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?
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
Kori Khan
kkhan@iastate.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
Page 4 of 5
Do evidence submission forms expose latent print examiners to task-irrelevant information?
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2019 | By: Brett O. Gardner
Emerging research documents the ways in which task-irrelevant contextual information may influence the opinions and decisions that forensic analysts reach regarding evidence (e.g., Dror and Cole, 2010; National Academy of Sciences, 2009; President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology,…
The impact of proficiency testing information and error aversions on the weight given to fingerprint evidence
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2019 | By: Gregory Mitchell
Fingerprint examiners regularly participate in tests designed to assess their proficiency. These tests provide information relevant to the weight of fingerprint evidence, but no prior research has directly examined how jurors react to proficiency testing information. Using a nationally representative…
How cross-examination on subjectivity and bias affects jurors’ evaluation of forensic science evidence
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2019 | By: Thompson, W.C.
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…
How Cross-Examination on Subjectivity and Bias Affects Jurors’ Evaluations of Forensic Science Evidence
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2019 | By: William C. Thompson
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…
Litigating Forensics Conclusions and Error Rates
Type: Presentation Slides Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2019 | By: Brandon Garrett
This presentation provides an overview of current challenges in litigating forensics, exploring concepts such as subjectivity in analysis, ambiguity of data, lack of standards proficiency data and the use of error rates and looks at current research to address these…
Probabilistic Reporting in American Criminal Cases: A Baseline Study
Type: Presentation Slides Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2019 | By: Simon Cole
After attending this presentation, attendees will gain an empirically grounded understanding of the current state of probabilistic reporting in six criminalistic disciplines in the United States.
Perceptions and estimates of error rates in forensic science: A survey of forensic analysts
Type: Presentation Slides Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2019 | By: Daniel C. Murrie
The goal of this presentation is to educate attendees about commonly held beliefs of forensic analysts across multiple disciplines regarding the prevalence and acceptability of different types of errors (i.e., false positive and false negative errors) in their field.
The Reliability of Forensics
Type: Presentation Slides Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2019 | By: Brandon Garrett
This presentation examines the reliability of forensic evidence, including limitations of current techniques, how jurors evaluate evidence and the importance of match language, method information and error acknowledgements. The presentation also looks at the impact of proficiency testing and error…
Individual and Collective Identification in Contemporary Forensics
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2018 | By: Simon Cole
It has long been understood that individual and collective identification are inexorably intertwined. This convergence is not limited to genetics. This paper discusses the convergence of individual and collective identification in a comparative analysis of three other forensic areas: fingerprint…
Probabilistic Reporting in American Criminal Cases: A Baseline Study
Type: Webinar Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice,Training and Education
This CSAFE Center Wide webinar was presented on November 28, 2018 by Dr. Simon Cole, Dr. Simon Cole, CSAFE researcher and professor of criminology, law and society at University of California, Irvine. Dr. Cole has provided presentation slides. Presentation…
The Reliable Application of Fingerprint Evidence
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2018 | By: Brandon L. Garrett
In November 2017, a state appellate court did something almost unprecedented: It held that a trial judge made an error by admitting testimony on latent fingerprinting. In State v. McPhaul, the North Carolina appellate panel found error in admitting expert…
When does absence of evidence constitute evidence of absence?
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2018 | By: William C. Thompson
Negative forensic evidence can be defined as the failure to find a trace after looking for it. Such evidence is often dismissed by referring to the aphorism “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” However, this reasoning can be…
Brief of Amici Curiae, Long v. Hooks, No. 18-6980 (4th Cir.)
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2018 | By: Brandon Garrett
This brief is signed by scholars representing a variety of disciplines, including law, ethics, forensic science, medicine, and statistics. The scholars have an interest in the quality and improvement of forensic science. Amici believe that forensic analyses should be disclosed,…
A Discouraging Omen: A Critical Evaluation of the Approved Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports for the Forensic Latent Print Discipline
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice,Latent Print
Published: 2018 | By: Simon Cole
The theme of the 2018 Georgia State University Law Review symposium is the Future of Forensic Science Reform. In this Article, I will assess the prospects for reform through a critical evaluation of a document published in February 2018 by…
Resolving latent conflict: What happens when latent print examiners enter the cage?
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice,Latent Print
Published: 2018 | By: Alicia Rairden
Latent print examination traditionally follows the ACE-V process, in which latent prints are first analyzed to determine whether they are suitable for comparison, and then compared to an exemplar and evaluated for similarities and differences. Despite standard operating procedures and…
Brief of Amici Curiae, State v. McPhaul, No. 421PA17
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2018 | By: Brandon Garrett
As the field of forensic science grows, new techniques are developed, and our justice system becomes more dependent on the proper application of these techniques, courts play an increasingly crucial role in ensuring that only valid, reliable expert testimony is…
How should forensic scientists present source conclusions?
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2018 | By: Thompson, W.C.
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…
Who Will Regulate American Forensic Science
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2018 | By: Simon Cole
A review of American forensic science regulatio
Perceived strength of forensic scientists’ reporting statements about source conclusions
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2018 | By: William C. Thompson
Three studies investigated lay people’s perceptions of the relative strength of various conclusions that a forensic scientist might present about whether two items (fingerprints, biological samples) have a common source. Lay participants made a series of judgments about which of…
Introduction: Symposium on “Forensics, Statistics, and Law
Type: Publication Research Area(s): Implementation and Practice
Published: 2018 | By: Brandon L. Garrett
Twenty-five years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., that federal judges must conduct a scientific gatekeeping inquiry before admitting expert evidence.1 That ruling reshaped how judges evaluate scientific and expert evidence. In 2000,…
Page 4 of 5
COMMUNITY CALL-TO-ACTION
Want to collaborate with CSAFE on a project. Contact us to share your idea.