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
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…
Interpretable algorithmic forensics
One of the most troubling trends in criminal investigations is the growing use of “black box” technology, in which law enforcement rely on artificial intelligence (AI) models or algorithms that…
What’s in a Name? Consistency in Latent Print Examiners’ Naming Conventions and Perceptions of Minutiae Frequency
Fingerprint minutia types influence LPEs’ decision-making processes during analysis and evaluation, with features perceived to be rarer generally given more weight. However, no large-scale studies comparing examiner perceptions of minutiae…
Shifting decision thresholds can undermine the probative value and legal utility of forensic pattern-matching evidence
Forensic pattern analysis requires examiners to compare the patterns of items such as fingerprints or tool marks to assess whether they have a common source. This article uses signal detection…