Perceived infallibility of detection dog evidence: implications for juror decision-making

This study focuses on the trust that potential jurors have in unsubstantiated evidence and the implications of such trust for legal decision-making. We examined whether participants’ motivation to think deeply (‘need for cognition,’ NC) and belief in science moderated their trust in potentially fallible detection dog evidence when selecting a verdict in a trial scenario. A detection dog twice indicated the presence of drugs in the scenario, yet no drugs were actually found. Those who chose a guilty verdict without drugs present featured stronger beliefs in detection dog evidence. They were also more confident that a dog alert indicated the presence of drugs, even though the scientific literature actually shows that detection dog evidence is subject to biases and other challenges to reliability. Our findings indicate that an unsubstantiated belief and trust in detection dog evidence may negatively influence juror decision-making, which may, in turn, pose consequences for fairness and justice. Participants believed that detection dogs provide powerful and reliable evidence, and these beliefs were clearly associated with stronger beliefs in science. These findings, therefore, raise serious concerns about jurors’ indiscriminate trust in forensic evidence, be it detection dog evidence or other lines of evidence presented in court.     

JUDICIAL ROTATION AS CENTRIPETAL FORCE: SENTENCING IN THE COURT COMMUNITIES OF SOUTH CAROLINA*

Courts as communities theory emphasizes the sentencing differences that can arise between localities within a single state. The results of published studies have highlighted how local differences emerge based on informal sociological and political processes defined by the communities perspective. The findings from recent quantitative studies from South Carolina have revealed notably less county variation in sentencing than has been observed elsewhere. I use qualitative interviews with 13 South Carolina trial judges to investigate sentencing processes and to shed light on these findings. The interviews explore the state's legal structure and culture, including the practice of circuit rotation in which judges travel among counties holding court. The results suggest rotation serves as a centripetal force of sentencing culture, homogenizing what might otherwise be a more varied collection of county‐specific norms. Rotation leads to increased uniformity through judge shopping and the cross‐pollination of ideas and norms. Defendants can strategically judge shop and plead in front of a lenient judge—a process that gives rise to the term “plea judge,” which is a label for the most lenient judges who sentence a large number of defendants. Rotation also increases the interactions among judges and prosecutors, expanding networks and grapevines, and leading to cross‐pollination and the sharing of ideas.     

Understanding juror perceptions of forensic evidence: investigating the impact of case context on perceptions of forensic evidence strength

The most widely accepted model of juror decision making acknowledges the importance of both the case-specific information presented in the courtroom, as well as the prior general knowledge and beliefs held by each juror. The studies presented in this paper investigated whether mock jurors could differentiate between evidence of varying strengths in the absence of case information and then followed on to determine the influence that case context (and therefore the story model) has on judgments made about the strength of forensic DNA evidence. The results illustrated that mock jurors correctly identified various strengths of evidence when it was not presented with case information; however, the perceived strength of evidence was significantly inflated when presented in the context of a criminal case, particularly when the evidence was of a weak or ambiguous standard. These findings are discussed in relation to the story model, and the potential implications for real juries.     

论回避宪法判断原则

作为"权利的宣言书",宪法最明快地保护人权,理当在实践中发挥作用.但即使在宪法审查制度发达的国家,法院在引用宪法上也恪守消极主义立场,尽量回避宪法性判断,在法律层面上处理案件,充分尊重普通法律的稳定和立法权的独立.然而法律的制定常受现实的影响,从而忽略宪法的基本原则,如果盲目坚持回避宪法判断的原则,就会姑息纵容损害基本权的立法行为.所以当基本权受到明显的、持续的、严重的侵犯时,各国法院仍会积极适用宪法判断.这一点也值得国内实务界和学术界适当借鉴,以应付以宪法为诉讼依据的案件和事件.     

Cascading Bias of Initial Exposure to Information at the Crime Scene to the Subsequent Evaluation of Skeletal Remains,

Thirty‐eight participants took part in a study that investigated the potential cascading effects of initial exposure to extraneous context upon subsequent decision‐making. Participants investigated a mock crime scene, which included the excavation of clandestine burials that had a male skeletal cast dressed either in female or gender neutral clothing. This was followed by a forensic anthropological assessment of the skeletal remains, with a control group assessing the same male skeletal cast without any clothing context. The results indicated that the sex assessment was highly dependent upon the context in which participants were exposed to prior to the analysis. This was especially noticeable in the female clothing context where only one participant determined the male skeletal cast to be male. The results demonstrate the importance of understanding the role of context in forensic anthropology at an early stage of an investigation and its potential cascading effect on subsequent assessments.     

A Validation Study of the Langley et al. (2017) Decision Tree Model for Sex Estimation

Langley et al. (2017) developed a sex estimation decision tree utilizing two traditional cranial traits (glabella and mastoid) and a new trait: zygomatic extension. This study aimed to test the reliability of their zygomatic extension scoring method and validate their sex estimation method. Ordinal score data were collected from 281 male and female U.S. White and Black individuals. The five traditional cranial traits were collected from physical specimens, while zygomatic extension was scored from 3D cranial models. Intra‐ and interobserver analyses carried out on a subsample of 30 individuals indicate good agreement between zygomatic scores. The decision tree correctly sexed 71.5% of the sample, but a strong sex bias (94.2% correct for females, 49.3% correct for males) severely limits the utility of this method. The Walker (2008) and Stevenson et al. (2009) methods produced higher accuracy rates (80.8% and 82.6%, respectively), although these methods also produced sex and ancestry biases.     

Transferring custody from birth parents to foster parents – an ambiguous matter

In this study, we analyse 32 district court decisions regarding custody transfers from the birth parents to the foster parents in Sweden. When a child has been in foster care for three years, in order to enhance stability for child, the local social welfare committee considers a transferral of custody to the foster parents following an application to the district court. Although all but one of the decisions in our study favoured a custody transfer, the courts acknowledge different reasons for this. Specifically, there is vagueness about whether or not functioning contact between the child and birth parents is a hindrance in custody transfer. Our findings stress the need for clarification in the law regarding the criteria for custody transfer in order to reach a more unified judgment. Furthermore, the district courts do not sufficiently acknowledge children’s views, and we suggest that children and young people should be made more visible in the decision-making process.