Abstract
This article presents the results of an experimental study where mock-jurors were tasked with interpreting the presentation of DNA evidence. The 200 university student participants were exposed to one of five murder scenarios where the information about the DNA evidence was manipulated. The results showed that participants were more likely to convict when the DNA match statistic was presented as a probability (0.1%) and focused on the defendant, less likely to convict when it was presented as a frequency (1 in 1,000) and focused on a broader reference group, and even less likely in the control scenario with no DNA evidence. The forensic knowledge of participants was also explored, and more than three-quarters demonstrated reasonable understanding of the individuating capacity of DNA evidence. Participants recognized that while DNA has the capacity to determine guilt, it is insufficient on its own to convict or acquit. The implications for the presentation of expert testimony and judicial instruction are canvassed, and the broader ramifications for the education of jurors and legal personnel are discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
R. Aarli, “Genetic justice and transformations of criminal procedure,” Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 3–21, 2012.
A. Amorim, “Opening the DNA black box: demythologizing forensic genetics,” New Genetics and Society, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 259–270, 2012.
B. Bornstein, “The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors’ liability verdicts,” Psychology, Crime, and Law, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 429–446, 2004.
M. Briody, “The effects of DNA evidence on sexual offence cases in court,” Current Issues in Criminal Justice, vol. 14, pp. 159–181, 2003.
M. Briody, “The effects of DNA evidence on homicide cases in court,” The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 231–252, 2004.
J. M. Butler, Forensic DNA Typing: Biology and Technology Behind STR Markers. Sydney: Academic Press, 2001.
S. Cooper, “The collision of law and science: American court responses to developments in forensic science,” Pace Law Review, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 234–301, 2012.
S. Dartnall, and J. Goodman-Delahunty, “Enhancing juror understanding of probabilistic evidence.” Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 38, pp. 85–96, 2006.
J. de Keijser, and H. Elffers, “Understanding of forensic expert reports by judges, defense lawyers and forensic professionals,” Psychology, Crime, & Law, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 191–207, 2012.
G. Edmond, “Actual innocents? Legal limitations and the implications for forensic science and medicine,” Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 43, no. 2/3, pp. 177–212, 2011.
M. Findlay, “Juror comprehension and the hard case: making forensic evidence simpler,” International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 15–53, 2008.
M. Gabriel, C. Boland, and C. Holt, “Beyond the cold hit: measuring the impact of the National DNA Data Bank on public safety at the city and county level,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 396–411, 2010.
J. Goodman, “Jurors’ comprehension and assessment of probabilistic evidence.,” American Journal of Trial Advocacy, vol. 16, pp. 361–389, 1993.
J. Goodman-Delahunty, and L. Hewson, “Enhancing fairness in DNA jury trials,” Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 392, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2010.
J. Goodman-Delahunty, and D. Tait, “DNA and the changing face of justice,” Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 38, pp. 97–106, 2006.
J. Goodman-Delahunty, and K. Wakabayashi, “Adversarial forensic science experts: an empirical study of jury deliberation,” Current Issues in Criminal Justice, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 85–103, 2012.
A. Haesler, and A. van Daal, “DNA evidence: current issues and challenges,” Judicial Officer’s Bulletin, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 55–59, 2011.
J. P. Henderson, “The use of DNA statistics in criminal trials,” Forensic Science International, vol. 128, no. 3, p. 183, 2002.
J. A. Holmgren, and J. Fordham, “The CSI Effect and the Canadian and Australian jury,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 56, pp. 63–71, 2011.
M. Kirby, “Forensic evidence: instrument of truth or potential for miscarriage?” Paper presented to the University of Tasmania, Hobart, 14 September, 2010.
J. J. Koehler, “When are people persuaded by DNA match statistics?” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 493–513, 2001.
J. Koehler, “Linguistic confusion in court: evidence from the forensic sciences,” Journal of Law and Policy, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 515–539, 2013.
J. J. Koehler, and L. Macchi, “Thinking about low-probability events,” Psychological Science, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 540–546, 2004.
Y. Konheim-Kalkstein, M. Stellmack, and B. Strnad, “Communicating the ‘bottom line’: probability facilitates decisions that rely on Bayesian reasoning,” Jurimetrics, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 277–283, 2009.
E. Kruger, “Accusing DNA,” Parallax, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 101–111, 2008.
C. Kruse, “Legal storytelling in pre-trial situations: arguing for a wider perspective on forensic evidence,” New Genetics and Society, vol. 31. no. 3, pp. 299–309, 2012.
J. Langdon, and P. Wilson, “When justice fails: a follow-up examination of serious criminal cases since 1985,” Current Issues in Criminal Justice, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 179–202, 2005.
A. Ligertwood, “Can DNA evidence alone convict an accused?” The Sydney Law Review, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 487–514, 2011.
R. Lincoln, and P. Wilson, “Forensics and justice: the case of DNA evidence,” in Chappell, D., & Wilson, P. (Eds.), Issues in Australian Crime and Criminal Justice. (pp. 362–374). Sydney: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2005.
M. Lynch, “Science, truth, and forensic cultures: the exceptional legal status of DNA evidence,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 60–70, 2013.
C. McCartney, Forensic Identification and Criminal Justice: Forensic Science, Justice and Risk. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, 2006.
National Academy of Sciences, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community. Washington DC: National Research Council, 2009.
National Research Council, The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996.
A. Noordgard, and B. Rasmusson, “The likelihood ratio as value of evidence: more than a question of numbers,” Law, Probability, and Risk, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 303–315, 2012.
M. Redmayne, “Presenting probabilities in court,” in Redmayne, M. (Ed.), Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice. (pp. 57–93). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
N. Rudin, and K. Inman, An Introduction to Forensic DNA Analysis. 2 ed., London: CRC Press, 2002.
J. Schklar, and S. S. Diamond, “Juror reactions to DNA evidence: errors and expectancies,” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 159–184, 1999.
H. Selby, “When science comes to court,” Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 159–167, 2010.
P. Slovic, J. Monahan, and D. MacGregor, “Violence risk assessment and risk communication: the effects of using actual cases, providing instructions, and employing probability versus frequency formats,” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 271–296, 2000.
L. Smith, and R. Bull, “Identifying and measuring juror pre-trial bias for forensic evidence: development and validation of the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale,” Psychology, Crime & Law, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 797–815, 2012.
L. Smith, R. Bull, and R. Holliday, “Understanding juror perceptions of forensic evidence: investigating the impact of case context on perceptions of forensic evidence strength,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 409–414, 2011.
W. C. Thompson, and E. L. Schumann, “Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: the prosecutor’s fallacy and the defense attorney’s fallacy,” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 167–187, 1987.
A. Tversky, and D. Kahneman, “Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability,” Cognitive Psychology, vol. 5, pp. 207–232, 1973.
R. Wheate, “Australian juries and scientific evidence,” Australian Journal of Forensic Science, vol. 38, pp. 75–84, 2006.
R. Wheate, “The importance of DNA evidence to juries in criminal trials,” International Journal of Evidence and Proof, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 129–145, 2010.
K. Yamagishi, “When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: implications for risk communication,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 11, pp. 495–506, 1997.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
Manuscript received December 28, 2013. Robyn Lincoln, Adam Southerland and Madeleine Jarrett-Luck are in the Criminology section of the Faculty of Society and Design at Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland 4218, Australia (phone +617 55952659; fax +617 55952672; e-mail: rlincoln@bond.edu.au).
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Lincoln, R., Southerland, A. & Jarrett-Luck, M. The Persuasive Powers of DNA: An Experimental Study in Perceptions of Expert Evidence. GSTF J Law Soc Sci 3, 2 (2014). https://doi.org/10.7603/s40741-014-0002-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7603/s40741-014-0002-5