Adversarial Forensic Science Experts
An Empirical Study of Jury Deliberation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15309408 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jane Goodman-Delahunty (0000-0001-6764-6920, Professor Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Charles Sturt University (Manly Campus), Australian Graduate School of Policing and Security and School of Psychology), Jane Goodman‐delahunty (0000-0003-4409-0063, Charles Sturt University, corresponding author), Kosuke Wakabayashi (Ritsumeikan University) |
| Year | 2012 |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 85-103 |
| Publication date | 2012-07-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Current Issues in Criminal Justice (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1034-5329 • E-ISSN: 2206-9542 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/10345329.2012.12035946 |
| OpenAlex | W2205562418 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 19 |
Surprisingly little is known about ways that juries resolve differences of opinion between competing scientific forensic experts. Concerns have been raised that juries defer unduly to scientific experts and are susceptible to the ‘white coat effect’. The study reported in this article examined jury decision-making in the context of a live, simulated homicide trial that incorporated traditional legal procedural safeguards against jury error: cross-examination, the use of rebuttal expert witnesses, judicial directions and group deliberation. Following the presentation of opposing expert opinions on analyses of trace evidence, 12 juries deliberated to a verdict. Deliberation transcripts were systematically analysed to discern prominent topics discussed in the jury room. Using a text-mining method, shifts in deliberation focus were explored in response to two interventions: (a) a judicial caution about the non-binding nature of expert illustrative visual aids; and (b) uneven versus evenly balanced rebuttal expert evidence. Results indicated that juries were not deferential to the experts, but did not ignore them either. They found the experts' sophisticated interactive visual aids useful, but appropriately discerned that the scientific evidence did not resolve the issues before them. No evidence emerged for ‘the white coat effect’. Excerpts from deliberations substantiated the quantitative outcomes
Context (archaeology · Cross-examination · Deliberation · Epistemology · Jury · Political science · Politics · Rebuttal · Scientific evidence · Verdict · Computational and Text Analysis Methods · History · Jury Decision Making Processes · Law · Law in Society and Culture · Psychology
Correspondence Analysis Handbook
Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition
Juror comprehension and the hard case—Making forensic evidence simpler
Expert vs. Expert
Ambiguous Responsibilities
Expert psychological testimony in rape trials
Jury decision making
Blindfolding the Jury to Verdict Consequences
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |