Educating Jurors about Forensic Evidence: Using an Expert Witness and Judicial Instructions to Mitigate the Impact of Invalid Forensic Science Testimony

Invalid expert witness testimony that overstated the precision and accuracy of forensic science procedures has been highlighted as a common factor in many wrongful conviction cases. This study assessed the ability of an opposing expert witness and judicial instructions to mitigate the impact of invalid forensic science testimony. Participants (N = 155) acted as mock jurors in a sexual assault trial that contained both invalid forensic testimony regarding hair comparison evidence, and countering testimony from either a defense expert witness or judicial instructions. Results showed that the defense expert witness was successful in educating jurors regarding limitations in the initial expert's conclusions, leading to a greater number of not-guilty verdicts. The judicial instructions were shown to have no impact on verdict decisions. These findings suggest that providing opposing expert witnesses may be an effective safeguard against invalid forensic testimony in criminal trials.     

Communicating forensic scientific expertise: An analysis of expert reports and corresponding testimony in Tasmanian courts

Forensic criminology examines the use of forensic science in society. Justice can be hampered, for example, if the communication of forensic scientific findings is unclear or misleading, even if unintentionally. Although various recommendations guide the communication of forensic science, it is unclear whether they are reflected in practice. This study explored the communication of forensic biology in 10 cases of major crimes against the person heard in the Tasmanian Supreme Court, where the standard practice is to issue brief summary reports in the first instance. The content of expert reports and corresponding testimony was analysed to determine its adherence to recommendations outlined in standards, practice notes, and research. While reports were found to be very brief, testimony elaborated on all major elements. Mostly elicited by the prosecution, some elements were volunteered by expert witnesses, or raised by defence. Overall, expert evidence in courts—but not reports (due to the use of brief summary reports)—largely adhered to recommendations. Further research is needed to determine the prevalence and effectiveness of alternative approaches to communication that were identified in certain cases.     

Effects of Experiencing the Eyewitness Identification Procedure on Juror Decisions

Mistaken eyewitness identifications are believed to contribute to a preponderance of wrongful convictions, underscoring the need to identify methods to help decrease the likelihood of false convictions based on eyewitness testimony. The present study tested the hypothesis that providing jurors with first-hand experience with eyewitness identification procedures could help further sensitize them to the limitations of eyewitness testimony. Eighty college students watched a videotaped mock trial in which the prosecution’s sole evidence was eyewitness testimony. In a 2 × 2 randomized factorial design, we manipulated whether participants heard expert psychological testimony (henceforth referred to as expert testimony) on the limitations of eyewitness identification and whether they experienced an eyewitness identification procedure. As predicted, experiencing the eyewitness identification procedure had a significant impact on juror decisions, suggesting that this procedure could further help reduce the likelihood of wrongful convictions.     

Forensic Confirmation Bias: Do Jurors Discount Examiners Who Were Exposed to Task-Irrelevant Information?*†

Knowledge of task-irrelevant information influences judgments of forensic science evidence and thereby undermines their probative value (i.e., forensic confirmation bias). The current studies tested whether laypeople discount the opinion of a forensic examiner who had a priori knowledge of biasing information (i.e., a defendant's confession) that could have influenced his opinion. In three experiments, laypeople (N = 765) read and evaluated a trial summary which, for some, included testimony from a forensic examiner who was either unaware or aware of the defendant's confession, and either denied or admitted that it could have impacted his opinion. When the examiner admitted that the confession could have influenced his opinion, laypeople generally discounted his testimony, as evidenced by their verdicts and other ratings. However, when the examiner denied being vulnerable to bias, laypeople tended to believe him—and they weighted his testimony as strongly as that of the confession-unaware examiner. In short, laypeople generally failed to recognize the superiority of forensic science judgments made by context-blind examiners, and they instead trusted examiners who claimed to be impervious to bias. As such, our findings highlight the value of implementing context management procedures in forensic laboratories so as not to mislead fact-finders.     

刑事错判证明标准的名案解析

错判的发生具有普遍性和蛰伏性,错判的认知具有模糊性和对抗性,因此我们需要明确认定错判的证明标准。通过对美国、英国、德国的错判证明标准的实例解析,我们可以看到,他们在认定错判的时候都不适用刑事诉讼中认定被告人有罪的证明标准,而且认定错判的证明标准都低于认定有罪的证明标准。我们应该重新阐释中国刑事诉讼中错判的证明标准,而且应区分启动再审的证明标准、认定错判的证明标准和决定国家赔偿的证明标准。     

Case rethinking: a protocol for reviewing criminal investigations

Mistakes in decision-making have been identified as the most common type of error in police investigations. Consequently, wrongful convictions and other types of criminal investigative failure may require a complete case ‘rethinking,’ particularly when new evidence disrupts the existing theory. A rush to judgment resulting in a premature shift from an evidence-based to a suspect-based investigation can produce a number of problematic thinking errors. Faulty assumptions, tunnel vision, groupthink, and other cognitive biases and organizational traps hinder evidentiary interpretation and evaluation. This article outlines a protocol for reviewing evidence and rethinking a wrongful conviction or unsolved crime when the existing investigative theory appears to be incorrect. The protocol involves four stages: (1) evidence; (2) interpretation; (3) patterns; and (4) analysis.     

The over-citation of Daubert in forensic anthropology

The 1993 US Supreme Court decision Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. presented new guidance for the judicial assessment of expert witness evidence and testimony in the determination of admissibility. Despite the rarity of admissibility challenges to forensic anthropology evidence, Daubert is frequently cited in published forensic anthropology research. This study undertook a qualitative thematic analysis of forensic anthropology articles published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences to assess why authors continue to cite Daubert and express concerns over potential exclusion. The results show a significant increase in the number of articles that cite legal admissibility standards over time (p < 0.001). Authors frequently cite these standards to contextualize their results within the Daubert framework or to justify the need for their research. Notably, many articles present Daubert as a constraining force, misinterpreting the guidelines as rigid criteria or that they require methods to be strictly quantitative. However, Daubert was intended to be a flexible tool for judges—not a standard or instruction for scientists. While it was reasonable to reflect on the scientific rigor of methods in the wake of the Daubert decision, a new perspective is warranted in which forensic anthropologists shift their focus from trying to “satisfy” admissibility guidelines to adopting quality assurance measures that minimize error and ensure confidence in analytical results, and developing and using methods that are grounded in good science—which is important regardless of whether or not the results are ever the subject of a trial.     

Palynology: its position in the field of forensic science

Here we examine the current state of palynology in the field of forensic science. Forensic palynology is discussed with reference to other forensic disciplines to help understand what is required for its progress. Emerging developments are also discussed. Palynomorphs potentially deliver excellent trace evidence, fulfilling the requirements relating to the transfer, persistence, and detection of such evidence. Palynological evidence can provide very powerful investigative and associative evidence. Despite this, the application of palynology to forensic science has had mixed success. There are many anecdotal stories where pollen evidence has had spectacular successes. But it is extremely underutilized in most countries because it is labor-intensive and requires considerable expertise and experience, there is a lack of control over sample collection and inadequate resourcing and funding, and its crime-solving power is not well known. Palynology has been applied to forensic problems in an unstructured way, resulting in a lack of formalized discussion of the underlying principles. As there is renewed questioning of the acceptability of most evidence types in the current legal environment, there is a need for the establishment of palynological evidence through validation-type studies and experimentation, and the implementation of independent proficiency testing.     

Meeting a Forensic Podiatry Admissibility Challenge: A Daubert Case Study

This article is an introduction to the United States Supreme Court's standard of admissibility of forensic evidence and testimony at trial, known as the Daubert standard, with emphasis on how this standard applies to the field of forensic podiatry. The author, a forensic podiatrist, provided law enforcement with evidence tying a bloody sock‐clad footprint found at the scene of a homicide to the suspect. In 2014, the author testified at a pretrial hearing, known as “a Daubert hearing,” to address the admissibility of this evidence in court. This was the first instance of forensic podiatry being the primary subject of a Daubert hearing. The hearing resulted in the court ordering this evidence admissible. The expert's testimony contributed to the suspect's conviction. This article serves as a reference for forensic podiatrists and experts in similar fields that involve impression evidence, providing evidentiary standards and their impact on expert evidence and testimony.     

Courtroom testimony by psychologists on eyewitness identification issues

This article makes two major points in regard to expert psychological testimony on eyewitness identification. First, the attention devoted by psychologists to eyewitness identification issues is far out of proportion to the incidence of trials involving eyewitness identifications of criminal defendants; furthermore, the often-expressed concern over wrongful convictions is probably misplaced. Second, the experimental methods used in studies of eyewitness performance are fundamentally unsuited for drawing conclusions about actual witnesses. Hence, there is not an adequate scientific foundation for expert psychological testimony on eyewitness identification. Archival research is perhaps the most promising approach to the study of the criminal justice system.     

动物DNA分析在法庭科学中的应用

近年来,在法庭科学领域中,遇到越来越多的非人类DNA分型的问题,特别是来源于动物本身或者是动物的分泌物。作为证据,通过对犯罪现场非人类DNA的分型,不但可以知道在何地对何人或何物实施犯罪,而且,如果犯罪的实施方是动物,也可以知道其来自哪里。目前,在法医学领域,有关动物DNA分析方法的标准较少。根据国际法医遗传学会最新的研究成果,综述动物DNA在法庭科学中的应用现状和相关建议。     

Reuniting families: an online database to aid in the identification of undocumented immigrant remains

The Reuniting Families project attempts to aid federal, state and local agencies currently working towards the identification of deceased undocumented immigrants. This initiative has created a distributed on-line database, accessible by public officials and private citizens interested in searching for missing individuals based on both phenotypic and genotypic characteristics. This broad effort includes the exhumation of individuals from geographically disparate pauper graves, the classification of their physical characteristics, and the cataloging of observed metric traits in a local relational database, to include associated articles of possession and related metadata. Concurrent with the documentation of physical forensic evidence is the analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequences. Computational techniques and scoring parameters are applied to automate the process of discovery and identification as well at to preserve information on the missing. The result is a prototype knowledge base that may serve as a model for future efforts in international forensic science collaborations.     

国外法庭科学DNA实验室的质量保证和质量控制现状

法庭科学DNA检测飞速发展和广泛应用的同时也面临巨大风险,实验室质量保证能力和质量控制手段的不足已开始影响到法庭科学DNA检测的证据地位。本文对国外法庭科学DNA实验室的有关情况进行初步分析,从中发掘有益的启示,为我国法庭科学DNA检测的改革和发展提供借鉴。     

DNA evidence in South Africa: Lessons learned to date

A trend was noted over the past 15 years in the South African courts. This trend has a multi-factorial origin and highlights the problems faced in the use of forensic science evidence in court. Although there have been improvements on how DNA evidence is gathered and presented in court, due to the fact that certain cases have been contested at the DNA evidence level, multiple issues remain that have not yet been addressed when DNA evidence is submitted to court. These issues include: accreditation, regulation of the forensic science profession, continued education, training of court officials, quality assurance, biased testimony, lack of transparency with regard to processes and procedures followed in the forensic community, incorrect interpretation of DNA evidence, lack of scientific knowledge (including the scientific method) by DNA experts, awareness by the legal profession and an over emphasis on the prosecuting perspective. These same aspects continue to plague current cases. Despite the above, the window of opportunity to address the above has not yet passed. However, it will take continuous and concerted efforts from the scientific and legal professions to bring about the appropriate change to facilitate justice for all in South Africa.     

Considering forensic science: individual differences,opposing expert testimony and juror decision making

Two experimental studies examined the effect of opposing expert testimony on perceptions of the reliability of unvalidated forensic evidence (anthropometric facial comparison). In the first study argument skill and epistemological sophistication were included as measures of individual differences, whereas study two included scores on the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale. In both studies participants were assigned to groups who heard: (1) no expert testimony, (2) prosecution expert testimony, or (3) prosecution and opposing expert testimony. Opposing expert testimony affected verdict choice, but this effect was mediated by perceptions of reliability of the initial forensic expert's method. There was no evidence for an effect on verdict or reliability ratings by argument skill or epistemology. In the second experiment, the same mediation effect was found, however scores on one subscale from the FEEBS and age also affected both verdict and methodological reliability. It was concluded that opposing expert testimony may inform jurors, but perceptions of the reliability of forensic evidence affect verdict, and age and bias towards forensic science influence perceptions of forensic evidence. Future research should investigate individual differences that may affect perception or bias towards forensic sciences under varying conditions of scientific reliability.     

Forensic identification science evidence since Daubert: Part II--judicial reasoning in decisions to exclude forensic identification evidence on grounds of reliability

Many studies regarding the legal status of forensic science have relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's mandate in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., and its progeny in order to make subsequent recommendations or rebuttals. This paper focuses on a more pragmatic approach to analyzing forensic science's immediate deficiencies by considering a qualitative analysis of actual judicial reasoning where forensic identification evidence has been excluded on reliability grounds since the Daubert precedent. Reliance on general acceptance is becoming insufficient as proof of the admissibility of forensic evidence. The citation of unfounded statistics, error rates and certainties, a failure to document the analytical process or follow standardized procedures, and the existence of observe bias represent some of the concerns that have lead to the exclusion or limitation of forensic identification evidence. Analysis of these reasons may serve to refocus forensic practitioners' testimony, resources, and research toward rectifying shortfalls in these areas.     

The adequacy of China's responses to wrongful convictions

This paper examines a series of reforms that followed the discovery of high-profile wrongful convictions in China since 2005. There have been two waves of criminal justice reforms to prevent future wrongful convictions and to improve China's criminal justice system more generally. But it will be suggested in this paper that China's responses are inadequate because they allow traditional police and judicial practices that will lead to future wrongful convictions to continue. Further reforms will be suggested. First, police interrogations should be fully recorded, and the entire recording should be played back at trial. Second, the role of the defense counsel should be expanded. The use of state secrets as evidence against the accused should be curtailed. The close cooperation between the police, procuratorates and judiciary in the criminal justice should be counteracted by the creation of an independent body to review all serious convictions. Finally, the Chinese criminal justice has proven itself not safe enough to allow the broad use of capital punishment as a punishment for non-violent offences and at the very least, the immediate execution of prisoners who lose their final appeal must be abolished.     

法医学鉴定标准的现状与问题

司法鉴定标准化是一个世界性的司法话题,伴随我国司法改革的实施和政府对标准化工作的重视,我国将迎来建立法医学鉴定标准体系的黄金时代。然而当前我国法医学鉴定标准却存在标准少、质量参差不齐、更新缓慢、标准制定的科学性不足等问题,导致司法鉴定工作与实践脱轨,很多鉴定项目缺乏鉴定标准。为此,作者建议,正确认识法医学鉴定标准的法律地位和存在的错误,致力于法医学鉴定标准化。     

Assessing Cognitive Bias in Forensic Decisions: A Review and Outlook

In recent years, a number of studies have demonstrated that forensic examiners can be biased by task-irrelevant contextual information. However, concerns relating to methodological flaws and ecological validity attenuate how much the current body of knowledge can be applied to real-life operational settings. The current review takes a narrative approach to synthesizing the literature across forensic science. Further, the review considers three main issues: (i) primary research on contextual bias within forensic science; (ii) methodological criticisms of this research; (iii) an alternative perspective that task-irrelevant contextual information does not always lead to error. One suggestion for future research is outlined, which is that studies on contextual bias in forensic decisions should be conducted in collaboration between forensic scientists and cognitive psychologists. Only then can rigorous and ecological valid experiments be created that will be able to assess how task-irrelevant contextual information influences forensic analysis and judgments in operationally valid settings.     

New science,old convictions ? Texas Senate Bill 344: identifying further necessary reform in forensic science

In June 2013, Texas Senate Bill 344 (SB 344) was signed into law after strong Innocence Project support. SB 344 has since transformed the Texan judicial landscape. Known as the ‘Junk Science Writ’, SB 344 enables the court to grant habeas corpus relief based on scientific evidence that ‘(1) was not available to be offered by a convicted person at the convicted person''s trial; or (2) contradicts scientific evidence relied on by the state at trial’. Inmates, such as the ‘San Antonio Four’, whose convictions were based upon what is now considered ‘faulty’ medical and forensic testimony, have been released under SB 344. Yet, science, as a field dependent on innovation, is inherently prone to debunking the scientific and forensic methods the law has relied upon to convict individuals. This commentary identifies policy behind SB 344, how SB 344 may influence the perception of science in the courtroom, and how ‘junk science’ is defined and/or limited. Furthermore, this commentary concludes that to achieve justice in the legal system through habeas relief based on ‘junk science’, it is necessary to revitalize and standardize forensic science.