Skip to content

How Cross-Examination on Subjectivity and Bias Affects Jurors’ Evaluations of Forensic Science Evidence

Journal: Journal of Forensic Sciences
Published: 2019
Primary Author: William C. Thompson
Secondary Authors: Nicholas Scurich

Contextual bias has been widely discussed as a possible problem in forensic science. The trial simulation experiment reported here examined reactions of jurors at a county courthouse to cross‐examination and arguments about contextual bias in a hypothetical case. We varied whether the key prosecution witness (a forensic odontologist) was cross‐examined about the subjectivity of his interpretations and about his exposure to potentially biasing task‐irrelevant information. Jurors found the expert less credible and were less likely to convict when the expert admitted that his interpretation rested on subjective judgment, and when he admitted having been exposed to potentially biasing task‐irrelevant contextual information (relative to when these issues were not raised by the lawyers). The findings suggest, however, that forensic scientists can immunize themselves against such challenges and maximize the weight jurors give their evidence by adopting context management procedures that blind them to task‐irrelevant information.

Related Resources

How do Labs Ensure Quality? A Nationwide Review of SOPs for Latent Print Examination

How do Labs Ensure Quality? A Nationwide Review of SOPs for Latent Print Examination

This presentation is from the 108th International Association for Identification (IAI) Annual Educational Conference, Reno, Nevada, August 11-17, 2024. Posted with permission of CSAFE.
Statistics and its Applications in Forensic Science and the Criminal Justice System

Statistics and its Applications in Forensic Science and the Criminal Justice System

This presentation is from the 2024 Joint Statistical Meetings (JSM), Portland, Oregon, August 3-8, 2024.
Silencing the Defense Expert

Silencing the Defense Expert

In the wake of the 2009 NRC and 2016 PCAST Reports, the Firearms and Toolmark (FATM) discipline has come under increasing scrutiny. Validation studies like AMES I, Keisler, AMES II,…
Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials

Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials

We investigate how the use of bullet comparison algorithms and demonstrative evidence may affect juror perceptions of reliability, credibility, and understanding of expert witnesses and presented evidence. The use of…