Skip to content

Judges and forensic science education: A national survey

Journal: Forensic Science International
Published: 2021
Primary Author: Brandon L. Garrett
Secondary Authors: Brett O. Gardner, Evan Murphy, Patrick Grimes

In criminal cases, forensic science reports and expert testimony play an increasingly important role in adjudication. More states now follow a federal reliability standard, which calls upon judges to assess the reliability and validity of scientific evidence. Little is known about how judges view their own background in forensic scientific evidence, and what types of specialized training they receive on it. In this study, we surveyed 164 judges from 39 different U.S. states, who attended past trainings at the National Judicial College. We asked these judges about their background in forensic science, their views concerning the reliability of common forensic disciplines, and their needs to better evaluate forensic science evidence. We discovered that judges held views regarding the scientific support for different forensic science disciplines that were fairly consistent with available literature; their error rate estimates were more supported by research than many estimates by laypersons, who often assume forensic methods are nearly infallible. We did not find any association between how judges rate forensic reliability and prior training. We did, however, find that training corresponded with judges’ views that they should, and do in fact, take on a more active gatekeeping role regarding forensics. Regarding the tools judges need to vet forensic experts and properly evaluate forensic science evidence, they reported having very different backgrounds in relevant scientific concepts and having forensic science education needs. Judges reported needs in accessing better material concerning reliability of forensic science methods. These results support new efforts to expand scientific evidence education in the judiciary.

Related Resources

The Contribution of Forensic and Expert Evidence to DNA Exoneration Cases: An Interim Report

The Contribution of Forensic and Expert Evidence to DNA Exoneration Cases: An Interim Report

This report is from Simon A. Cole, Vanessa Meterko, Sarah Chu, Glinda Cooper, Jessica Weinstock Paredes, Maurice Possley, and Ken Otterbourg (2022), The Contribution of Forensic and Expert Evidence to…
CSAFE Project Update & ASCLD FRC Collaboration

CSAFE Project Update & ASCLD FRC Collaboration

This presentation highlighted CSAFE’s collaboration with the ASCLD FRC Collaboration Hub.
Understanding forensic decision-making with Item Response Theory: Using a NFI firearms study

Understanding forensic decision-making with Item Response Theory: Using a NFI firearms study

This presentation is from the Forensic Big Data Colloquium at the Netherlands Forensic Institute, November 2022. Posted with permission of CSAFE.
An Ounce of Prevention: A Simple and Practical Tool for Mitigating Cognitive Bias in Forensic Decisions.

An Ounce of Prevention: A Simple and Practical Tool for Mitigating Cognitive Bias in Forensic Decisions.

Learning Overview: The free information management toolkit described in this presentation will be introduced and attendees will learn to use this toolkit as a training tool and as a practical…