Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence

The results are reported of a study to examine case factors associated with 732 wrongful convictions classified by the National Registry of Exonerations as being associated with “False or Misleading Forensic Evidence.” A forensic error typology has been developed to provide a structure for the categorization and coding of factors relating to misstatements in forensic science reports; errors of individualization or classification; testimony errors; issues relating to trials and officers of the court; and evidence handling and reporting issues. This study, which included the analysis of 1391 forensic examinations, demonstrates that most errors related to forensic evidence are not identification or classification errors by forensic scientists. When such errors are made, they are frequently associated with incompetent or fraudulent examiners, disciplines with an inadequate scientific foundation, or organizational deficiencies in training, management, governance, or resources. More often, forensic reports or testimony miscommunicate results, do not conform to established standards, or fail to provide appropriate limiting information. Just as importantly, actors within the broader criminal justice system—but not under the purview of any forensic science organization—may contribute to errors that may be related to the forensic evidence. System issues include reliance on presumptive tests without confirmation by a forensic laboratory, use of independent experts outside the administrative control of public laboratories, inadequate defense, and suppression or misrepresentation of forensic evidence by investigators or prosecutors. In approximately half of wrongful convictions analyzed, improved technology, testimony standards, or practice standards may have prevented a wrongful conviction at the time of trial.     

Effects of pretrial juror bias,strength of evidence and deliberation process on juror decisions: new validity evidence of the Juror Bias Scale scores

This study examines the validity of the Juror Bias Scale scores in relation to the mock juror decisions reached in two real life homicide cases before and after the deliberation process. The judicial cases used varied in terms of the ambiguity of the evidence presented at both trials. The WLS methodology for statistical modelling of categorical data was used to analyse data. The findings indicated that the Juror Bias Scale scores successfully predict the verdicts and other related questions before and after deliberations in the case with ambiguous evidence. Furthermore, deliberations caused a generalisation effect on the pretrial juror bias in such a case, and enhanced the differences between defense-biased and prosecution-biased jurors in the verdicts delivered after deliberations. The implications of these findings are discussed in relation to the use of pretrial juror bias questionnaires in jury selection.     

Stereotyping,congruence and presentation order: Interpretative biases in utilizing offender profiles

Abstract

This paper explores how offender profiles might influence the way in which individuals interpret investigative information dependent on its congruence with the investigators’ own beliefs. Participants, comprising 222 lay people, completed an online questionnaire where a profile was either congruent or incongruent with a stereotypical or an atypical suspect who was presented before or after the introduction of the profile (resulting in eight conditions). Several cognitive strategies appeared to be used in interpreting the information. Contrary to expectations, individuals relying on representativeness heuristics were more influenced by a profile challenging their views than by one supporting them, whilst individuals who invested greater cognitive effort (termed hereafter “cognitive elaboration”) were more resistant to changing their views in light of disconfirming profiling advice. There was tentative evidence to suggest that a confirmation bias might occur when individuals engage in cognitive elaboration, such that individuals appeared to be more influenced by a confirming profile than by a disconfirming one. Finally, it was found that the profile was perceived to be more influential when presented before the introduction of a suspect than after. Implications for advising on the interpretation of such advice, as well as preparing such reports, are discussed.     

Age and lineup type differences in the own-race bias

The own-race bias (ORB) suggests that recognition for faces of one's own race is superior to recognition of other-race faces. A popular explanation for the ORB is amount of interracial contact, which may have cohort effects for older and younger adults. We compared White younger and older adults on the ORB utilizing a hybrid facial recognition and full diagnostic lineup (i.e., simultaneous and sequential target absent and target present lineups) paradigm. Both younger and older adults demonstrated an ORB. Signal detection estimates suggest younger adults compared to older adults have better discrimination accuracy for own-race over other-race faces. Interracial contact did not explain recognition for younger adults, but was related to a shift in response criterion for older adults.     

Predicting verdicts,adherence to judge's instructions,and assumptions about the disposition of the defendant in a case involving the insanity defense

Abstract

296 college students and jury eligible adults completed attitudinal measures and read a case summary of a murder trial involving the insanity defense. The case summary included opening and closing arguments, testimony from expert witnesses, and judge's instructions. Although broader legal attitudes (the PJAQ) predicted verdicts, the Insanity Defense Attitudes-Revised scale provided incremental predictive validity. Attitudes related to the insanity defense also predicted adherence to judge's instructions, whereas more general legal biases predicted a juror's willingness to change their verdict after being provided with accurate information about the defendant's disposition following the verdict. Importantly, misconceptions concerning the insanity defense impacted verdicts and many jurors made decisions that failed to adhere to the judge's instructions, though the nullification tendency does appear to vary as a function of pretrial juror attitudes. Implications for instructing jurors in insanity defense cases will be discussed.     

Congressional Communication: Content & Consequences,by Daniel Lipinski. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004. 143 pp. $29.95 paper.

Television interviews with political candidates are pivotal moments in election campaigns. Previous studies in Anglo-American contexts have shown that adversarialism in television interviews can be predicted by the power of the politician and by the status of the interviewer. However, worldwide the structural conditions of the liberal media system are unique. This article studies how the Anglo-American watchdog model of interviews should be adapted to polarized television markets such as Italy, where broadcast organizations are politically, financially, and historically linked to different political blocks. A content analysis of the level of toughness in questions posed to politicians from different parties during the 2006 and 2008 Italian general elections showed that, in line with the watchdog model, journalists are more adversarial toward politicians who are likely to win the elections. Apart from this, interviews in polarized television markets follow a different model: Interviewers with high status are less adversarial, politicians from minor parties face more threatening questions, and partisan bias is more important than role bias. The generalizability of this model is discussed in the light of the polarization of television markets, partisan segregation, and the potential consequences for vote choice and election outcomes.     

Is the Magic Still There? The Use of the Heckman Two-Step Correction for Selection Bias in Criminology

Issues of selection bias pervade criminological research. Despite their ubiquity, considerable confusion surrounds various approaches for addressing sample selection. The most common approach for dealing with selection bias in criminology remains Heckman’s [(1976) Ann Econ Social Measure 5:475–492] two-step correction. This technique has often been misapplied in criminological research. This paper highlights some common problems with its application, including its use with dichotomous dependent variables, difficulties with calculating the hazard rate, misestimated standard error estimates, and collinearity between the correction term and other regressors in the substantive model of interest. We also discuss the fundamental importance of exclusion restrictions, or theoretically determined variables that affect selection but not the substantive problem of interest. Standard statistical software can readily address some of these common errors, but the real problem with selection bias is substantive, not technical. Any correction for selection bias requires that the researcher understand the source and magnitude of the bias. To illustrate this, we apply a diagnostic technique by Stolzenberg and Relles [(1997) Am Sociol Rev 62:494–507] to help develop intuition about selection bias in the context of criminal sentencing research. Our investigation suggests that while Heckman’s two-step correction can be an appropriate technique for addressing this bias, it is not a magic solution to the problem. Thoughtful consideration is therefore needed before employing this common but overused technique.

RELYING ON THE UNRELIABLE: HOW A COURT RULE COULD ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEMS INHERENT IN THE NEUTRAL MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION PROCESS IN CHILD CUSTODY CASES

Many states lack standards as to who should be conducting neutral mental health evaluations in child custody proceedings and what these evaluations should be comprised of. This will occasionally result in an unqualified evaluator giving a recommendation to the court as to which parent should receive custody of their child[ren]. This Note advocates for courts to adopt a court rule which specifically enumerates the qualifications of neutral mental health evaluators in the hopes of regularizing the evaluation process. The first part of the proposal addresses who should conduct evaluations by establishing the required credentials of the evaluator and minimizing the amount of evaluator bias by screening the process. The second part of the proposal focuses on the training needed before an evaluator may conduct an examination, as well as the amount of experience required.     

Stereotypical Hate Crimes and Criminal Justice Processing: A Multi-Dataset Comparison of Bias Crime Arrest Patterns by Offender and Victim Race

Many hate crimes are not reported and even fewer hate crimes result in an arrest. This study investigates patterns of victim reporting and arrest for hate crimes in two parts. First, using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, we find that, controlling for offense severity, hate crimes are less likely than non-bias crimes to be reported to the police and that the police are less likely to take further action for hate crimes, compared to non-hate crimes. Second, we use data from the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the National Incident-Based Reporting System to compare differences between types of hate crimes in the likelihood of crime clearance. We find that those hate crimes most likely to result in arrest are those that fit the profile of a “stereotypical” hate crime: violent incidents, incidents committed by hate groups, and incidents involving white offenders and black victims.