Skip to content

Error Rates, Likelihood Ratios, and Jury Evaluation of Forensic Evidence

Journal: Journal of Forensic Sciences
Published: 2020
Primary Author: Brandon Garrett
Secondary Authors: William E. Crozier, Rebecca Grady

Forensic examiners regularly testify in criminal cases, informing the jurors whether crime scene evidence likely came from a source. In this study, we examine the impact of providing jurors with testimony further qualified by error rates and likelihood ratios, for expert testimony concerning two forensic disciplines: commonly used fingerprint comparison evidence and a novel technique involving voice comparison. Our method involved surveying mock jurors in Amazon Mechanical Turk (N = 897 laypeople) using written testimony and judicial instructions. Participants were more skeptical of voice analysis and generated fewer “guilty” decisions than for fingerprint analysis (B = 2.00, OR = 7.06, p =.

Related Resources

Reply to Response to Vacuous standards – Subversion of the OSAC standards-development process

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…
Unpacking the Sources of Error in Forensic Evidence

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

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