Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

The Influence of Validation Data on Logical and Scientific Interpretations of Forensic Expert Opinions

Published 5 Mar 2024 in stat.AP and stat.ME | (2403.02663v1)

Abstract: Forensic experts use specialized training and knowledge to enable other members of the judicial system to make better informed and more just decisions. Factfinders, in particular, are tasked with judging how much weight to give to experts' reports and opinions. Many references describe assessing evidential weight from the perspective of a forensic expert. Some recognize that stakeholders are each responsible for evaluating their own weight of evidence. Morris (1971, 1974, 1977) provided a general framework for recipients to update their own uncertainties after learning an expert's opinion. Although this framework is normative under Bayesian axioms and several forensic scholars advocate the use of Bayesian reasoning, few resources describe its application in forensic science. This paper addresses this gap by examining how recipients can combine principles of science and Bayesian reasoning to evaluate their own likelihood ratios for expert opinions. This exercise helps clarify how an expert's role depends on whether one envisions recipients to be logical and scientific or deferential. Illustrative examples with an expert's opinion expressed as a categorical conclusion, likelihood ratio, or range of likelihood ratios, or with likelihood ratios from multiple experts, each reveal the importance and influence of validation data for logical recipients' interpretations.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (59)
  1. “The roles of participants’ differing background information in the evaluation of evidence” In Journal of Forensic Sciences 63.2, 2018, pp. 648–649 DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.13712
  2. “Commentary: likelihood ratio as weight of forensic evidence: a closer look” In Frontiers in Genetics 9 Frontiers, 2018, pp. 224 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2018.00224
  3. Colin Aitken, Paul Roberts and Graham Jackson “Fundamentals of probability and statistical evidence in criminal proceedings: guidance for judges, lawyers, forensic scientists and expert witnesses”, 2010 URL: https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~cgga/Guide-1-WEB.pdf
  4. Colin Aitken and David A Stoney “The use of statistics in forensic science” CRC Press, 1991 DOI: 10.1201/b12618
  5. “Fundamentals of statistical evidence—a primer for legal professionals” In The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 12.3 SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England, 2008, pp. 181–207 DOI: 10.1350/ijep.2008.12.3.296
  6. Colin Aitken, Franco Taroni and Silvia Bozza “Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists” John Wiley & Sons, 2020 DOI: 10.1002/9781119245438
  7. Ronald J Allen and Joseph S Miller “Common Law Theory of Experts: Deference or Education” In Nw. UL Rev. 87 HeinOnline, 1993, pp. 1131–1147 URL: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac˙artchop/934
  8. W.P. Aspinall and Roger M. Cooke “Quantifying scientific uncertainty from expert judgement elicitation” In Risk and Uncertainty Assessment for Natural Hazards, 2013, pp. 64–99 DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139047562.005
  9. Association of Forensic Science Providers “Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion” In Science & Justice 49, 2009, pp. 161–164 DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2009.07.004
  10. “A study of false-positive and false-negative error rates in cartridge case comparisons”, 2014 URL: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249874.pdf
  11. Charles EH Berger and Klaas Slooten “The L⁢R𝐿𝑅LRitalic_L italic_R does not exist” In Science & Justice 56.5 Elsevier, 2016, pp. 388–391 DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2016.06.005
  12. José M Bernardo and Adrian FM Smith “Bayesian Theory” John Wiley & Sons, 2009 DOI: 10.1002/9780470316870
  13. A. Biedermann, S. Bozza and F. Taroni “Analysing and exemplifying forensic conclusion criteria in terms of Bayesian decision theory” In Science & Justice 58.2, 2017, pp. 159–165 DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2017.07.002
  14. Alex Biedermann “Your uncertainty, your probability, your decision” In Frontiers in Genetics 4 Frontiers, 2013, pp. 148 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2013.00148
  15. Alex Biedermann, Silvia Bozza and Franco Taroni “Analysing and exemplifying forensic conclusion criteria in terms of Bayesian decision theory” In Science & Justice 58.2 Elsevier, 2018, pp. 159–165 DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2017.07.002
  16. Alex Biedermann, Franco Taroni and Colin Aitken “Liberties and constraints of the normative approach to evaluation and decision in forensic science: a discussion towards overcoming some common misconceptions” In Law, Probability and Risk 13.2 OUP, 2014, pp. 181–191 DOI: 10.1093/lpr/mgu009
  17. “A review of likelihood ratios in forensic science based on a critique of Stiffelman “No longer the Gold standard: Probabilistic genotyping is changing the nature of DNA evidence in criminal trials”” In Forensic Science International 310, 2020, pp. 110251 DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110251
  18. John S Buckleton, Jo-Anne Bright and Duncan Taylor “Forensic DNA evidence interpretation” CRC press, 2018 DOI: 10.4324/9781315371115
  19. Christophe Champod and Ian Webber Evett “Evidence interpretation: A logical approach” In Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science Wiley Online Library, 2009 DOI: 10.1002/9780470061589.fsa122
  20. Bruno de Finetti “Theory of probability: A critical introductory treatment” John Wiley & Sons, 2017 DOI: 10.1002/9781119286387.ch6
  21. Morris H. DeGroot “Optimal Statistical Decisions” Wiley, 2004 DOI: 10.1002/0471729000
  22. Heidi Eldridge, Marco De Donno and Christophe Champod “Testing the accuracy and reliability of palmar friction ridge comparisons–a black box study” In Forensic Science International 318 Elsevier, 2021, pp. 110457 DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110457
  23. Richard A Epstein “Judicial Control Over Expert Testimony: Of Deference and Education” In Nw. UL Rev. 87 HeinOnline, 1993, pp. 1156 URL: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal˙articles/1266/
  24. Ian Evett “Towards a uniform framework for reporting opinions in forensic science casework” In Science & Justice 38, 1998, pp. 198–202 DOI: 10.1016/S1355-0306(98)72105-7
  25. Ian Evett “The logical foundations of forensic science: towards reliable knowledge” In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370.1674 The Royal Society, 2015, pp. 20140263 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0263
  26. IW Evett “Bayesian Inference and Forensic Science: Problems and Perspectives” In Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D (The Statistician) 36.2/3 [Royal Statistical Society, Wiley], 1987, pp. 99–105 URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2348502
  27. M Chris Fabricant “Junk Science and the American criminal justice system” ISBN: 9781636140384, 1636140386 Akashic Books, 2022
  28. Richard Feynman “Scientific Method”, 1964 URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1Ve8bh09js
  29. Richard P Feynman “The Quotable Feynman” ISBN: 9780691153032 Princeton University Press, 2015
  30. Stephen E Fienberg and Michael O Finkelstein “Bayesian statistics and the law” In Bayesian Statistics 5 Oxford University Press Oxford, 1996, pp. 129–146 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198523567.003.0007
  31. Stephen E Fienberg and Joseph B Kadane “The presentation of Bayesian statistical analyses in legal proceedings” In Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D (The Statistician) 32.1-2 Oxford University Press, 1983, pp. 88–98 DOI: 10.2307/2987595
  32. Simon French “Updating of belief in the light of someone else’s opinion” In Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) 143.1 Wiley Online Library, 1980, pp. 43–48 DOI: 10.2307/2981768
  33. Christian Genest and Mark J Schervish “Modeling expert judgments for Bayesian updating” In The Annals of Statistics JSTOR, 1985, pp. 1198–1212 DOI: 10.1214/aos/1176349664
  34. “A response to “Likelihood ratio as weight of evidence: A closer look” by Lund and Iyer” In Forensic Science International 288 Elsevier, 2018, pp. e15–e19 DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.05.025
  35. IJ Good “Weight of evidence and the Bayesian likelihood ratio” In The Use Of Statistics In Forensic Science CRC Press, 1991, pp. 85–106 DOI: 10.1201/b12618
  36. “Validity of forensic cartridge-case comparisons” In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120.20 National Academy of Sciences, 2023, pp. e2210428120 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2210428120
  37. “Accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability of forensic footwear examiner decisions” In Forensic Science International 339 Elsevier, 2022, pp. 111418 DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111418
  38. Joseph B Kadane “Principles of uncertainty” ChapmanHall/CRC, 2020 DOI: 10.1201/9781315167565
  39. Joseph B Kadane and David A Schum “A probabilistic analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti evidence” John Wiley & Sons, 2011 DOI: 10.1002/9781118150580
  40. Daniel Kahneman “Thinking, Fast and Slow” ISBN: 978-0374275631 Farrar, StrausGiroux, 2011
  41. Dennis V Lindley “A problem in forensic science” In Biometrika 64.2 Oxford University Press, 1977, pp. 207–213 DOI: 10.2307/2335686
  42. Dennis V Lindley “Understanding uncertainty” John Wiley & Sons, 2013 DOI: 10.1002/9781118650158
  43. Steven P Lund and Hari Iyer “Likelihood ratio as weight of forensic evidence: a closer look” In Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 122 National Institute of StandardsTechnology, 2017, pp. 1–32 DOI: 10.6028/jres.122.027
  44. Robert B. Miller “Bayesian Analysis of the Two-Parameter Gamma Distribution” In Technometrics 22.1 Taylor & Francis, 1980, pp. 65–69 DOI: 10.2307/1268384
  45. Peter Alan Morris “Bayesian Expert Resolution”, 1971 URL: https://www.proquest.com/openview/6fa62877f67e7a2339e3e24768c0609d
  46. Peter Alan Morris “Decision Analysis Expert Use” In Management Science 20.9 INFORMS, 1974, pp. 1233–1241 DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.20.9.1233
  47. Peter Alan Morris “Combining Expert Judgments: A Bayesian Approach” In Management Science 23.7 INFORMS, 1977, pp. 679–693 DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.23.7.679
  48. Jerzy Neyman and Egon Sharpe Pearson “IX. On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses” In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character 231.694-706 The Royal Society London, 1933, pp. 289–337 DOI: 10.1098/rsta.1933.0009
  49. Fumika Ouchi “A literature review on the use of expert opinion in probabilistic risk analysis”, 2004 URL: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/zh/346091468765322039/115515322˙20041117173031/additional/wps3201Literature.pdf
  50. Susan Ratcliffe “W. Edwards Deming” Oxford University Press, 2018 URL: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191866692.001.0001/q-oro-ed6-00019739
  51. “Unhelpful evidence in paternity cases” In New Zealand Law Journal 9, 1992, pp. 315–317 URL: https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/agispt.19923681
  52. Bernard Robertson, George A Vignaux and Charles EH Berger “Interpreting evidence: evaluating forensic science in the courtroom” John Wiley & Sons, 2016 DOI: 10.1002/9781118492475
  53. “Dismissal of the illusion of uncertainty in the assessment of a likelihood ratio” In Law, Probability and Risk 15.1 OUP, 2016, pp. 1–16 DOI: 10.1093/lpr/mgv008
  54. William C Thompson, Suzanne O Kaasa and Tiamoyo Peterson “Do jurors give appropriate weight to forensic identification evidence?” In Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 10.2 Wiley Online Library, 2013, pp. 359–397 DOI: 10.1111/jels.12013
  55. William C Thompson and Eryn J Newman “Lay understanding of forensic statistics: Evaluation of random match probabilities, likelihood ratios, and verbal equivalents.” In Law and Human Behavior 39.4 Educational Publishing Foundation, 2015, pp. 332 DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000134
  56. U.K. Law Commission “Expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales” ISBN: 9780102971170 London: The Stationery Office, 2011
  57. “Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions” In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108.19 National Acad Sciences, 2011, pp. 7733–7738 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1018707108
  58. Todd J Weller and Max D Morris “Commentary on: I. Dror, N Scurich “(Mis) use of scientific measurements in forensic science” Forensic Science International: Synergy 2020 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.08.006” In Forensic Science International: Synergy 2 Elsevier, 2020, pp. 701 DOI: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.10.004
  59. Wikipedia “Conjugate prior”, 2023 URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugate˙prior

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up to Summarize

Paper to Video (Beta)

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Generate Now

Continue Learning

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

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Generate Now

Authors (2)

  1. Steven P. Lund 
  2. Hari Iyer 

Collections

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

User Circle Single Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.

User Circle Single Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up for Free