Can Defense Attorneys Detect Forensic Confirmation Bias?

Knowledge of task-irrelevant information undermines the probative value of forensic evidence (i.e., forensic confirmation bias). Cross-examination may sensitize jurors to bias – but do attorneys recognize when bias has tainted evidence against their client and adjust their cross-examination strategy accordingly? To address this question, 130 defense attorneys imagined representing a man charged with manslaughter and reviewed a case file that included, among other things, an autopsy report from a medical examiner who was either aware or unaware of their client’s recanted confession before ruling the death a homicide. When the examiner knew of the confession, attorneys rated the autopsy as no less probative or reliable, they were no less confident in their client’s guilt, and only 46% raised the possibility of confirmation bias on cross-examination. Our findings suggest that defense attorneys underappreciate the impact of forensic confirmation bias, such that biased forensic testimony would be better avoided via procedural reform.

Can Defense Attorneys Detect Forensic Confirmation Bias? Effects on Evidentiary Judgments and Trial Strategies

Knowledge of task-irrelevant information undermines the probative value of forensic evidence (i.e., forensic confirmation bias). Cross-examination may sensitize jurors to bias—but do attorneys recognize when bias has tainted evidence against their client and adjust their cross-examination strategy accordingly? To address this question, 130 defense attorneys imagined representing a man charged with manslaughter and reviewed a case file that included, among other things, an autopsy report from a medical examiner who was either aware or unaware of their client’s recanted confession before ruling the death a homicide. When the examiner knew of the confession, attorneys rated the autopsy as no less probative or reliable, they were no less confident in their client’s guilt, and only 46% raised the possibility of confirmation bias on cross-examination. Our findings suggest that defense attorneys underappreciate the impact of forensic confirmation bias, such that biased forensic testimony would be better avoided via procedural reform.

Beliefs about error rates and human judgment in forensic science

Forensic science techniques are often used in criminal trials to infer the identity of theperpetrator of crime and jurors often find this evidence very persuasive. Unfortunately, two of the leading causes of wrongful convictions are forensic science testing errors and false or misleading forensic testimony (Saks & Koehler, 2005). Therefore, it is important to understand jurors pre- existing beliefs about forensic science, as these beliefs may impact how they evaluate forensic evidence in the courtroom. In this study, we examine people’s perceptions of the likelihood of error and human judgment involved at each stage of the forensic science process (i.e., collection, storage, testing, analysis, reporting, and presenting). In addition, we examine peoples’ perceptions of the accuracy of — and human judgment involved in — 16 different forensic techniques. We find that, in contrast to what would be expected by the CSI effect literature, participants believed that the process of forensic science involved considerable human judgment and was relatively error-prone. In addition, participants had wide-ranging beliefs about the accuracy of various forensic techniques, ranging from 65.18% (document analysis) up to 89.95% (DNA). For some forensic techniques, estimates were lower than that found in experimental proficiency studies, suggesting that our participants are more skeptical of certain forensic evidence than they need to be. Keywords: Forensic science, forensic evidence, accuracy, error rate, CSI effect.

Cross-Border Testifying Tips: U.S. Experts in Canada and Canadian Experts in the U.S.

Professionals who are allowed by a court to serve as expert witnesses are granted the special legal status of offering opinion and theoretical evidence based on human factors research and provided facts that the expert did not witness themselves. The role of the Human Factors forensic expert in U.S. and Canadian court cases has become more common over the past two decades as lawyers become increasingly aware of the specialized nature of this field of study. U.S. and Canadian Human Factors experts sometimes find themselves being retained by firms on the other side of the border due to their specialized experience and training in a particular area relevant to the case at hand. In such situations, the expert will need to deal with differences in legal systems and differences in client expectations between the U.S. and Canada. The goal of this panel discussion session is to share the combined experience and knowledge of the panelists with the audience regarding the most significant differences between U.S. and Canadian clients, courtrooms, and procedures in forensic testimony, so that the expert knows what to expect when accepting a cross-border retention.