Communicating opinion evidence in the forensic identification sciences: Accuracy and impact

Dawn McQuiston-Surrett, Michael Saks

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

31 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

How forensic identification experts describe their observations and express their opinions in court can be expected to have important effects on what jurors and judges conclude from this evidence. But the communication of findings from forensic identification analyses can be challenging as experts try to express their results accurately: without error, exaggeration or intentionally or unintentionally misleading fact finders. In this Article, we discuss how fact finders interpret and respond to the expert testimony of forensic science examiners, and how expert testimony can be made most informative. We first describe the results of several empirical studies we have done which demonstrate how variations in the way forensic expert testimony is presented affects the conclusions fact finders draw concerning the evidence. Next, with the help of research in the area of risk communication, as well as forensic communication, we explore ways in which the communication of forensic identification examination results might be improved. We then turn to a review of the relevant literature on fact finders' interpretation of statistical and probability evidence as it applies to forensic identification, and the limited extent to which opposing experts and cross-examination counter the influence of an expert's testimony.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1159-1189
Number of pages31
JournalHastings Law Journal
Volume59
Issue number5
StatePublished - May 2008

Fingerprint

expert
testimony
science
evidence
communication
examination
risk communication
examiner
interpretation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Cite this

Communicating opinion evidence in the forensic identification sciences : Accuracy and impact. / McQuiston-Surrett, Dawn; Saks, Michael.

In: Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 59, No. 5, 05.2008, p. 1159-1189.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{bb1fdcf62b3c4f09b59f73bd4d02cf7d,
title = "Communicating opinion evidence in the forensic identification sciences: Accuracy and impact",
abstract = "How forensic identification experts describe their observations and express their opinions in court can be expected to have important effects on what jurors and judges conclude from this evidence. But the communication of findings from forensic identification analyses can be challenging as experts try to express their results accurately: without error, exaggeration or intentionally or unintentionally misleading fact finders. In this Article, we discuss how fact finders interpret and respond to the expert testimony of forensic science examiners, and how expert testimony can be made most informative. We first describe the results of several empirical studies we have done which demonstrate how variations in the way forensic expert testimony is presented affects the conclusions fact finders draw concerning the evidence. Next, with the help of research in the area of risk communication, as well as forensic communication, we explore ways in which the communication of forensic identification examination results might be improved. We then turn to a review of the relevant literature on fact finders' interpretation of statistical and probability evidence as it applies to forensic identification, and the limited extent to which opposing experts and cross-examination counter the influence of an expert's testimony.",
author = "Dawn McQuiston-Surrett and Michael Saks",
year = "2008",
month = "5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "59",
pages = "1159--1189",
journal = "Hastings Law Journal",
issn = "0017-8322",
publisher = "University of California, Hastings College of the Law",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Communicating opinion evidence in the forensic identification sciences

T2 - Accuracy and impact

AU - McQuiston-Surrett, Dawn

AU - Saks, Michael

PY - 2008/5

Y1 - 2008/5

N2 - How forensic identification experts describe their observations and express their opinions in court can be expected to have important effects on what jurors and judges conclude from this evidence. But the communication of findings from forensic identification analyses can be challenging as experts try to express their results accurately: without error, exaggeration or intentionally or unintentionally misleading fact finders. In this Article, we discuss how fact finders interpret and respond to the expert testimony of forensic science examiners, and how expert testimony can be made most informative. We first describe the results of several empirical studies we have done which demonstrate how variations in the way forensic expert testimony is presented affects the conclusions fact finders draw concerning the evidence. Next, with the help of research in the area of risk communication, as well as forensic communication, we explore ways in which the communication of forensic identification examination results might be improved. We then turn to a review of the relevant literature on fact finders' interpretation of statistical and probability evidence as it applies to forensic identification, and the limited extent to which opposing experts and cross-examination counter the influence of an expert's testimony.

AB - How forensic identification experts describe their observations and express their opinions in court can be expected to have important effects on what jurors and judges conclude from this evidence. But the communication of findings from forensic identification analyses can be challenging as experts try to express their results accurately: without error, exaggeration or intentionally or unintentionally misleading fact finders. In this Article, we discuss how fact finders interpret and respond to the expert testimony of forensic science examiners, and how expert testimony can be made most informative. We first describe the results of several empirical studies we have done which demonstrate how variations in the way forensic expert testimony is presented affects the conclusions fact finders draw concerning the evidence. Next, with the help of research in the area of risk communication, as well as forensic communication, we explore ways in which the communication of forensic identification examination results might be improved. We then turn to a review of the relevant literature on fact finders' interpretation of statistical and probability evidence as it applies to forensic identification, and the limited extent to which opposing experts and cross-examination counter the influence of an expert's testimony.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=49549090850&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=49549090850&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:49549090850

VL - 59

SP - 1159

EP - 1189

JO - Hastings Law Journal

JF - Hastings Law Journal

SN - 0017-8322

IS - 5

ER -