Judges and forensic science education: A national survey

Garrett, Brandon L.; Gardner, Brett O.; Murphy, Evan; Grimes, P.

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110714

Cited by 19 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We note that these problems of communications may run in both directions: in a recent survey of judges, judges themselves expressed strong interest in further forensic science education and also real needs in terms of ability to access material concerning the reliability of forensic science methods [ 30 ]. In our survey, a number of participants strongly preferred the status quo, opining that the discipline has successfully performed for decades without a need for change.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surveying practicing firearm examiners

Scurich

Garrett

Thompson

2022

Forensic Science International: Synergy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surveying practicing firearm examiners

Scurich

Garrett

Thompson

2022

Forensic Science International: Synergy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Accurate vote counting, in other words, would require a deep dive into a type of literature most judges lack the resources or expertise to fully understand. For example, Garrett et al (2021) surveyed 164 U.S. judges and found that while many relied on academic journals in evaluating forensic evidence, most found the articles hard to access. Most importantly, however, it is the general acceptance of substandard scientific practices that gave rise to the reproducibility crisis in the first place (Beerdsen, 2021; Chin, 2014; Faigman & Monahan, 2009).…”

Section: The Reproducibility Crisis and Neuroimagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to keep unreproducible neuroimaging evidence out of court: A case study in fMRI and psychopathy.

Jalava¹,

Griffiths²,

Larsen³

2023

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The amount of neuroimaging evidence introduced in courts continues to increase. Meanwhile, neuroimaging research is in the midst of a reproducibility crisis, as many published findings appear to be false positives. The problem is mostly due to small sample sizes, lack of direct replications, and questionable research practices. There are concerns that a significant proportion of neuroimaging evidence introduced in court may therefore be unreliable. Guidelines governing the admissibility of scientific evidence-Frye and Daubert -are not designed to weed out such data. We propose supplementing Frye and Daubert with minimal reproducibility criteria that allow judges to make informed admissibility decisions about neuroimaging research. To demonstrate how this could work, we subjected functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) findings on psychopathy-evidence that has been admitted in court-to a minimal reproducibility test. A systematic PRISMA search found 64 relevant studies but no sufficiently powered, directly replicated evidence of a psychopathy-related neurobiological profile. This illustrates two things: (a) the probability of false positives in this data set is likely to be unacceptably high and (b) the reproducibility of similar neuroimaging evidence can be evaluated in a straightforward way. Our findings suggest an urgent need to modify admissibility guidelines to exclude low-quality neuroimaging data.

show abstract

“…Esse cenário dicotômico já não mais se sustenta em uma sociedade que questiona, pelo menos desde a metade do século XX (ROUX; CRISPINO; RIBAUX, 2012;MORGAN, 2018MORGAN, , 2019GARRETT, 2021;GARRETT et al, 2021;ROUX et al, 2022;SWOFFORD;CHAMPOD, 2022), a possibilidade de separar as experiências pessoais do fenômeno analisado. Do contrário, é o cientista que cria o cenário, elege o objeto de análise e aplica o método, estando inteiramente imerso em um contexto pessoal e histórico.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Prova Pericial no Processo Penal: a compreensão e a mitigação dos erros forenses como mecanismo de respeito ao contraditório, à ampla defesa e ao direito à prova lícita

Amaral

Bruni

2023

Rev. Bras. Dir. Proc. Penal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A ciência forense auxilia a compreensão da dinâmica fática a partir do emprego de métodos, que possibilitam uma maior controlabilidade à produção da prova, buscando reduzir o subjetivismo inerente a outros meios de prova. Neste cenário, o que se busca responder é: como a compreensão e a mitigação dos erros forenses pode auxiliar na garantia dos direitos ao contraditório, à ampla defesa e à prova lícita? Como hipótese de trabalho tem-se que o conhecimento sobre os erros forenses é indispensável para a produção de uma prova pericial de maior qualidade, que leve ao julgador um conhecimento especializado de maior confiança, resultando em uma valoração probatória mais coerente e direcionada aos fatos, buscando reduzir o arbítrio e os erros judiciais. Para isso, utilizou-se o método hipotético-dedutivo, com o emprego da técnica de revisão bibliográfica e consulta à jurisprudência. Foi possível demonstrar, ao final, que a comunidade científica deve refletir, discutir e prezar por mais rigor na ciência forense, priorizando uma comunicação clara dos resultados, de modo a integrar ciência, justiça e sociedade de maneira harmônica.

show abstract

Judges and forensic science education: A national survey

Cited by 19 publications

References 14 publications

Surveying practicing firearm examiners

Surveying practicing firearm examiners

How to keep unreproducible neuroimaging evidence out of court: A case study in fMRI and psychopathy.

Prova Pericial no Processo Penal: a compreensão e a mitigação dos erros forenses como mecanismo de respeito ao contraditório, à ampla defesa e ao direito à prova lícita

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About