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

References

• Ask, K., Reinhard, M.-A., Marksteiner, T., & Granhag, P. A. (2010). Elasticity in evaluations of criminal evidence: Exploring the role of cognitive dissonance. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16(2), 289–306. doi: 10.1348/135532510X510153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin, J. L. (2013). Evaluating the influence of Daubert’s cross-examination safeguard on attorneys’ and jurors’ judgments about scientific evidence. (Order No. 3589751). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (1430910883). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1430910883?accountid=8203
   Google Scholar
• Bentler, P. M, & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (2002). EQS for Windows user’s guide. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H. (2004). The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors’ liability verdicts. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(4), 429–446. doi: 10.1080/1068316030001629292
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodsky, S. L., Griffin, M. P., & Cramer, R. J. (2010). The witness credibility scale: An outcome measure for expert witness research. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(6), 892–907. doi: 10.1002/bsl.917
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bromby, M. C. (2003). At face value? New Law Journal, Expert Witness Supplement, 153, 302–304.
   Google Scholar
• Cole, S. A. (2015). A surfeit of science: The “CSI effect” and the media appropriation of the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 24(2), 130–146. doi: 10.1177/0963662513481294
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole, S. A., & Dioso-Villa, R. (2011). Should judges worry about the “CSI Effect”? Court Review, 47, 20–102.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, J., & Neuhaus, I. M. (2000). The “hired gun” effect: Assessing the effect of pay, frequency of testifying, and credentials on the perception of expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 24(2), 149–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cramer, R. J., Harris, P. B., Fletcher, L. M., DeCoster, J., & Brodsky, S. L. (2011). A confidence-credibility model of expert witness persuasion: Mediating effects and implications for trial consultation. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63(2), 129–137. doi: 10.1037/a0024591
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 7(2), 215–225. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2370070206
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14(2), 185–191. doi: 10.1007/BF01062972
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dartnall, S., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). Enhancing juror understanding of probabilistic DNA evidence. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 38(2), 85–96. doi: 10.1080/00450610609410635
   Google Scholar
• De La Fuente, L., De La Fuente, E. I., & García, J. (2003). Effects of pretrial juror bias, strength of evidence and deliberation process on juror decisions: New validity evidence of the Juror Bias Scale scores. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9(2), 197–209. doi: 10.1080/1068316031000116283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devenport, J., & Cutler, B. L. (2004). Impact of defense-only and opposing eyewitness experts on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 28(5), 569–576. doi: 10.1023/B:LAHU.0000046434.39181.07
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E., & Cole, S. A. (2010). The vision in “blind” justice: Expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(2), 161–167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edmond, G. (2012). Is reliability sufficient? The Law Commission and expert evidence in international and interdisciplinary perspective (Part 1). The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 16(1), 30–65. doi: 10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.391
   Google Scholar
• Edmond, G. (2013a). (Ad)ministering justice: Expert evidence and the professional responsibilities of prosecutors. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 36(3), 921–953.
   Google Scholar
• Edmond, G. (2013b). Just truth? Carefully applying history, philosophy and sociology of science to the forensic use of CCTV images. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44(1), 80–91. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2012.09.004
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Edmond, G., Biber, K., Kemp, R. I., & Porter, G. (2009). Law’s looking glass: Expert identification evidence derived from photographic and video images (Australia). Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 20(3), 337–377.
   Google Scholar
• Edmond, G., Cole, S. A., Cunliffe, E., & Roberts, A. J. (2014). Admissibility compared: The reception of incriminating expert evidence (i.e., forensic science) in four adversarial jurisdictions. University of Denver Criminal Law Review, 3, 31–109.
   Google Scholar
• Ellsworth, P. (1993). Some steps between attitudes and verdicts. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: the psychology of juror decision making (pp. 42–64). Cambridge New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feigenson, N. (2010). Visual evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(2), 149–154. doi: 10.3758/pbr.17.2.149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feigenson, N., & Spiesel, C. (2009). Law on display: The digital transformation of legal persuasion and judgment. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Garrett, B. L., & Mitchell, G. (2016). Forensics and fallibility: Comparing the views of lawyers and judges. West Virginia Law Review, 119, 2016–2063.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Wakabayashi, K. (2012). Adversarial forensic science experts: An empirical study of jury deliberation (Australia) (Forensic science and justice: From crime scene to court and beyond). Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 24(1), 85–103.
   Google Scholar
• Hans, V. P., Kaye, D. H., Michael Dann, B., Farley, E. J., & Albertson, S. (2011). Science in the jury box: Jurors’ comprehension of mitochondrial DNA evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 35(1), 60–71. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9222-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heyer, R., & Semmler, C. (2013). Forensic confirmation bias: The case of facial image comparison. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 68–70. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofer, B. K. (2002). Personal epistemology as a psychological and educational construct: An introduction. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 3–14). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Hurwitz, S. D., Miron, M. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1992). Source credibility and the language of expert testimony 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(24), 1909–1939. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb01530.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innocence Project. (2016). Unvalidated or improper forensic science. Retrieved from http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/unvalidated-or-improper-forensic-science/
   Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koehler, J. J. (2017). Intuitive error rate estimates for the forensic sciences. Jurimetrics, 57, 153–168.
   Google Scholar
• Kovera, M. B., Levy, R. J., Borgida, E., & Penrod, S. D. (1994). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: Effects of expert evidence type and cross-examination. Law and Human Behavior, 18(6), 653–674. doi: 10.1007/BF01499330
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krauss, D. A., & Sales, B. D. (2001). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(2), 267–310. doi: 10.1037//1076-8971.7.2.267
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309–328. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00030-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D, Pennington, N, & Leadbeater, B. (1983). Adult thinking in developmental perspective. Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 157–195). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., Weinstock, M., & Flaton, R. (1994). How well do jurors reason? Competence dimensions of individual variation in a juror reasoning task. Psychological Science, 5(5), 289–296. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levett, L., & Kovera, M. B. (2008). The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 32(4), 363–374. doi: 10.1007/s10979-007-9113-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levett, L., & Kovera, M. B. (2009). Psychological mediators of the effects of opposing expert testimony on juror decisions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15(2), 124–148. doi: 10.1037/a0016309
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieberman, J. D., Carrell, C. A., Miethe, T. D., & Krauss, D. A. (2008). Gold versus platinum: Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(1), 27–62. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.14.1.27
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorandos, D. (2017). Expert evidence post-Daubert: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Litigation, 43(3), 18–19.
   Google Scholar
• Mardia, K. V., Coombes, A., Kirkbride, J., Linney, A., & Bowie, J. L. (1996). On statistical problems with face identification from photographs. Journal of Applied Statistics, 23(6), 655–676. doi: 10.1080/02664769624008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martire, K. A., & Kemp, R. I. (2009). The impact of eyewitness expert evidence and judicial instruction on juror ability to evaluate eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 33(3), 225–236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAuliff, B. D., & Duckworth, T. D. (2010). I spy with my little eye: Jurors’ detection of internal validity threats in expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 34(6), 489–500. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9219-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M., & Nunez, G. (2009). Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science? Law and Human Behavior, 33(3), 247–257. doi: 10.1007/s10979-008-9133-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellis, C., Peat, J. K., Williams, K., & Xuan, W. (2001). Health science research: A handbook of quantitative methods. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Murdoch v The Queen (2007) NTCCA 1.
   Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Neal, T. M. S., Guadagno, R. E., Eno, C. A., & Brodsky, S. L. (2012). Warmth and competence on the witness stand: Implications for the credibility of male and female expert witness. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 40(4), 488–497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien, K., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Clough, J., Pratley, J., & Australian Institute of Criminology. (2008). Factors affecting juror satisfaction and confidence in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
   Google Scholar
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). The story model for juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 192–225). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pezdek, K., Avila-Mora, E., & Sperry, K. (2010). Does trial presentation medium matter in jury simulation research? Evaluating the effectiveness of eyewitness expert testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(5), 673–690. doi: 10.1002/acp.1578
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podlas, K. (2006). “The CSI effect”: Exposing the media myth. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 16, 429–1349.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, G. (2007). Visual culture in forensic science. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 39(2), 81–91. doi: 10.1080/00450610701650054
   Google Scholar
• Porter, G. (2009). CCTV images as evidence. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 41(1), 11–25. doi: 10.1080/00450610802537960
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, G. (2012). Zak coronial inquest and the interpretation of photographic evidence. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 24(1), 39–49.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, G., & Kennedy, M. (2012). Photographic truth and evidence. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44(2), 183–192. doi: 10.1080/00450618.2011.634835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2016). Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast/docsreports
   Google Scholar
• Risinger, D. M., Saks, M. J., Thompson, W. C., & Rosenthal, R. (2002). The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Review, 90, 1–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, P., & Zuckerman, A. (2010). Criminal evidence (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• R v Alrekabi, 110 (NSWDC 2007).
   Google Scholar
• R v Tang, 65 681 (NSWLR 2006).
   Google Scholar
• Saks, M. J., & Koehler, J. J. (2005). The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science, 309, 892–895. doi: 10.1126/science.1111565
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saks, M. J., & Koehler, J. J. (2008). The individualization fallacy in forensic science evidence. Vanderbilt Law Review, 61(1), 199–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scurich, N., Krauss, D. A., Reiser, L., Garcia, R. J., & Deer, L. (2015). Venire jurors’ perceptions of adversarial allegiance. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(2), 161–168. doi: 10.1037/law0000042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, L., & Bull, R. (2012). Identifying and measuring juror pre-trial bias for forensic evidence: Development and validation of the forensic evidence evaluation bias scale. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(9), 797–815. doi: 10.1080/1068316x.2011.561800
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, L., & Bull, R. (2014). Validation of the factor structure and predictive validity of the forensic evidence evaluation bias scale for robbery and sexual assault trial scenarios. Psychology, Crime and Law, 20(5), 450–466. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2013.793340
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, W. C. (2008). Beyond bad apples: Analyzing the role of forensic science in wrongful convictions. Southwestern University Law Review, 37(4), 1027–1050.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, W. C., & Cole, S. A. (2007). Psychological aspects of forensic identification evidence. In M. Costanzo, D. Krauss, & K. Pezdek (Eds.), Expert psychological testimony for the court (pp. 31–68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Thornton, J., & Peterson, J. (2007). The general assumptions and rationale of forensic identification. In D. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony, Vol. 1 (pp. 29–37). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Group.
   Google Scholar
• Weinstock, M. (2011). Knowledge-telling and knowledge-transforming arguments in mock jurors’ verdict justifications. Thinking & Reasoning, 17(3), 282–314. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2011.575191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinstock, M., & Cronin, M. A. (2003). The everyday production of knowledge: Individual differences in epistemological understanding and juror-reasoning skill. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 161–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinstock, M., & Flaton, R. (2004). Evidence coverage and argument skills: Cognitive factors in a juror’s verdict choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(3), 191–212. doi: 10.1002/bdm.470
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. doi: 10.1177/0013164413495237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar