as expert witnesses. Most jurors reported that the experts they heard testify were honest, and they tended to attribute disagreements among experts to case complexity, as opposed to adversarial allegiance or bias. Most reported that hearing from the experts helped them make better decisions and that experts using risk assessment instruments could make more accurate predictions than those who did not. Jurors were, however, more skeptical about the ability of experts to accurately predict recidivism when they heard testimony from both prosecution and defense experts. Findings suggest that jurors value risk assessment testimony from experts, but that experts must think carefully about how to best make risk assessment instrument results accessible to jurors.