Science in the Jury Box: Jurors' Views and Understanding of Mitochondrial DNA Evidence

Kaye, David H.; Dann, B. Michael; Farley, Erin J.; Albertson, Stephanie

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1025582

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Across both studies we also found strong and consistent evidence that higher quality evidence is more persuasive than lower quality evidence. This result fits with previous research using rich representations of expert opinion quality (Martire et al, 2020 ) but is somewhat inconsistent with concerns about juror insensitivity to evidence quality (Cooper et al, 1996 ; Diamond and Rose, 2005 ; Hans et al, 2007 , 2011 ; McAuliff and Kovera, 2008 ; McAuliff et al, 2009 ; Koehler et al, 2016 ; Eldridge, 2019 ). In our studies, jurors were provided with information about an expert's field, their specialist background, their proficiency, the validity of their practicing domain, their trustworthiness, consistency with other experts, their supporting evidence and opinion clarity.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Likeability and Expert Persuasion: Dislikeability Reduces the Perceived Persuasiveness of Expert Evidence

Younan

Martire

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the use of expert evidence increasing in civil and criminal trials, there is concern jurors' decisions are affected by factors that are irrelevant to the quality of the expert opinion. Past research suggests that the likeability of an expert significantly affects juror attributions of credibility and merit. However, we know little about the effects of expert likeability when detailed information about expertise is provided. Two studies examined the effect of an expert's likeability on the persuasiveness judgments and sentencing decisions of 456 jury-eligible respondents. Participants viewed and/or read an expert's testimony (lower vs. higher quality) before rating expert persuasiveness (via credibility, value, and weight), and making a sentencing decision in a Capitol murder case (death penalty vs. life in prison). Lower quality evidence was significantly less persuasive than higher quality evidence. Less likeable experts were also significantly less persuasive than either neutral or more likeable experts. This “penalty” for less likeable experts was observed irrespective of evidence quality. However, only perceptions of the foundational validity of the expert's discipline, the expert's trustworthiness and the clarity and conservativeness of the expert opinion significantly predicted sentencing decisions. Thus, the present study demonstrates that while likeability does influence persuasiveness, it does not necessarily affect sentencing outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Likeability and Expert Persuasion: Dislikeability Reduces the Perceived Persuasiveness of Expert Evidence

Younan

Martire

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When case information is highly technical or scientific, there is a risk that jurors will find the evidence difficult to comprehend, thus increasing their likelihood of peripherally processing trial information (Hans, Kaye, Dann, Farley, & Albertson, 2011). Research has demonstrated that statistical and probabilistic evidence are particularly difficult for jurors to discern (Vidmar & Diamond, 2000) and that jurors consistently struggle to grasp the extent to which inferences can be drawn from DNA "match" evidence (Nance & Morris, 2005).…”

Section: Evidence Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The power of technology: Examining the effects of digital visual evidence on jurors' processing of trial information

Rempel

Hamovitch

Zannella

et al. 2019

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryWith the emergence of “electronic courtrooms” in North America, lawyers are increasingly using PowerPoint® to assist with their presentation of case evidence. The current study examined whether evidence complexity and presentation modality influenced participants' comprehension of case evidence and verdict decisions. Participants read a trial transcript from a criminal case that contained DNA evidence, which varied by complexity (simple or complex) and presentation modality (written or PowerPoint®). Participants completed comprehension questions to assess their understanding of the case evidence and rendered a verdict. Results demonstrated that neither the complexity nor the modality of the presented evidence influenced participants' comprehension of the evidence; however, participants who viewed evidence within a PowerPoint® were significantly more likely to render guilty verdicts than those who viewed written evidence. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings and propose suggestions for future research on the use of digital technology in the courtroom.

show abstract

“…Ethical issues and concerns about horizontal equity make this approach infeasible, and have lead to the frequent use of mock jury trials in legal scholarship [Hans et al 2007].…”

Section: Analytic Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This interference has been coined the "CSI effect"; specifically, the use of forensic technology on crime dramas such as "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" has limited prosecutors' ability to obtain a conviction without DNA or other forensic evidence. 4 To date, evidence on the CSI effect has been largely anecdotal [Toobin (2007); Stockwell (2005); Willing (2004)], or based on small surveys, either of potential jurors [Schweitzer and Saks (2007); Hans et al (2007); Podlas (2006)] or judges [Hughes and Magers (2007)]. Perhaps not surprisingly, reviews of the literature [Tyler (2006)] find no compelling evidence for or against the CSI effect.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Media and the Criminal Justice System

Owens

2010

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science in the Jury Box: Jurors' Views and Understanding of Mitochondrial DNA Evidence

Abstract: Policy makers, pundits, and scholars have all raised questions about how jurors understand and apply scientific evidence. In the current study, 480 jury pool members observed a mock trial that included expert testimony about mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)

Cited by 4 publications

References 24 publications

Likeability and Expert Persuasion: Dislikeability Reduces the Perceived Persuasiveness of Expert Evidence

Likeability and Expert Persuasion: Dislikeability Reduces the Perceived Persuasiveness of Expert Evidence

The power of technology: Examining the effects of digital visual evidence on jurors' processing of trial information

Media and the Criminal Justice System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About