The testimony of forensic identification science

What expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear

Dawn McQuiston-Surrett, Michael Saks

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

49 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This research examined how variations in the presentation of forensic science information affect factfinders' judgments in a trial. Participants read a summary of a murder case, the critical testimony being the results of a microscopic hair comparison given by a forensic expert. Across two experiments we manipulated how the expert expressed his results, whether he gave an explicit conclusion concerning identity of the hair, and whether the limitations of forensic science were expressed during trial. Qualitative testimony was more damaging to the defense than quantitative testimony, conclusion testimony increased the defendant's culpability ratings when findings were presented quantitatively, and expressing limitations of forensic science had no appreciable effect. Results are discussed in terms of factfinders' interpretation of forensic identification evidence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)436-453
Number of pages18
JournalLaw and Human Behavior
Volume33
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2009

Fingerprint

Forensic Sciences
Expert Testimony
testimony
witness
expert
Hair
science
Homicide
information science
homicide
rating
Research
interpretation
Testimony
Expert Witness
experiment
evidence
Forensic Science

Keywords

  • Expert testimony
  • Forensic science
  • Juror and judge decision-making

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

The testimony of forensic identification science : What expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear. / McQuiston-Surrett, Dawn; Saks, Michael.

In: Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 33, No. 5, 10.2009, p. 436-453.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{79563575ea7b4eb1a86c03060b3702b5,
title = "The testimony of forensic identification science: What expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear",
abstract = "This research examined how variations in the presentation of forensic science information affect factfinders' judgments in a trial. Participants read a summary of a murder case, the critical testimony being the results of a microscopic hair comparison given by a forensic expert. Across two experiments we manipulated how the expert expressed his results, whether he gave an explicit conclusion concerning identity of the hair, and whether the limitations of forensic science were expressed during trial. Qualitative testimony was more damaging to the defense than quantitative testimony, conclusion testimony increased the defendant's culpability ratings when findings were presented quantitatively, and expressing limitations of forensic science had no appreciable effect. Results are discussed in terms of factfinders' interpretation of forensic identification evidence.",
keywords = "Expert testimony, Forensic science, Juror and judge decision-making",
author = "Dawn McQuiston-Surrett and Michael Saks",
year = "2009",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1007/s10979-008-9169-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "436--453",
journal = "Law and Human Behavior",
issn = "0147-7307",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The testimony of forensic identification science

T2 - What expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear

AU - McQuiston-Surrett, Dawn

AU - Saks, Michael

PY - 2009/10

Y1 - 2009/10

N2 - This research examined how variations in the presentation of forensic science information affect factfinders' judgments in a trial. Participants read a summary of a murder case, the critical testimony being the results of a microscopic hair comparison given by a forensic expert. Across two experiments we manipulated how the expert expressed his results, whether he gave an explicit conclusion concerning identity of the hair, and whether the limitations of forensic science were expressed during trial. Qualitative testimony was more damaging to the defense than quantitative testimony, conclusion testimony increased the defendant's culpability ratings when findings were presented quantitatively, and expressing limitations of forensic science had no appreciable effect. Results are discussed in terms of factfinders' interpretation of forensic identification evidence.

AB - This research examined how variations in the presentation of forensic science information affect factfinders' judgments in a trial. Participants read a summary of a murder case, the critical testimony being the results of a microscopic hair comparison given by a forensic expert. Across two experiments we manipulated how the expert expressed his results, whether he gave an explicit conclusion concerning identity of the hair, and whether the limitations of forensic science were expressed during trial. Qualitative testimony was more damaging to the defense than quantitative testimony, conclusion testimony increased the defendant's culpability ratings when findings were presented quantitatively, and expressing limitations of forensic science had no appreciable effect. Results are discussed in terms of factfinders' interpretation of forensic identification evidence.

KW - Expert testimony

KW - Forensic science

KW - Juror and judge decision-making

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70350009994&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70350009994&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10979-008-9169-1

DO - 10.1007/s10979-008-9169-1

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 436

EP - 453

JO - Law and Human Behavior

JF - Law and Human Behavior

SN - 0147-7307

IS - 5

ER -