Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 58 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 52 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 12 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 17 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 95 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 179 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 463 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 38 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials (2311.14718v2)

Published 18 Nov 2023 in cs.CY

Abstract: We investigate how the use of bullet comparison algorithms and demonstrative evidence may affect juror perceptions of reliability, credibility, and understanding of expert witnesses and presented evidence. The use of statistical methods in forensic science is motivated by a lack of scientific validity and error rate issues present in many forensic analysis methods. We explore what our study says about how this type of forensic evidence is perceived in the courtroom where individuals unfamiliar with advanced statistical methods are asked to evaluate results in order to assess guilt. In the course of our initial study, we found that individuals overwhelmingly provided high Likert scale ratings in reliability, credibility, and scientificity regardless of experimental condition. This discovery of scale compression - where responses are limited to a few values on a larger scale, despite experimental manipulations - limits statistical modeling but provides opportunities for new experimental manipulations which may improve future studies in this area.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (28)
  1. Abramson J (2018). Jury Selection in the Weeds: Whither the Democratic Shore? University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, (52.1): 1.
  2. baku13 (2005). L7 105mm tank gun Cut model.
  3. Bornstein BH, Greene E (2011). Jury Decision Making: Implications For and From Psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1): 63–67.
  4. Nonprobative photos rapidly lead people to believe claims about their own (and other people’s) pasts. Memory & cognition, 44(6): 883–896.
  5. shiny: Web Application Framework for R. R package version 1.7.4.1.
  6. Flawed Self-Assessment: Implications for Health, Education, and the Workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3): 69–106. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.
  7. Comparing Categorical and Probabilistic Fingerprint Evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 63(6): 1712–1717.
  8. Mock jurors’ evaluation of firearm examiner testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 44(5): 412–423.
  9. Gremi-ch (2009). English: A 5.66x45mm (.223 rem.) boat tailed FMJ spitzer bullet laying on a ruler with a scale in centimeter.
  10. Automatic matching of bullet land impressions. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 11(4): 2332–2356.
  11. Treatment of inconclusives in the AFTE range of conclusions. 19(3): 317–364. Tex.eprint: https://academic.oup.com/lpr/article-pdf/19/3-4/317/38817993/mgab002.pdf.
  12. gt: Easily Create Presentation-Ready Display Tables. R package version 0.9.0.
  13. Kellermann K (2013). Trial advocacy: Truthiness, falsiness, and nothingness. Jury Expert, 25: 38. 00001.
  14. Koehler JJ (2001). When are people persuaded by DNA match statistics? Law and Human Behavior, 25(5): 493–513.
  15. Lenth RV (2023). emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.8.7.
  16. MacCoun RJ, Kerr NL (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors’ bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1): 21–33. Publisher: American Psychological Association.
  17. National Research Council (US) (Ed.) (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
  18. Neuwirth E (2022). RColorBrewer: ColorBrewer Palettes. R package version 1.1-3.
  19. Pedersen TL (2022). patchwork: The Composer of Plots. R package version 1.1.2.
  20. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2016). Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature Comparison Methods. Technical report.
  21. Neuroimages as evidence in a mens rea defense: No impact. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(3): 357–393.
  22. Development of ballistics identification- from image comparison to topography measurement in surface metrology. Measurement Science and Technology, 23(5).
  23. Swofford H (2017). Information paper. Technical report, Defense Forensic Science Center. Https://osf.io/8kajs.
  24. Swofford H, Champod C (2022). Probabilistic reporting and algorithms in forensic science: Stakeholder perspectives within the American criminal justice system. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 4.
  25. Comparison of three similarity scores for bullet LEA matching. Forensic Science International, 308.
  26. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002). Modern Applied Statistics with S. Springer, New York, fourth edition. ISBN 0-387-95457-0.
  27. Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43): 1686.
  28. Wood S (2017). Generalized additive models: An introduction with r.
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Lightbulb On Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.