Probabilistic reasoning in the law. Part 1: Assessment of probabilities and explanation of the value of DNA evidence

Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 165-177

  Taroni, F ^a   Aitken, C G G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bayes Theorem; DNA; Evidence evaluation; Forensic science; Likelihood ratio; Probabilistic reasoning

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COURT; DNA DETERMINATION; EXPERT WITNESS; FORENSIC SCIENCE; LAW; PROBABILITY; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 0031868651     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1355-0306(98)72101-X     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Taroni F. Aitken CGG. Probabilistic reasoning in the law, Part 2: assessment of probabilities and explanation of the value of trace evidence other than DNA. Science & Justice 1998; 38: 179-188.
2. U.S. v. Bradford Allen Bullock, No.94-50716, Court of Appeal (5th Cir. Dec, 11, 1995).
3. Fienberg SE, Finkelstein MP. Bayesian statistics and the law In: Bernardo JM, Berger JO, Dawid AP, Smith AFM. editors. Bayesian Statistics 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995: 129-146.
4. Kaye DH, Koehler JJ, Can jurors understand probabilistic evidence? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, A 154, 1991: 75-81.
5. Koehler JJ. On conveying the probative value of DNA evidence: frequencies, likelihood ratios and error rates. University of Colorado Law Review 1996, 67: 859-886.
6. Simon RJ, Mahan L. Quantifying burdens of proof. Law and Society Review 1971; 5: 319-330.
7. Taroni F, Champod C and Margot P. Forerunners of Bayesianism in early forensic science Jurimetrics Journal 1998; 38: 183-200.
8. Evett IW. Interpretation of evidence. 10th International ICPO-Interpol Forensic Science Symposium, 24-27 November 1992, Lyon.
9. Piattelli-Palmarini M. Inevitable illusions. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1994.
10. Tversky A and Kahneman D. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology 1973; 5: 207-232.
11. Kahneman D, Slovic P and Tversky A. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
12. Tversky A and Kahneman D. Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgement. Psychological Review 1983; 90: 293-315.
13. Engel E and Venetoulias A. Monty Hall's probability puzzle. Chance 1991; 4: 6-9.
14. Morgan JP, Chaganty NR, Dahjya RC and Doviak MJ. Let's make a deal: the player's dilemma. The American Statistician 1991; 45: 284-289.
15. Thompson WC and Schumann EL. Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials. The prosecutor's fallacy and the defence attorney's fallacy. Law and Human Behaviour 1987; 11: 167-187.
16. Kaye DH. DNA evidence: probability, population genetics and the courts. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 1993; 7: 101-172.
17. Balding DJ and Donnelly P, The Prosecutor's fallacy and DNA evidence. Criminal Law Review 1994: 711-721.
18. Redmayne M. Doubts and burdens: DNA evidence, probability and the courts. Criminal Law Review 1995; 6: 464-482.
19. Evett IW. Avoiding the transposed conditional. Science & Justice 1995; 35: 127-131.
20. Koehler JJ. Error and exaggeration in the presentation of DNA evidence at trial. Jurimetrics Journal 1993; 34: 21-39.
21. Connors E, Lundregan T, Miller N and McEwen T. Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice - National Institute of Justice, 1996.
22. Taroni F, Aitken CGG. Forensic science at trial. Jurimetrics Journal 1997; 37: 327-337.
23. R. v. Deen, The Times, January 10, 1994
24. Matthews R. Improving the odds on justice. New Scientist 1994 April 16: 12.
25. Balding D and Donnelly P. How convincing is DNA evidence. Nature 1994; 368: 285-286.
26. Dickson D. ... As confusion leads to retrial in UK. Nature 1994; 367: 101-102.
27. Cohen J and Stewart I. Beyond all reasonable DNA. The Lancet 1995; 345; 1586-1588.
28. Aitken CGG. Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1995.
29. Kaye DH. The admissibility of "probability evidence" in criminal trials - Part II. Jurimetrics Journal 1987, 27: 160-172.
30. Koehler JJ. DNA matches and statistics: important questions, surprising answers. Judicature 1993; 76: 222-229.
31. Koehler JJ. DNA matches and statistics. Judicature 1993; 77: 5, 55-58.
32. Thompson WC. Are juries competent to evaluate statistical evidence? Law and Contemporary Problems 1989; 52. 9-41.
33. Carracedo A, Barros F. Lareu MV, Pestoni C and Rodriguez-Calco MS. Focusing the debate on forensic genetics [correspondence]. Science & Justice 1996; 36: 204-206.
34. National Research Council. The evaluation of forensic DNA evidence. Washington, DC. National Academy Press, 1996.
35. Taroni F and Aitken CGG. Interpretation of scientific evidence. Science & Justice 1996; 36: 290-292.