Improving Communication Between Crime Laboratories and Legal Decision Makers

Forensic experts often communicate whether a suspect is linked to crime scene evidence by reporting a categorical forensic decision, such as identification (match), elimination or exclusion (mismatch), and inconclusive (neither a match nor a mismatch). This project will test how categorical forensic decisions may contribute to wrongful convictions and identify ways to reduce their harm to the innocent.

Wrongful conviction is a serious problem within the US criminal legal system, with far-reaching societal and economic consequences. Invalid forensic analysis is one cause of the problem; however, even valid forensic analysis can contribute to miscarriages of justice if forensic experts unwittingly miscommunicate the meaning of their findings to legal decision makers.

Categorical forensic decisions, though seemingly straightforward, have the potential to convey more or less culpability than the physical forensic evidence actually supports. When this happens, innocent people can be convicted and guilty people can go free, eroding trust in the legal system, threatening public safety, and wasting valuable economic resources.

This project will promote the fair administration of justice by helping to transform how forensic decisions are reported, understood, and used throughout the criminal legal system and provide opportunities to mentor students and an early career researcher and to foster the engagement of a variety of students in the research process.

This three-year project includes five experiments and a continuing legal education component designed for attorneys and judges. Grounded in sender-receiver models of the communication process, the laboratory experiments will (1) test whether categorical forensic decisions encourage miscommunication between forensic experts and prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges, (2) demonstrate whether an alternative forensic reporting metric can help forensic experts to more effectively communicate their findings to legal decision makers, and (3) examine the effectiveness of expert testimony for clarifying the meaning of categorical forensic decisions for jurors and juries.

The project will also create cutting-edge, on-demand, continuing legal education modules to improve the knowledge base of attorneys and judges regarding the validity and probative value of forensic evidence.

This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.