Understanding of forensic expert reports by judges, defense lawyers and forensic professionals

References

• Aitken , C. and Taroni , F. 2004 . Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists , 2nd ed , Chichester : John Wiley & Sons .
   Google Scholar
• Balding , D.J. , & Donnelly , P. 1994 . The prosecutor's fallacy and DNA evidence . Criminal Law Review , 711 – 721 .
   Google Scholar
• Broeders , A.P.A. 1999 . Some observations on the use of probability scales in forensic identification . Forensic Linguistics , 6 : 228 – 241 .
   Google Scholar
• Broeders , A.P.A. 2005 . “ Individualisatie in de traditionele criminalistiek ” . In Het onzekere bewijs. Gebruik van statistiek en kansrekening in het strafrecht , Edited by: Sjerps , M.J. and Coster van Voorhout , J.A. 49 – 97 . Deventer : Kluwer .
   Google Scholar
• Brun , W. and Teigen , K.H. 1988 . Verbal probabilities: Ambiguous, context-dependent, or both? . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 41 : 390 – 404 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckleton , J. 2005 . “ A framework for interpreting evidence ” . In Forensic DNA evidence interpretation , Edited by: Buckleton , J. , Triggs , C.M. and Walsh , S.J. 27 – 63 . London : CRC Press .
   Google Scholar
• Buckleton , J. , Triggs , C.M. and Walsh , S.J. 2005 . Forensic DNA evidence interpretation , London : CRC Press .
   Google Scholar
• Champod , C. and Evett , I.W. 2000 . Commentaries on Broeders’ ‘Some observations on the use of probability scales in forensic identification’ . Forensic Linguistics , 7 : 238 – 243 .
   Google Scholar
• De Keijser , J.W. , Elffers , H. , Kok , R.M. and Sjerps , M.J. 2009 . Bijkans Begrepen? Feitelijk en vermeend begrip van forensische deskundigenrapportages onder rechters, advocaten en deskundigen , Den Haag : Boom Juridische uitgevers .
   Google Scholar
• Evett , I.W. 1987 . Bayesian inference and forensic science: Problems and perspectives . The Statistician , 36 : 99 – 105 .
   Google Scholar
• Evett , I.W. and Buckleton , J.S. 1989 . Some aspects of the Bayesian approach to evidence evaluation . Journal of the Forensic Science Society , 29 : 317 – 324 .
   Google Scholar
• Evett , I.W. 1995 . Avoiding the transposed conditional . Science & Justice , 35 : 127 – 131 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenton , N. and Neil , M. 2000 . The ‘Jury Observation Fallacy’ and the use of Bayesian networks to present probabilistic legal arguments . Mathematics Today , 36 : 180 – 187 .
   Google Scholar
• Gatowski , S.I. , Dobbin , S.A. , Richardson , J.T. , Ginsburg , G.P. , Merlino , M.L. and Dahir , V. 2001 . Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert World . Law and Human Behavior , 25 : 433 – 458 .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grunberg , S.M. , Groshen , S. , Steingass , S. , Zaretsky , S. and Meyerowitz , B. 1996 . Comparison of conditional quality of life terminology and visual analogue scale measurements . Quality of Life Research , 5 : 65 – 72 .
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaasa , S.O. , Peterson , T. , Morris , E.K. and Thompson , W.A. 2007 . Statistical inference and forensic evidence: Evaluating a bullet lead match . Law & Human Behavior , 31 : 433 – 447 .
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kerkmeester , H.O. 2005 . “ Het gebruik van Bayesiaanse statistiek in strafprocessen ” . In Het onzekere bewijs. Gebruik van statistiek en kansrekening in het strafrecht , Edited by: Sjerps , M.J. and Coster van Voorhout , J.A. 99 – 129 . Deventer : Kluwer .
   Google Scholar
• Koehler , J.J. 1993 . Error and exaggeration in the presentation of DNA evidence . Jurimetrics Journal , 34 : 21 – 39 .
   Google Scholar
• Meester , R. and Sjerps , M. 2004 . Why the effect of prior odds should accompany the likelihood ratio when reporting DNA evidence . Law & Probability , 3 : 51 – 62 .
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council . 2009 . Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward . Washington , DC : The National Academies Press .
   Google Scholar
• NFI 2008 . Vakbijlage: De reeks waarschijnlijkheidstermen van het NFI en het Bayesiaanse model voor interpretatie van bewijs . Retrieved 1 November 2009, from http://www.forensischinstituut.nl/Images/NFI%20Vakbijlage%20Waarschijnlijkheidstermen_tcm68-144353.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Olson , M.J. and Budescu , D.V. 1997 . Patterns of preference for numerical and verbal probabilities . Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , 10 : 117 – 131 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson , B. and Vignaux , G.A. 1995 . Interpreting evidence: Evaluating forensic science in the courtroom , Chichester : John Wiley & Sons .
   Google Scholar
• Sjerps M.J. 2000 Pros and cons of Bayesian reasoning in forensic science . In Nijboer J.F. Sprangers W.J.J.M. (Eds.), Harmonization in forensic expertise Thela Thesis Amsterdam Series Criminal Sciences . pp. 557 – 585
   Google Scholar
• Sjerps , M.J. and Biesheuvel , D.B. 1999 . The interpretation of conventional and ‘Bayesian’ verbal scales for expressing expert opinion: A small experiments among jurists . Forensic Linguistics , 6 : 214 – 227 .
   Google Scholar
• Taroni , F. and Aitken , C.G.G. 1998 . Probabilistic reasoning and the law Part 1: Assessment of probabilities and explanation of the value of DNA evidence . Science & Justice , 38 : 165 – 177 .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson , W.C. and Schumann , E.L. 1987 . Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutor's fallacy and the defense attorney's fallacy . Law and Human Behavior , 11 : 167 – 187 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson , W.C. 1989 . Are juries competent to evaluate statistical evidence? . Law and Contemporary Problems , 52 : 9 – 40 .
   Google Scholar