The question I will address is how forensic scientists should communicate source conclusions in reports and testimony. The answer, I will argue, depends on two issues: (1) what conclusions can be justified logically and empirically; and (2) what conclusions (among those that can be justified logically and empirically) are most likely to be understood and used appropriately. I will first review various possible ways that forensic scientists might report source conclusions, pointing out logical and empirical difficulties with some reporting methods. Then I will discuss what is currently known about lay understanding of such reports.
How should forensic scientists present source conclusions?
Journal: “Seton Hall Law Review”
Published: 2018
Primary Author: Thompson, W.C.
Type: Publication
Research Area: Implementation and Practice
Related Resources
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
This presentation is from the 2024 Joint Statistical Meetings (JSM), Portland, Oregon, August 3-8, 2024.
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
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…