The present study examined whether a defense rebuttal expert can effectively educate jurors on the risk that the prosecution’s fingerprint expert made an error. Using a sample of 1716 jury-eligible adults, we examined the impact of three types of rebuttal testimony in a mock trial: (a) a methodological rebuttal explaining the general risk of error in the fingerprint-comparison process; (b) a new-evidence rebuttal concluding the latent fingerprint recovered in this case was not suitable for use in a comparison; and (c) a new-evidence rebuttal excluding the defendant as the source of the latent fingerprint. All three rebuttals significantly altered perceptions of the prosecution’s fingerprint evidence, but new-evidence rebuttals proved most effective. The effectiveness of the rebuttals depended, however, on whether jurors were more concerned about false acquittals or false convictions.
Battling to a draw: Defense expert rebuttal can neutralize prosecution fingerprint evidence

Journal: Applied Cognitive Psychology
Published: 2021
Primary Author: Gregory Mitchell
Secondary Authors: Brandon L. Garrett
Type: Publication
Research Area: Implementation and Practice
Related Resources
Reply to Response to Vacuous standards – Subversion of the OSAC standards-development process
This Letter to the Editor is a reply to Mohammed et al. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100145, which in turn is a response to Morrison et al. (2020) “Vacuous standards – subversion of…
Jury Perception of Bullet Matching Algorithms and Demonstrative Evidence
Presented at Joint Statistical Meetings
Unpacking the Sources of Error in Forensic Evidence
An overview of the Autopsy of a Crime Lab book and the ways in which error can occur in forensic evidence
Autopsy of a Crime Lab: Addressing the Sources of Error in Forensics
Keynote presentation: Autopsy of a Crime Lab book and overview of IMPL 1 Project Area