Campus Units

Center for Statistics and Applications in Forensic Evidence (CSAFE)"

Document Type

Article

Publication Version

Accepted Manuscript

Publication Date

2-21-2019

Journal or Book Title

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volume

64

Issue

5

First Page

1379

Last Page

1388

DOI

10.1111/1556-4029.14031

Abstract

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 whether the key prosecution witness (a forensic odontologist) was cross‐examined about the subjectivity of his interpretations and about his exposure to potentially biasing task‐irrelevant information. Jurors found the expert less credible and were less likely to convict when the expert admitted that his interpretation rested on subjective judgment, and when he admitted having been exposed to potentially biasing task‐irrelevant contextual information (relative to when these issues were not raised by the lawyers). The findings suggest, however, that forensic scientists can immunize themselves against such challenges and maximize the weight jurors give their evidence by adopting context management procedures that blind them to task‐irrelevant information.

Comments

This is a manuscript of an article published as Thompson, William C., and Nicholas Scurich. "How cross‐examination on subjectivity and bias affects jurors’ evaluations of forensic science evidence." Journal of forensic sciences 64, no. 5 (2019): 1379-1388. Posted with permission of CSAFE.

Copyright Owner

American Academy of Forensic Sciences

Language

en

File Format

application/pdf

Published Version

Share

COinS