Search

In criminal cases, forensic science reports and expert testimony play an increasingly important role in adjudication. More states now follow a federal reliability standard, which calls upon judges to assess the reliability and validity of scientific evidence. Little is known about how judges view their own background in forensic scientific evidence, and what types of specialized training they receive on it. In this study, we surveyed 164 judges from 39 different U.S. states, who attended past trainings at the National Judicial College. We asked these judges about their background in forensic science, their views concerning the reliability of common forensic disciplines, and their needs to better evaluate forensic science evidence. We discovered that judges held views regarding the scientific support for different forensic science disciplines that were fairly consistent with available literature; their error rate estimates were more supported by research than many estimates by laypersons, who often assume forensic methods are nearly infallible. We did not find any association between how judges rate forensic reliability and prior training. We did, however, find that training corresponded with judges' views that they should, and do in fact, take on a more active gatekeeping role regarding forensics. Regarding the tools judges need to vet forensic experts and properly evaluate forensic science evidence, they reported having very different backgrounds in relevant scientific concepts and having forensic science education needs. Judges reported needs in accessing better material concerning reliability of forensic science methods. These results support new efforts to expand scientific evidence education in the judiciary., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Forensic testimony plays a crucial role in many criminal cases, with requests to crime laboratories steadily increasing. As part of efforts to improve the reliability of forensic evidence, scientific and policy groups increasingly recommend routine and blind proficiency tests of practitioners. What is not known is how doing so affects how lay jurors assess testimony by forensic practitioners in court. In Study 1, we recruited 1398 lay participants, recruited online using Qualtrics to create a sample representative of the U.S. population with respect to age, gender, income, race/ethnicity, and geographic region. Each read a mock criminal trial transcript in which a forensic examiner presented the central evidence. The low-proficiency forensic examiner elicited a lower conviction rate and less favorable impressions than the control, an examiner for which no proficiency information was disclosed. However, the high-proficiency examiner did not correspondingly elicit a higher conviction rate or more favorable impressions than the control. In Study 2, 1420 participants, similarly recruited using Qualtrics, received the same testimony, but for some conditions the examiner was cross-examined by a defense attorney. We find cross-examination significantly reduced guilty votes and examiner ratings for low-proficiency examiners. These results suggest that disclosing results of blind proficiency testing can inform jury decision-making, and further, that defense lawyering can make proficiency information particularly salient at a criminal trial., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Latent print examination traditionally follows the ACE-V process, in which latent prints are first analyzed to determine whether they are suitable for comparison, and then compared to an exemplar and evaluated for similarities and differences. Despite standard operating procedures and quality controls designed, in part, to mitigate differences between examiners, latent print processing and review are inherently subjective. The ACE-V process addresses subjectivity, and the possibility of error, in the verification stage in which a second examiner repeats the analysis, comparison, and evaluation steps in a given case. Other procedures outside the ACE-V framework, such as consultation and conflict resolution, provide further opportunity to understand how differences between latent print examiners emerge. Despite the growing body of research on latent print examination, questions have emerged about how these procedures work in practice. This study reviews case processing data for two years of casework at the Houston Forensic Science Center (HFSC). We describe these data as cases proceed through each step of the ACE-V process, with a particular focus on verification, consultation, and conflict resolution. We discuss trends in these processes regarding modal types of disagreements, modal outcomes, and roles of the examiners involved. Results reveal implications for improving the practice of latent print examination., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)