Overarching GOALS
As new probabilistic and statistical methods are developed they must be implemented by the forensic community. CSAFE is focused on research to facilitate the implementation of methods and identify best practices for their use. Relevant research topics include finding optimal ways to communicate statistical conclusions –– both verbally and graphically, understanding the barriers to widespread implementation, and best practices for forensic practitioners, lawyers and judges.
Looking for
WEBINARS,
Short courses, presentations or publications
on Implementation and Practice?
Brandon Garrett
L. Neil Williams Professor of Law | Co-Director of CSAFE
Duke University
William C Thompson
Professor
University of California Irvine
Simon Cole
Professor
University of California Irvine
Additional Team Members
Susan Vanderplas
susan.vanderplas@unl.edu
Nita Farahany
farahany@duke.edu
Gregory Mitchell
greg.mitchell@law.virginia.edu
Hal S. Stern
sternh@uci.edu
Robert Ramotowski
robert.ramotowski@nist.gov
Robert Thompson
robert.m.thompson@nist.gov
Dan Murrie
murrie@virginia.edu
Sharon Kelley
smk8n@virginia.edu
Nicholas Scurich
nscurich@uci.edu
Adele Quigley-McBride
aquigley@sfu.ca
Jennifer Teitcher
jennifer.teitcher@duke.edu
focus Areas
Statistical evidence can be presented to attorneys, judges and jurors in a range of ways, from verbal descriptions of the weight of evidence to numerical scores to more complicated statistical summaries. CSAFE researchers are conducting studies with various forms of testimony and conclusions to determine if these new forms of testimony are better suited to minimize misinterpretation.
The goal of this project is to better understand how to convey forensic information to laypeople in a way that is accurate and comprehensible. Our research focused initially on terms used to convey forensic conclusions and how jurors understand them. We have studied how to convey proficiency and error rate information and begun to move towards more detailed mock trial scenarios — such as studies of competing experts testifying at trial.
First, in our new work, we need to better understand as a foundational matter what informs jurors regarding the strengths and limits of forensic evidence. Our prior work has given us an initial picture of this problem. In the next set of studies, we need more realistic designs and we need to keep up with developments in the field. We will examine new ways of conveying forensic information to lay jurors as the field moves towards new standards for terminology, including as developed by OSAC, and in some settings, the use of quantitative methods and conclusions. We are also moving towards more detailed designs, including with videos of mock courtroom testimony, and perhaps jury deliberation, to make for more realistic studies. We will examine what explains the varying weight that laypeople place on forensic testimony to better understand how to explain the strengths and limits of that evidence to them.
Second, we need to study new interventions that might change how laypeople evaluate forensic evidence. We will examine newly developed language, such as terminology developed by OSAC, language required by judges in their rulings, and its impact on lay decisionmakers. We need to study what effect jury instructions might have on visual presentations. Relatedly, in addition to studying lay decisionmaking, we will also assess what lawyers currently understand (and do not understand) about the evidence forensic experts currently present (or may, in the future, choose to present) in reports and testimony, so that we can better assess the role that lawyers play in presentation of forensic evidence. Similarly, we will survey judges to better understand their role and needs in this process (as also discussed in ED II). Research on how lawyers understand and misunderstand the language in forensic science reports may help forensic scientists develop more effective reporting language. And this work may help identify undesirable courtroom practices that might mislead jurors and help inform policy regarding how lawyers should conduct themselves at trial. Ultimately, we plan to develop model training for defense lawyers and judges that will also be of value to forensic scientists as they prepare for testimony and interact with legal professionals.
Third, based on this research, we will develop recommendations for how to better convey strengths and limits of forensic evidence in testimony, to inform new standards for such testimony. We will also develop recommendations for judicial instructions and evidentiary standards regarding forensic conclusions. Finally, we will make recommendations for work that defense lawyers and prosecutors can do to better educate jurors regarding strengths and limits of forensic evidence.
It is a key goal of CSAFE to better understand the impediments to adoption of probabilistic methods among forensic science practitioners and members of the legal community, so that they can be overcome and probabilistic methods can be effectively implemented. It is important to study attitudes of practitioners towards probabilistic analyses including both the benefits and disadvantages that they perceive. CSAFE researchers achieve this insight through surveys, interviews and observations of forensic practitioners in order to assess obstacles and methods to overcome them.
To be useful, the statistical applications developed by CSAFE will have to be adopted by forensic scientists and forensic service providers (FSPs). It is well-known that many forensic scientists and FSPs are skeptical, or even resistant, to the adoption of statistical applications. To facilitate the adoption of statistical applications, we need a better understanding of the organizational cultures of the FSPs that we hope will adopt them. Such understanding can be facilitated by a sociology of forensic science. Further, we also need a better sociological understanding of the discipline of forensic statistics. Many non-statisticians profess themselves bewildered by forensic statistics. While forensic statistics has made efforts to account for itself, it will be helpful to complement these with a sociological account, from an external perspective, about the discipline. An account that locates forensic statistics in its historical and sociological context can only enhance non-statisticians’ understanding of the discipline and nature of the applications it is seeking to implement.
Sociology of science is a well-established discipline that uses the tools of the social sciences to understand the making of scientific knowledge. While most work in sociology of science has focused on more traditional academic disciplines, like physics, biology, medicine, and engineering, there has long been a thriving line of research on forensic science. Sociologists of science are particularly drawn to forensic science because of its proximity to law, which brings two powerful truth-making social institutions (science and law) into close contact.
While there has been some work on the sociology of forensic science, there has been almost no work on the sociology of forensic statistics.
By sociologically analyzing the impact of statistical application on forensic laboratories and the reactions of forensic scientists to statistical applications, the project will allow forensic scientists to progress from a “local” perspective informed by their own experiences and personal interactions to a more “global” perspective informed by the experiences of the discipline as a whole with statistical applications.
The research will draw on the standard tools in the sociology of science. These include social scientific methods, such as interviews, participant-observation and ethnography, as well as methods drawn more from history of science, such analyses of scholarly debates conducted through published literature.
Knowledge Transfer
Found 96 Results
Page 3 of 5
Page 3 of 5
Page 3 of 5
Forensic Science in Legal Education
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice,Training and Education
Published: 2021 | By: Brandon Garrett
In criminal cases, forensic science reports and expert testimony play an increasingly important role in adjudication. More states now follow a federal reliability standard, following Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals and Rule 702, which call upon judges to assess the…
Psychometrics for Forensic Fingerprint Comparisons
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice,Latent Print
Published: 2021 | By: Amanda Luby
Forensic science often involves the evaluation of crime-scene evidence to determine whether it matches a known-source sample, such as whether a fingerprint or DNA was left by a suspect or if a bullet was fired from a specific firearm. Even…
Using Mixture Models to Examine Group Differences: An Illustration Involving the Perceived Strength of Forensic Science Evidence
Type: Webinar Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice,Training and Education
This CSAFE webinar was held on December 9, 2021. Presenter: Naomi Kaplan-Damary, PhD The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Presentation Description: Forensic examiners compare items to assess whether they originate from a common source. In reaching conclusions, they consider the probability…
Sampling for Forensic Practitioners Short Course
Type: Short Courses Research Area(s): Forensic Statistics,Implementation and Practice,Training and Education
The first session of this two-session short course took place on September 30, 2021. The second session took place on October 7, 2021. Recordings of both sessions can be found below. Presenter: Alicia Carriquiry Director of CSAFE Iowa State University…
Judges and forensic science education: A national survey
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2021 | By: Brandon L. Garrett
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…
Using mixture models to examine group difference among jurors: an illustration involving the perceived strength of forensic science evidence
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2021 | By: Naomi Kaplan-Damary
The way in which jurors perceive reports of forensic evidence is of critical importance, especially in cases of forensic identification evidence that require examiners to compare items and assess whether they originate from a common source. The current study discusses…
Battling to a draw: Defense expert rebuttal can neutralize prosecution fingerprint evidence
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2021 | By: Gregory Mitchell
The present study examined whether a defense rebuttal expert can effectively educate jurors on the risk that the prosecution's fingerprint expert made an error. Using a sample of 1716 jury-eligible adults, we examined the impact of three types of rebuttal…
CSAFE 2021 Field Update
Type: Presentation Slides,Webinar Research Area(s): Bloodstain,Digital,Firearms and Toolmarks,Footwear,Forensic Statistics,Handwriting,Implementation and Practice,Latent Print,Training and Education
The 2021 Field Update was held June 14, 2021, and served as the closing to the first year of CSAFE 2.0. CSAFE brought together researchers, forensic science partners and interested community members to highlight the organization’s achievements, identify areas for…
Algorithms in Forensic Science: Challenges, Considerations, and a Path Forward
Type: Webinar Research Area(s): Digital,Implementation and Practice
This CSAFE webinar was held on May 25, 2021. Presenter: Henry Swofford Ph.D. Candidate – University of Lausanne Presentation Description: Over the years, scientific and legal scholars have called for the implementation of algorithms (e.g., statistical methods) in forensic science…
Judges and forensic science education: A national survey
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2021 | By: Brandon L. Garrett
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…
Source Code on Trial
Type: Webinar Research Area(s): Digital,Implementation and Practice
This CSAFE symposium was held on March 12, 2021. Presenter: Professor Edward Imwinkelried Edward L. Barrett, Jr. Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California - Davis School of Law Panelists: Professor Ric Simmons, The Ohio State University, Moritz College of…
Juror appraisals of forensic evidence: Effects of blind proficiency and cross-examination
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2020 | By: William E. Crozier
Forensic testimony plays a crucial role in many criminal cases, with requests to crime laboratories steadily increasing. As part of efforts to improve the reliability of forensic evidence, scientific and policy groups increasingly recommend routine and blind proficiency tests of…
Mock Jurors’ Evaluation of Firearm Examiner Testimony
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2020 | By: Brandon L. Garrett
Objectives: Firearms experts traditionally have testified that a weapon leaves “unique” toolmarks, so bullets or cartridge casings can be visually examined and conclusively matched to a particular firearm. Recently, due to scientific critiques, Department of Justice policy, and judges’ rulings,…
Mock Juror Perceptions of Forensics
Type: Webinar Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice,Training and Education
This CSAFE Center Wide webinar was presented on December 8, 2020 by: Brandon Garrett – L. Neil Williams Professor of Law, Faculty Director at the Wilson Center for Science and Justice Nicholas Scurich – Associate Professor of Criminology, Law &…
A Pioneer in Forensic Science Reform: The Work of Paul Giannelli
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2018 | By: Brandon Garrett
Few can say, "I told you so," to our entire criminal justice system. Being right about what is wrong with the use of evidence in criminal cases is not a bad thing, but being able to influence the growing response…
Probabilistic Reporting in Criminal Cases in the United States: A Baseline Study
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2020 | By: Simon Cole
Forensic evidence reporting shows a high degree of adherence to prevailing disciplinary standards. Probabilistic reporting of forensic results remains rare. Probabilistic reports were mostly subjective verbal assignments of posterior probabilities.
How Can a Forensic Result Be a ‘Decision’? A Critical Analysis of Ongoing Reforms of Forensic Reporting Formats for Federal Examiners
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2020 | By: Simon A. Cole
The decade since the publication of the 2009 National Research Council report on forensic science has seen the increasing use of a new word to describe forensic results. What were once called “facts,” “determinations,” “conclusions,” or “opinions,” are increasingly described…
Implementation of a Blind Quality Control Program in a Forensic Laboratory
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice,Latent Print
Published: 2019 | By: Callan Hund
A blind quality control (QC) program was successfully developed and implemented in the Toxicology, Seized Drugs, Firearms, Latent Prints (Processing and Comparison), Forensic Biology, and Multimedia (Digital and Audio/Video) sections at the Houston Forensic Science Center (HFSC). The program was…
CSAFE 2020 All Hands Meeting
Type: Webinar Research Area(s): Bloodstain,Digital,Firearms and Toolmarks,Footwear,Forensic Statistics,Handwriting,Implementation and Practice,Latent Print,Training and Education
The 2020 All Hands Meeting was held May 12 and 13, 2020 and served as the closing to the last 5 years of CSAFE research and focused on kicking off new initiatives for the next phase of the center, CSAFE…
Error Rates, Likelihood Ratios, and Jury Evaluation of Forensic Evidence
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2020 | By: Brandon Garrett
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…
Page 3 of 5
COMMUNITY CALL-TO-ACTION
Want to collaborate with CSAFE on a project. Contact us to share your idea.