OVERVIEW

Traditionally, forensic examiners tend to use categorical language in their reports, presenting evidence in broad terms such as “identification” or “exclusion.” There have been efforts in recent years to promote the use of more probabilistic language, but many examiners have expressed concerns about the proposed change.

Researchers funded by CSAFE surveyed fingerprint examiners to better understand how examiners feel about probabilistic reporting and to identify obstacles impeding its adoption.

OVERVIEW

Forensic evidence can play a crucial role in adjudicating a criminal trial. As scientific authorities scrutinize the reliability of many forensic methods, it is important for judges to be trained and educated to make more informed decisions. Since most judges lack a scientific background, additional training may play an important role. However, the effectiveness of additional training and how it affects judges’ perception of forensic evidence is unknown.

OVERVIEW

While all forensic science disciplines pose some risk of error, the public typically believes that testimony from fingerprint experts is infallible. By employing rebuttal experts who can educate jurors about the risk of errors or provide opposing evidence, courts can counter this tendency. CSAFE funded researchers conducted a survey to study the effect of rebuttal experts on jurors’ perceptions.

OVERVIEW

In recent years, new expert admissibility standards in most states call for judges to assess the reliability of forensic expert evidence. However, little has been reported on the education and training law schools offer to law students regarding forensic evidence. Researchers funded by CSAFE conducted a survey to find out how many schools offer forensic science courses, and they also examine the state of forensics in legal education as a whole.

OVERVIEW

It is critically important for jurors to be able to understand forensic evidence,
and just as important to understand how jurors perceive scientific reports.
Researchers have devised a novel approach, using statistical mixture
models, to identify subpopulations that appear to respond differently to
presentations of forensic evidence.

OVERVIEW

Traditionally, firearm and toolmark experts have testified that a weapon leaves “unique” marks on bullets and casings permitting a “source identification” conclusion to be made. While scientific organizations have called this sort of categorical assertion into question, jurors still place a great deal of weight on a firearms expert’s testimony.

To examine the weight jurors place on these testimonies, researchers conducted two studies: the first evaluated if using more cautious language influenced jurors’ opinions on expert testimony, and the second measured if cross-examination altered these opinions.

OVERVIEW

Forensic examiners are frequently asked to give reports and testimonies in court and there have been calls for them to report their findings probabilistically. Terms like match, consistent with or identical are categorical in nature, not statistical –– they do not communicate the value of the evidence in terms of probability. While there is robust debate over how forensic scientists should report, less attention is paid to how they do report.

OVERVIEW

Researchers conducted two studies to determine how much an examiner’s blind proficiency score affects the jurors’ confidence in their testimonies.