TY - JOUR
T1 - Science, technology, or the expert witness
T2 - What influences jurors' judgments about forensic science testimony
AU - Koehler, Jonathan J.
AU - Schweitzer, Nicholas
AU - Saks, Michael
AU - McQuiston, Dawn E.
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was supported in part by grant 2008-DN-BX-0003 from the National Institute of Justice and the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Faculty Research Program. We thank Craig Cooley for supplying us with transcripts of forensic science expert testimony, Alan Tuerkheimer for assisting with participant recruitment, Kayla Burd for supervising data collection, and Jessica Salerno for assisting with portions of the analyses. We also thank Charles Calleros, Joseph Feller, Art Hinshaw, Samantha Neufeld, and David DiPianto for their outstanding acting performances on the video trial.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 American Psychological Association.
PY - 2016/11/1
Y1 - 2016/11/1
N2 - The impact of forensic science evidence on jurors' judgments is critically important to the criminal justice system. The assignment of low or high weight to such testimony can be the difference between acquittal or conviction. Many of the traditional forensic sciences (e.g., fingerprints and bitemarks) draw their strength largely from the subjective judgments of examiners who testify about whether evidentiary prints or other markings are consistent with (or "match") known markings from a person or object. In an online experiment (Experiment 1) and a realistic jury simulation using actual jurors or jury-eligible adults (Experiment 2), this article investigates 3 factors that might affect how jurors think about and use forensic science evidence. These factors are (a) whether the forensic science method had been scientifically tested, (b) the forensic scientist's background and experience, and (c) the sophistication of the forensic science technology. The results show a strong and consistent effect for examiner background and experience on evidence strength judgments, no effect for forensic technology sophistication, and a limited and inconsistent effect for scientific testing (present in the online experiments, absent in the realistic jury simulation). These findings raise concerns about potential undue influence of examiner background and experience on jurors' judgments and lack of clear influence of scientific testing. The implications of our findings for criminal justice practices and policies are considered.
AB - The impact of forensic science evidence on jurors' judgments is critically important to the criminal justice system. The assignment of low or high weight to such testimony can be the difference between acquittal or conviction. Many of the traditional forensic sciences (e.g., fingerprints and bitemarks) draw their strength largely from the subjective judgments of examiners who testify about whether evidentiary prints or other markings are consistent with (or "match") known markings from a person or object. In an online experiment (Experiment 1) and a realistic jury simulation using actual jurors or jury-eligible adults (Experiment 2), this article investigates 3 factors that might affect how jurors think about and use forensic science evidence. These factors are (a) whether the forensic science method had been scientifically tested, (b) the forensic scientist's background and experience, and (c) the sophistication of the forensic science technology. The results show a strong and consistent effect for examiner background and experience on evidence strength judgments, no effect for forensic technology sophistication, and a limited and inconsistent effect for scientific testing (present in the online experiments, absent in the realistic jury simulation). These findings raise concerns about potential undue influence of examiner background and experience on jurors' judgments and lack of clear influence of scientific testing. The implications of our findings for criminal justice practices and policies are considered.
KW - Evidence
KW - Experience
KW - Forensic science
KW - Jury decision making
KW - Testing
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84994756527&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84994756527&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1037/law0000103
DO - 10.1037/law0000103
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84994756527
SN - 1076-8971
VL - 22
SP - 401
EP - 413
JO - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
JF - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
IS - 4
ER -