Forensics, Legal Actors, and Wrongful Convictions

• In Event: Miscarriages of Justice: Pleas and Evidence in the Courtroom

Abstract

In response to exonerations in cases involving flawed forensic evidence, as well as criticism in the legal and scientific communities, policymakers increasingly have focused on how forensics should be regulated in the courtroom, under the federal Daubert test or other gatekeeping standards, as well as based on scientific standards.  However, much research remains to be done on whether lay jurors fully appreciate the strengths and the weaknesses of forensic evidence, from complex statistical evidence presented in DNA comparisons to more elementary comparisons of latent fingerprints.  Further, for the vast bulk of criminal cases, there is no trial but rather a plea bargain. As relevant as a jury’s assessment of the scientific evidence will be the defense lawyer and prosecutor’s assessments of that evidence during plea negotiations. I will present studies examining the weight that laypeople place great weight on fingerprint evidence, including when varied verbal formulations were used to present conclusions and when error rate information was provided.  Second, I will present studies examining how criminal lawyers, both defense lawyers, and prosecutors, evaluate forensics, and finally, comparing those results, to evidence from studies examining how judges evaluate forensics.

Author

• Brandon L. Garrett, University of Virginia School of Law