Juror Reactions to DNA Evidence: Errors and Expectancies

In this paper we examine evidence for two potential descriptions of juror reactions to probabilistic DNA evidence. The error-based description posits that jurors commit systematic logical or mathematical errors when they are called upon to evaluate quantitative evidence. The expectancy-based description posits that jurors use their background knowledge and beliefs in evaluating results from scientific tests. Consistent with the error-based description, participants in our study incorrectly aggregated separately presented probabilities and afforded probabilistic evidence less weight than would be expected by applying Bayesian norms. Consistent with the expectancy-based description, participants' background beliefs about the possibility of laboratory errors and intentional tampering affected the weight participants afforded a DNA match report. We discuss potential implications of these findings for the legal system and suggest directions for future research.

[1]  R. Rakos,et al.  A preliminary inquiry into the effect of potentially biasing information on judges and jurors in civil litigation , 1994 .

[2]  Arthur J. Lurigio,et al.  Improving Probation Decisions through Statistical Training , 1990 .

[3]  J. Koehler.  Error and Exaggeration in the Presentation of DNA Evidence at Trial , 1993 .

[4]  J. Levi,et al.  Improving Decisions on Death by Revising and Testing Jury Instructions , 1996 .

[5]  S. Diamond.  Illuminations and Shadows from Jury Simulations , 1997 .

[6]  Rebecca L. Collins,et al.  The vividness effect: Elusive or illusory? , 1988 .

[7]  N. Kerr,et al.  Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: jurors' bias for leniency. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  Jonathan D. Casper,et al.  Blindfolding the Jury to Verdict Consequences: Damages, Experts, and the Civil Jury , 1992 .

[9]  D. Bernstein.  Junk Science in the United States and the Commonwealth , 1996 .

[10]  P. Huber,et al.  Science and Tort Law. (Book Reviews: Galileo's Revenge. Junk Science in the Courtroom.) , 1991 .

[11]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  Naked Statistical Evidence of Liability: Is Subjective Probability Enough? , 1992 .

[12]  Steven D. Penrod,et al.  Jurors' use of probabilistic evidence , 1996 .

[13]  W. Ducharme.  Response bias explanation of conservative human inference. , 1970 .

[14]  R. Fazio,et al.  Influencing Probability Judgments by Manipulating the Accessibility of Sample Spaces , 1997 .

[15]  L. Ross,et al.  Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. , 1981 .

[16]  P. Ellsworth.  Are Twelve Heads Better Than One , 1989 .

[17]  Harry Kalven,et al.  The American Jury , 1967 .

[18]  Michael J. Saks,et al.  Human Information Processing and Adjudication: Trial by Heuristics , 1980 .

[19]  S. Brodsky.  Criminal Justice and Behavior , 1980 .

[20]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Book Review Nisbett, R. , & Ross, L.Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980. , 1982 .

[21]  D. Funder,et al.  Errors and mistakes: evaluating the accuracy of social judgment. , 1987, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Stalking the elusive "vividness" effect. , 1982 .

[23]  E. Imwinkelried.  The Standard for Admitting Scientific Evidence: A Critique from the Perspective of Juror Psychology , 1983 .

[24]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[25]  David L. Faigman,et al.  Bayes' theorem in the trial process , 1988 .

[26]  Richard Lempert.  DNA, science and the law: two cheers for the ceiling principle , 1993 .

[27]  William L. Hays,et al.  Statistics, 5th ed. , 1994 .

[28]  N. Pennington,et al.  Inside the Jury. , 1985 .

[29]  Samuel Lindsey,et al.  The Random Match Probability (RMP) in DNA Evidence: Irrelevant and Prejudicial? , 1995 .

[30]  Jonathan J. Koehler.  Why DNA Likelihood Ratios Should Account for Error (Even When a National Research Council Report Says They Should Not) , 1997 .

[31]  H. Zeisel,et al.  The American Jury , 1966 .

[32]  Christopher R. Hart,et al.  LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS , 1990 .

[33]  John P. Ryan,et al.  The Uses and Effects of Forensic Science in the Adjudication of Felony Cases , 1987 .

[34]  R L Stubblefield,et al.  Behavioral sciences and the law. , 1966, The American journal of orthopsychiatry.

[35]  W. Thompson,et al.  Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials , 1987 .

[36]  William C. Thompson,et al.  Evaluating the Admissibility of New Genetic Identification Tests: Lessons from the "DNA War" , 1993 .

[37]  J. Sanders,et al.  From science to evidence: the testimony on causation in the Bendectin cases. , 1993, Stanford law review.