Forensic expert evidence: research approaches to judicial, juror, and lawyer decision-making

In the United States, forensic experts routinely testify in legal proceedings to help solve crime. In doing so, forensic experts interact with key legal actors. Judges will determine the admissibility of the expert’s evidence, deliver jury instructions, and decide appeals. Lawyers will present and challenge the expert evidence, and jurors will weigh the evidence as part of determining a verdict. In this space, advances in DNA testing have led to concerns about the reliability of expert opinions concerning forensic comparison techniques like fingerprint and firearm analysis, which have served the criminal justice system for decades. The National Academy of Sciences has reported on these concerns, including the limitations of judges, lawyers, and jurors when it comes to understanding forensic science evidence. Against this backdrop, this chapter shares three research approaches developed by the authors to deepen understanding of judicial, juror, and lawyer decision-making about forensic science in context. It concludes with ideas for future research, including the relevance of these approaches to legal debates in England and Wales, Canada, and Australia.