Juror appraisals of forensic evidence: Effects of blind proficiency and cross-examination

Battling to a draw: Defense expert rebuttal can neutralize prosecution fingerprint evidence

“…The most common way to counter forensic evidence is through cross-examination, but efforts to educate jurors on the limits of forensic evidence using cross-examination have shown mixed effects (e.g., Crozier, Kukucka, & Garrett, 2020;Eastwood & Caldwell, 2015).…”

“…The most common way to counter forensic evidence is through cross‐examination, but efforts to educate jurors on the limits of forensic evidence using cross‐examination have shown mixed effects (e.g., Crozier, Kukucka, & Garrett, 2020; Eastwood & Caldwell, 2015). In our study, the rebuttal expert's methodological critique was more effective than a methodological critique undertaken through cross‐examination alone (Koehler et al, 2016), and the use of a rebuttal expert permitted the defense not only to effectively raise concerns about the opposing expert's method but also to put on contradictory opinions about the source of the latent print recovered from the crime scene.…”

“…Consistent with the thesis that directly addressing juror beliefs about the infallibility of fingerprint evidence can be an effective route to persuasion, prior research has found that explaining the subjective nature of the fingerprint examination process and its potential for error increases juror scrutiny of fingerprint evidence, in general and in particular cases. Two studies have found that eliciting an admission from a fingerprint examiner that he may have made an error in the case or been exposed to biasing information caused jurors to significantly reduce the weight given to fingerprint evidence and lower their levels of trust in fingerprint evidence generally (Garrett & Mitchell, 2013;Kukucka et al, 2020), and some studies have found that cross-examination can effectively reveal flaws in an expert's method or conclusions (e.g., Austin & Kovera, 2015;Crozier, Kukucka, & Garrett, 2020; but see Chorn & Kovera, 2019;Eastwood & Caldwell, 2015;Kadane & Koehler, 2018;Koehler, 2011;Kovera et al, 1999;Lieberman et al, 2008;McQuiston-Surrett & Saks, 2009). A jury instruction summarizing research on error rates in fingerprint comparisons has likewise been found to increase juror scrutiny of fingerprint evidence (Crozier, Grady, & Garrett, 2020), and providing jurors with information that a fingerprint examiner scored below 90% on a recent proficiency test greatly reduced juror confidence in fingerprint evidence generally and the weight given to this examiner's identification opinion in the case at hand (Mitchell & Garrett, 2019).…”

A practical tool for information management in forensic decisions: Using Linear Sequential Unmasking-Expanded (LSU-E) in casework

“…For example, if the examiner had access to suggestive information, the worksheet can be presented as evidence that adequate mitigation strategies were (or were not) taken to counteract the biasing effect of that information. Indeed, studies have found that jurors can use this type of information appropriately when evaluating forensic evidence: When alerted to an examiner's poor performance on proficiency tests [ 26 ] or the possibility that bias tainted the expert's judgment [ 27 ], mock jurors appropriately devalued the expert's testimony—and conversely, when informed that the expert followed context management procedures to reduce the risk of bias, mock jurors gave more weight to their testimony [ 28 ]. Thus, the worksheet can sensitize jurors in cases where skepticism is warranted, but also bolster the credibility of experts who use appropriate mitigation strategies.…”

The prevalence effect in fingerprint identification: Match and non‐match base‐rates impact misses and false alarms

“…For example, fingerprint examiners compare latent fingerprints from crime scenes with exemplar fingerprints from suspects and opine as to whether the two prints match. These judgements are persuasive to fact‐finders in court (e.g., Crozier et al, 2020; Lieberman et al, 2008), yet leading scientific bodies have noted a dearth of research demonstrating the reliability and validity of these judgements (National Academy of Sciences, 2009; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2016). Whilst such research is beginning to emerge (Towler et al, 2018), many existing studies are limited by their use of equal numbers of 'match' and 'non‐match' trials (e.g., Busey & Vanderkolk, 2005; Searston & Tangen, 2017; Towler et al, 2017; White et al, 2015).…”