Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/112386
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: Contextual bias and cross-contamination in the forensic sciences: the corrosive implications for investigations, plea bargains, trials and appeals
Author: Edmond, G.
Tangen, J.
Searston, R.
Dror, I.
Citation: Law, Probability and Risk, 2015; 14(1):1-25
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Issue Date: 2015
ISSN: 1470-8396
1470-840X
Statement of
Responsibility: 
Gary Edmond, Jason M. Tangen and Rachel A. Searston, and Itiel E. Dror
Abstract: Most forensic science evidence is produced in conditions that do not protect the analyst from contextual information about the case that could sway their decision-making. This article explores how these largely unrecognized threats raise real problems for the criminal justice system; from the collection and interpretation of traces to the presentation and evaluation of evidence at trial and on appeal. It explains how forensic analysts are routinely exposed to information (e.g. about the investigation or the main suspect) that is not related to their analysis, and not documented in their reports, but has been demonstrated to affect the interpretation of forensic science evidence. It also explains that not only are forensic analysts gratuitously exposed to such ‘domain-irrelevant’ information, but their own cognitively contaminated interpretations and opinions are then often unnecessarily revealed to other witnesses— both lay and expert. This back and forth can create a ‘biasing snowball effect’ where evidence is (increasingly) cross-contaminated, though represented, at trial and on appeal, as separate lines of evidence independently corroborating one another. The article explains that lawyers and courts have not recognized how contextual bias and cognitive processesmay distort and undermine the probative value of expert evidence. It suggests that courts should attend to the possibility of contextual bias and cross-contamination when admitting and evaluating incriminating expert evidence.
Keywords: Expert evidence; context effects; confirmation bias; cognitive science; human factors; expectancy effects; corroboration; suggestion; priming; proof
Description: Advance Access publication on October 16, 2014
Rights: © The Author [2014]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved
RMID: 0030087091
DOI: 10.1093/lpr/mgu018
Grant ID: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/FT0992041
http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/LP100200142
http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/LP120100063
Appears in Collections:Psychology publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.