Group to Individual (G2i) Inference in Scientific Expert Testimony

Abstract

A fundamental divide exists between what scientists do as scientists and what courts often ask them to do as expert witnesses. Whereas scientists almost invariably inquire into phenomena at the group level, trial courts typically need to resolve cases at the individual level. In short, scientists generalize while courts particularize. A basic challenge for trial courts that rely on scientific experts, therefore, concerns determining whether and how scientific knowledge derived from studying t JohnThe University of Chicago Law Review [81:417 groups can be helpful in the individual cases before them (what this Article refers to as "G2i'). To aid in dealing with this challenge, this Article proposes a distinction between two types of expert evidence.-framework evidence that describes general scientific propositions and diagnostic evidence that applies the general propositions to individual cases. It then examines the evidentiary implications of that distinction. Most importantly, admissibility standards for expert testimony should differ depending on whether experts are proffering framework or diagnostic evidence. Judicial analysis of "fit," expert qualifications, testability, error rates, peer review, general acceptance, helpfulness, and other traditional admissibility criteria for expert evidence will often vary, sometimes significantly, based on this distinction. The Article provides general guidelines about the best practices judges should follow in sorting through these considerations. These guidelines will permit courts to manage G2i inferences in a more informed and coherent way than they do currently.

What Sexual Recidivism Rates Are Associated With Static-99R and Static-2002R Scores?

“…In routine correctional practice, decisions concerning the credibility of risk assessment procedures are typically the responsibility of central administrators who set standardized policy concerning the use and interpretation of risk tools. In forensic psychology and psychiatry, however, the expert witness typically has the dual responsibility of providing opinions concerning the case at hand and defending the broad scientific background on which these opinions are based (Faigman, Monahan, & Slobogin, 2014). Consequently, even if an expert witness uses a mechanical risk assessment tool, the professional opinions proffered by the expert should not be mechanical.…”

Expertise in Fingerprint Identification

“…Often this will involve information about general, or indicative, error rates and practical limitations. As in the diagnostic model, much of the information (i.e., scientific evidence) that can be presented will be based on general data from previous studies (i.e., from beyond the instant case) and the legal participants and fact-finder must reason and make inferences from the general to the particular case (Faigman, Monahan, & Slobogin, 2013).…”

Neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom: a randomised controlled trial with German judges

“…Indeed, although the MAOA×childhood maltreatment evidence has been replicated several times,15 it is unclear how statistical group differences from large samples can be applied to individual cases16 (for a review, see ref. 17). …”