Abstract
Everyone knows that fingerprint evidence can be extremely incriminating. What is less clear is whether the way that a fingerprint examiner describes that evidence influences the weight lay jurors assign to it. This essay describes an experiment testing how lay people respond to different presentations of fingerprint evidence in a hypothetical criminal case. We find that people attach more weight to the evidence when the fingerprint examiner indicates that he believes or knows that the defendant is the source of the print. When the examiner offers a weaker, but more scientifically justifiable, conclusion, the evidence is given less weight. However, people do not value the evidence any more or less when the examiner uses very strong language to indicate that the defendant is the source of the print versus weaker source identification language. We also find that cross-examination designed to highlight weaknesses in the fingerprint evidence has no impact regardless of which type of conclusion the examiner offers. We conclude by considering implications for ongoing reform efforts.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 119-134 |
| Number of pages | 16 |
| Journal | Daedalus |
| Volume | 147 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Oct 1 2018 |
Funding
The material presented here is based upon work partially supported under Award No. 70NANB 15 H176 from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology. Any opinions, findings, or recommendations expressed in this material do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor the Center for Statistics and Applications in Forensic Evidence. This research was also supported, in part, by the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Faculty Research Program.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
- Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
- Political Science and International Relations
- History and Philosophy of Science