Understanding of forensic expert reports by judges, defense lawyers and forensic professionals

Psychology, Crime and Law

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 191-207

  de Keijser, Jan ^a   Elffers, Henk ^b  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

diagnostic value; experts; judges; lawyers; likelihood ratio; technical forensic evidence; understanding

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855957239     PISSN: 1068316X     EISSN: 14772744     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10683161003736744     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Aitken, C. and Taroni, F. 2004. Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists, 2nd ed, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
2. Balding, D.J., & Donnelly, P. 1994. The prosecutor's fallacy and DNA evidence. Criminal Law Review, 711 - 721.
3. Broeders, A.P.A. 1999. Some observations on the use of probability scales in forensic identification. Forensic Linguistics, 6: 228-241.
4. Broeders, A.P.A. 2005. "Individualisatie in de traditionele criminalistiek". In Het onzekere bewijs. Gebruik van statistiek en kansrekening in het strafrecht, Edited by: Sjerps, M.J. and Coster van Voorhout, J.A. 49-97. Deventer: Kluwer.
5. Brun, W. and Teigen, K.H. 1988. Verbal probabilities: Ambiguous, context-dependent, or both?. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41: 390-404.
6. Buckleton, J. 2005. "A framework for interpreting evidence". In Forensic DNA evidence interpretation, Edited by: Buckleton, J., Triggs, C.M. and Walsh, S.J. 27-63. London: CRC Press.
7. Buckleton, J., Triggs, C.M. and Walsh, S.J. 2005. Forensic DNA evidence interpretation, London: CRC Press.
8. Champod, C. and Evett, I.W. 2000. Commentaries on Broeders' 'Some observations on the use of probability scales in forensic identification'. Forensic Linguistics, 7: 238-243.
9. De Keijser, J.W., Elffers, H., Kok, R.M. and Sjerps, M.J. 2009. Bijkans Begrepen? Feitelijk en vermeend begrip van forensische deskundigenrapportages onder rechters, advocaten en deskundigen, Den Haag: Boom Juridische uitgevers.
10. Evett, I.W. 1987. Bayesian inference and forensic science: Problems and perspectives. The Statistician, 36: 99-105.
11. Evett, I.W. and Buckleton, J.S. 1989. Some aspects of the Bayesian approach to evidence evaluation. Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 29: 317-324.
12. Evett, I.W. 1995. Avoiding the transposed conditional. Science & Justice, 35: 127-131.
13. Fenton, N. and Neil, M. 2000. The 'Jury Observation Fallacy' and the use of Bayesian networks to present probabilistic legal arguments. Mathematics Today, 36: 180-187.
14. Gatowski, S.I., Dobbin, S.A., Richardson, J.T., Ginsburg, G.P., Merlino, M.L. and Dahir, V. 2001. Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert World. Law and Human Behavior, 25: 433-458.
15. Grunberg, S.M., Groshen, S., Steingass, S., Zaretsky, S. and Meyerowitz, B. 1996. Comparison of conditional quality of life terminology and visual analogue scale measurements. Quality of Life Research, 5: 65-72.
16. Kaasa, S.O., Peterson, T., Morris, E.K. and Thompson, W.A. 2007. Statistical inference and forensic evidence: Evaluating a bullet lead match. Law & Human Behavior, 31: 433-447.
17. Kerkmeester, H.O. 2005. "Het gebruik van Bayesiaanse statistiek in strafprocessen". In Het onzekere bewijs. Gebruik van statistiek en kansrekening in het strafrecht, Edited by: Sjerps, M.J. and Coster van Voorhout, J.A. 99-129. Deventer: Kluwer.
18. Koehler, J.J. 1993. Error and exaggeration in the presentation of DNA evidence. Jurimetrics Journal, 34: 21-39.
19. Meester, R. and Sjerps, M. 2004. Why the effect of prior odds should accompany the likelihood ratio when reporting DNA evidence. Law & Probability, 3: 51-62.
20. National Research Council. 2009. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
21. NFI 2008. Vakbijlage: De reeks waarschijnlijkheidstermen van het NFI en het Bayesiaanse model voor interpretatie van bewijs. Retrieved 1 November 2009, from http://www.forensischinstituut.nl/Images/NFI%20Vakbijlage%20Waarschijnlijkheidstermen_tcm68-144353.pdf
22. Olson, M.J. and Budescu, D.V. 1997. Patterns of preference for numerical and verbal probabilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10: 117-131.
23. Robertson, B. and Vignaux, G.A. 1995. Interpreting evidence: Evaluating forensic science in the courtroom, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
24. Sjerps M.J. 2000 Pros and cons of Bayesian reasoning in forensic science. In Nijboer J.F. Sprangers W.J.J.M. (Eds.), Harmonization in forensic expertise Thela Thesis Amsterdam Series Criminal Sciences. pp. 557 - 585
25. Sjerps, M.J. and Biesheuvel, D.B. 1999. The interpretation of conventional and 'Bayesian' verbal scales for expressing expert opinion: A small experiments among jurists. Forensic Linguistics, 6: 214-227.
26. Taroni, F. and Aitken, C.G.G. 1998. Probabilistic reasoning and the law Part 1: Assessment of probabilities and explanation of the value of DNA evidence. Science & Justice, 38: 165-177.
27. Thompson, W.C. and Schumann, E.L. 1987. Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutor's fallacy and the defense attorney's fallacy. Law and Human Behavior, 11: 167-187.
28. Thompson, W.C. 1989. Are juries competent to evaluate statistical evidence?. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52: 9-40.