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

References

• Baskin, D.R., & Sommers, I.B. (2010). Crime-show-viewing habits and public attitudes toward forensic evidence: The “CSI effect” revisited. Justice System Journal, 31(1), 97–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, N., & Wells, G.L. (2011). Eyewitness identification. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 24–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke, A.S. (2005). Improving prosecutorial decision making: Some lessons of cognitive science. William & Mary Law Review, 47, 1587.
   Google Scholar
• Cablk, M.E., & Heaton, J.S. (2006). Accuracy and reliability of dogs in surveying for desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). Ecological Applications, 16(5), 1926–1935.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cablk, M.E., & Sagebiel, J.C. (2011). Field capability of dogs to locate individual human teeth. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56(4), 1018–1024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Feinstein, J.A., Blair, W., & Jarvis, G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 197–253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., & Kao, C.F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Call, J.E. (2007). The Supreme Court and police practices: The last two terms. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(2), 105–119.
   Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L.J., & Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daubert Standard. (n.d.). In Legal information institute. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard
   Google Scholar
• Dror, I.E. (2016). A hierarchy of expert performance. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(2), 121–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I.E. (2017). Human expert performance in forensic decision making: Seven different sources of bias. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 49, 541–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I.E. (2018). Biases in forensic experts. Science, 360(6386), 243.
   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
• Ensminger, J., Jezierski, T., & McCulloch, M. (2010). Scent identification in criminal investigations and prosecutions: New protocal designs improve forensic reliability. SSRN. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1664766
   Google Scholar
• Fazekas, M. (2012). Pawing their way to the Supreme Court: The evidence required to prove a narcotic detection dog’s reliability. Northern Illinois University Law Review, 32, 473–505.
   Google Scholar
• Fradella, H.F. (2007). Why judges should admit expert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identifications. Federal Courts Law Review, 2(1), 2–25.
   Google Scholar
• Fradella, H.F., O’Neill, L., & Fogarty, A. (2004). The impact of Daubert on forensic science. Pepperdine Law Review, 31, 323–361.
   Google Scholar
• Furton, K.G., & Myers, L.J. (2001). The scientific foundation and efficacy of the use of canines as chemical detectors for explosives. Talanta, 54(3), 487–500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garner, K.J., Busbee, L., Cornwell, P., Edmonds, J., Mullins, K., Rader, K., & Williams, J.M. (2001). Duty cycle of the detector dog: A baseline study. Institute for Biological Detection Systems, Auburn University.
   Google Scholar
• Gazit, I., Goldblatt, A., & Terkel, J. (2005). The role of context specificity in learning: The effects of training context on explosives detection in dogs. Animal Cognition, 8(3), 143–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gazit, I., Lavner, Y., Bloch, G., Azulai, O., Goldblatt, A., & Terkel, J. (2003). A simple system for the remote detection and analysis of sniffing in explosives detection dogs. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 35(1), 82–89.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gelman, A., Fagan, J., & Kiss, A. (2007). An analysis of the New York City police department’s “stop-and-frisk” policy in the context of claims of racial bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102(479), 813–823.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gudjonsson, G.H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Guttman, L. (1954). Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis. Psychometrika, 19(2), 149–161.
   Google Scholar
• Hans, V.P., Kaye, D.H., Dann, B.M., 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, R.M., & Levett, L.M. (2013). Community members’ perceptions of the CSI effect. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(2), 216–235.
   Google Scholar
• Hylton, H. (2009, August 3). Dogs and the scent of a crime. Science or shaky evidence? Time, 174.
   Google Scholar
• Innocence Project of Texas. (2009). Dog scent lineups: A junk science injustice. Fort Worth, TX: Jeff Blackburn.
   Google Scholar
• Issel-Tarver, L., & Rine, J. (1996). Organization and expression of canine olfactory receptor genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(20), 10897–10902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jezierski, T. (2016). Scent lineups: Variables in procedures and statistical verification. In T. Jezierski, J. Ensminger, & L.E. Papet (Eds.), Canine olfaction science and law: Advances in forensic science, medicine, conservation, and environmental remediation (pp. 279–298). New York, NY: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jezierski, T., Ensminger, J., & Papet, L.E. (2016). Section IV: Uses in forensics and law. In T. Jezierski, J. Ensminger, & L.E. Papet (Eds.), Canine olfaction science and law: Advances in forensic science, medicine, conservation, and environmental remediation (pp. 213–216). New York, NY: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jezierski, T., Gorecka-Bruzda, A., Walczak, M., Swiergiel, A.H., Chruszczewski, M.H., & Pearson, B.L. (2010). Operant conditioning of dogs (Canis familiaris) for identification of humans using scent lineup. Animal Science Papers and Reports, 1, 28.
   Google Scholar
• Johnen, D., Wolfgang, H., & Fischer-Tenhagen, C. (2017). An approach to identify bias in scent detection dog testing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 189, 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser, H.F. (1961). A note on Guttman lower bound for the number of common factors. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 14(1), 1–2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S.M. (2012). Why confessions trump innocence. American Psychologist, 67, 431–445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S.M., & Gudjonsson, G.H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 33–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz, S.R., & Midkiff, C.R. (1998). Unconfirmed canine accelerant detection: A reliability issue in court. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43(2), 329–333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Komar, D. (1999). The use of cadaver dogs in locating scattered, scavenged human remains: Preliminary field test results. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44(2), 405–408.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lesniak, A., Walczak, M., Jezierski, T., Sacharczuk, M., Gawkowski, M., & Jaszczak, K. (2008). Canine olfactory receptor gene polymorphism and its relation to odor detection performance by sniffer dogs. Journal of Heredity, 99(5), 518–527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lit, L., Boehm, D., Marzke, S., Schweitzer, J., & Oberbauer, A.M. (2010). Certification testing as an acute naturalistic stressor for disaster dog handlers. Stress, 13(5), 392–401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lit, L., & Crawford, C.A. (2006). Effects of training paradigms on search dog performance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 98(3–4), 277–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lit, L., Schweitzer, J.B., & Oberbauer, A.M. (2011). Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes. Animal Cognition, 14(3), 387–394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loftus, E.F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning & Memory, 12(4), 361–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundman, R.J., & Kaufman, R.L. (2003). Driving while black: Effects of race, ethnicity, and gender on citizen self‐reports of traffic stops and police actions. Criminology, 41(1), 195–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAuliff, B.D., & Kovera, M.B. (2008). Juror need for cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(2), 385–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minhinnick, S. (2016). Statistical reliability confounders and improvement in advanced dog training: Patterns, routines, targets, alerts, distractors, reinforcement, and other issues. In T. Jezierski, J. Ensminger, & L.E. Papet (Eds.), Canine olfaction science and law: Advances in forensic science, medicine, conservation, and environmental remediation (pp. 197–212). New York, NY: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation. (2006). Science and engineering indicators 2006. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s3.htm.
   Google Scholar
• President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2016). Report to the president, forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods, executive office of the president. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Rhineberger-Dunn, G., Briggs, S.J., & Rader, N. (2016). Clearing crime in prime-time: The disjuncture between fiction and reality. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(2), 255–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robbers, M.L. (2008). Blinded by science: The social construction of reality in forensic television shows and its effect on criminal jury trials. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(1), 84–102.
   Google Scholar
• Schoon, A., & Haak, R. (2002). K9 suspect discrimination: Training and practicing scent identification line-ups. Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises Lts.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, A. (2015). Taking a bite out of forensic science: The misuse of accelerant-detecting dogs in arson cases. The John Marshall Law Review, 48, 1149–1176.
   Google Scholar
• Shestowsky, D., & Horowitz, L.M. (2004). How the need for cognition scale predicts behavior in mock jury deliberations. Law and Human Behavior, 28(3), 305–337.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shoebotham, L.A. (2016). Canine drug-detection evidence: Admissibility, canine qualifications, and investigative practices. In T. Jezierski, J. Ensminger, & L.E. Papet (Eds.), Canine olfaction science and law: Advances in forensic science, medicine, conservation, and environmental remediation (pp. 217–243). New York, NY: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, L.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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R.C.L. (2003). Eyewitness accuracy rates in police showup and lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 523–540.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taslitz, A.E. (1990). Does the cold nose know - The unscientific myth of the dog scent lineup. Hastings Law Journal, 42(1), 15–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taslitz, A.E. (2013). The cold nose might actually know: Science & scent lineups. Criminal Justice, 28, 4–8 & 55–56.
   Google Scholar
• Tillyer, R. (2014). Opening the black box of officer decision-making: An examination of race, criminal history, and discretionary searches. Justice Quarterly, 31(6), 961–985.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walczak, M., Jezierski, T., Gorecka-Bruzda, A., Sobczynska, M., & Ensminger, J. (2012). Impact of individual training parameters and manner of taking breath odor samples on the reliability of canines as cancer screeners. Journal of Veterinary Behavior-Clinical Applications and Research, 7(5), 283–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, S. (1993). Taming the system: The control of discretion in criminal justice, 1950-1990. New York, NY: Oxford University Press on Demand.
   Google Scholar
• Warren, P., Tomaskovic Devey, D., Smith, W., Zingraff, M., & Mason, M. (2006). Driving while black: Bias processes and racial disparity in police stops. Criminology, 44(3), 709–738.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar