Science, technology, or the expert witness: What influences jurors’ judgments about forensic science testimony?
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Studies of jury decisionmaking have examined how well fact-finders understand and evaluate forensic examiners' conclusions, which in the past were often highly confident and exaggerated.
“Studies of jury decisionmaking have examined how well fact-finders understand and how they evaluate the conclusions that forensic examiners reach, which in the past were often highly confident and exaggerated (Garrett & Mitchell 2013, Koehler 2017, Koehler et al. 2016, Lieberman et al. 2008).”
From Wrongful Convictions (2020) · cites this paper as Koehler et al. 2016
Cites
A BEHAVIORAL MODEL OF RATIONAL CHOICE
Simon, H. A. (1955) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1884852 · Cited by 15,877 · see citing works
Chaiken, S. (1980) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.39.5.752 · Cited by 5,516 · see citing works
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 · Cited by 5,359 · see citing works
Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/208954 · Cited by 4,610 · see citing works
Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.004 · Cited by 3,476 · see citing works
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197 · Cited by 2,517 · see citing works
Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change.
Riley, M. W., Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1954) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2087772 · Cited by 2,039 · see citing works
Behavioral Decision Theory: Processes of Judgement and Choice
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1981) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.000413 · Cited by 1,691 · see citing works
Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460 · Cited by 1,214 · see citing works
The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out?
Bornstein, B. H. (1999) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1022326807441 · Cited by 692 · see citing works
The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science
Saks, M. J., & Koehler, J. J. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1111565 · Cited by 621 · see citing works
Self-citationModern scientific evidence : the law and science of expert testimony
Cheng, E. K., Faigman, D. L., Saks, M. J., & Sanders, J. (2006) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 462 · see citing works
Self-citationPerloff, R. M. (2016) · doi:10.4324/9781315657714 · Cited by 433 · see citing works
(1991) · CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) · Cited by 340 · see citing works
Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors' bias for leniency.
MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.21 · Cited by 230 · see citing works
Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions?
Cooper, J., Bennett, E., & Sukel, H. L. (1996) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/bf01498976 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Mock Jury Research: Where Do We Go from Here?
Wiener, R. L., Krauss, D. A., & Lieberman, J. D. (2011) · Behavioral Sciences & the Law · doi:10.1002/bsl.989 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Lieberman, J. D., Carrell, C. A., Miethe, T. D., & Krauss, D. A. (2008) · Psychology Public Policy and Law · doi:10.1037/1076-8971.14.1.27 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
The Witness Credibility Scale: An outcome measure for expert witness research
Brodsky, S. L., Griffin, M. P., & Cramer, R. J. (2010) · Behavioral Sciences & the Law · doi:10.1002/bsl.917 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
McQuiston‐Surrett, D., & Saks, M. J. (2009) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9169-1 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Seer-Sucker Theory: The Value of Experts in ForecastingPreprint
Armstrong, J. S. (1980) · CogPrints (University of Southampton) · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Forensic Handwriting Examiners' Expertise for Signature Comparison
Sita, J. C., Found, B. J., & Rogers, D. (2002) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1520/jfs15521j · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Risinger, D. M., Denbeaux, M. P., & Saks, M. J. (1989) · University of Pennsylvania Law Review · doi:10.2307/3312276 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Self-citationUse of the simulation method in the study of jury behavior: Some methodological considerations.
Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. (1979) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/bf01039151 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors’ liability verdicts
Bornstein, B. H. (2004) · Psychology Crime and Law · doi:10.1080/1068316030001629292 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Núñez, G. (2008) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9133-0 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Juror Need for Cognition and Sensitivity to Methodological Flaws in Expert Evidence1
McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (2008) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00310.x · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Vidmar, N. J., & Diamond, S. S. (2001) · bepress Legal Repository · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Differences in expert witness knowledge: do mock jurors notice and does it matter?
Parrott, C. T., Neal, T. M. S., Wilson, J. K., & Brodsky, S. L. (2015) · PubMed · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Science in the jury box: Jurors’ comprehension of mitochondrial DNA evidence.
Hans, V. P., Kaye, D. H., Dann, B. M., Farley, E. J., & Albertson, S. L. (2010) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9222-8 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Source credibility and perceived expertness of testimony in a simulated child-custody case.
Swenson, R. A., Nash, D. L., & Roos, D. C. (1984) · Professional Psychology Research and Practice · doi:10.1037//0735-7028.15.6.891 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
I spy with my little eye: Jurors’ detection of internal validity threats in expert evidence.
McAuliff, B. D., & Duckworth, T. D. (2010) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9219-3 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Do Jurors Give Appropriate Weight to Forensic Identification Evidence?
Thompson, W. C., Kaasa, S. O., & Peterson, T. (2013) · Journal of Empirical Legal Studies · doi:10.1111/jels.12013 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2009) · Psychology Public Policy and Law · doi:10.1037/a0015290 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Psychological Foundations of Evidence Law
Saks, M. J., & Spellman, B. A. (2017) · New York University Press eBooks · doi:10.18574/nyu/9781479880041.001.0001 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Self-citationStatistical inference and forensic evidence: Evaluating a bullet lead match.
Kaasa, S. O., Peterson, T., Morris, E. K., & Thompson, W. C. (2006) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9074-4 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Forensic DNA evidence is not infallible
Cale, C. M. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/526611a · Cited by 15 · see citing works
McKimmie, B. M., Newton, S. A., Schuller, R. A., & Terry, D. J. (2012) · Psychiatry Psychology and Law · doi:10.1080/13218719.2012.727068 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Civil Juries in Ecological Context: Methodological Implications for Research
Vidmar, N. J. (2007) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-74490-2_3 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Inherent Fingerprint Luminescence - Detection By Laser
Dalrymple, B. E., Duff, J. M., & Menzel, E. R. (1977) · Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · doi:10.1117/12.955491 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Attorney beliefs concerning scientific evidence and expert witness credibility
Wechsler, H. J., Kehn, A., Wise, R. A., & Cramer, R. J. (2015) · International Journal of Law and Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.03.008 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
The Shifted Paradigm: Forensic Sciences's Overdue Evolution from Magic to LawPreprint
Fabricant, M. C., & Carrington, W. T. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2572480 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Vernon, W. (2008) · Journal of Anatomy · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7580.2008.00979.x · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Juror comprehension of forensic expert testimony: A literature review and gap analysis
Eldridge, H. (2019) · Forensic Science International Synergy · doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.03.001 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Wilcox, A. M., & NicDaéid, N. (2018) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.07.030 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Garrett, B. L. (2020) · Annual Review of Criminology · doi:10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024739 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Mitchell, G., & Garrett, B. L. (2019) · Behavioral Sciences & the Law · doi:10.1002/bsl.2402 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Forensic science evidence: Naive estimates of false positive error rates and reliability
Martire, K. A., Ballantyne, K. N., Bali, A. S., Edmond, G., Kemp, R. I., & Found, B. J. (2019) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.109877 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
A scientist’s take on scientific evidence in the courtroom
Albright, T. D. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2301839120 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Human Factors in Forensic Science: Psychological Causes of Bias and ErrorPreprint
Kukucka, J., & Dror, I. E. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/8pqyt · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Error Rates, Likelihood Ratios, and Jury Evaluation of Forensic Evidence
Garrett, B. L., Crozier, W. E., & Grady, R. H. (2020) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.14323 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Human Factors in Forensic Science
Kukucka, J., & Dror, I. E. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197649138.013.36 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Kovács, B., & Horwitz, S. R. (2020) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127020922482 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Juror appraisals of forensic evidence: Effects of blind proficiency and cross-examination
Crozier, W. E., Kukucka, J., & Garrett, B. L. (2020) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110433 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Exploring juror evaluations of expert opinions using the Expert Persuasion Expectancy framework
Martire, K. A., Edmond, G., & Navarro, D. (2020) · Legal and Criminological Psychology · doi:10.1111/lcrp.12165 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
A transparent approach: Openness in forensic science reporting
Ballantyne, K. N., Summersby, S., Pearson, J. R., Nicol, K., Pirie, E., Quinn, C., & Kogios, R. (2024) · Forensic Science International: Synergy · doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100474 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Forensic DNA Interpretation and Human Factors: Improving the Practice Through a Systems Approach
Taylor, M. K. (2024) · doi:10.6028/nist.ir.8503 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Younan, M., & Martire, K. A. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.785677 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Kukucka, J., Hiley, A., & Kassin, S. M. (2020) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.14546 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Saks, M. J. (2018) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0458-5 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Self-citationEffects of false-evidence ploys and expert testimony on jurors, juries, and judges
Woody, W. D., Stewart, J. M., Forrest, K. D., Camacho, L. J., Woestehoff, S. A., Provenza, K. R., Walker, A. T., & Powner, S. J. (2018) · Cogent Psychology · doi:10.1080/23311908.2018.1528744 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
The low prevalence effect in fingerprint comparison amongst forensic science trainees and novices
Growns, B., Dunn, J. D., Helm, R. K., Towler, A., & Kukucka, J. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0272338 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Court Case Context and Fluency-Promoting Photos Inflate the Credibility of Forensic Science
Sanson, M., Crozier, W. E., & Strange, D. M. (2020) · Zeitschrift für Psychologie · doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000415 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
A Step Too Far: The Problems with Forensic Gait Analysis
Grand, A. M. L., Neuschatz, J. S., Golding, J. M., Jenkins, B. D., & Cutler, B. L. (2022) · Advances in psychology and law · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-13733-4_4 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Science, evidence, law, and justice
Albright, T. D., Baltimore, D., Mazza, A.-M., Mnookin, J. L., & Tatel, D. S. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2312529120 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Battling to a draw: Defense expert rebuttal can neutralize prosecution fingerprint evidence
Mitchell, G., & Garrett, B. L. (2021) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3824 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Summersby, S., Edmond, G., Kemp, R. I., Ballantyne, K. N., & Martire, K. A. (2024) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2024.112034 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Calibrating the perceived strength of evidence of forensic testimony statements
Busey, T. A., & Klutzke, M. (2022) · Science & Justice · doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2022.10.003 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Abellán, M. G. (2022) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009032049.015 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Koehler, J. J. (2020) · Zeitschrift für Psychologie · doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000413 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citationA Forensic Science Informational Video Can Help Mock Jurors Evaluate Forensic Expert Testimony
LaBat, D. E., Goldfarb, D., Evans, J. R., Compo, N. S., Koolmees, C. J., LaPorte, G. M., & Lothridge, K. (2023) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/00938548231195112 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Ferreira, P. A., & Wingrove, T. (2023) · Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice · doi:10.1080/24732850.2023.2181121 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Forensic Science Decision-Making
Growns, B., & Neal, T. M. S. (2024) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009119375.013 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Rempel, E., & Burke, T. M. (2022) · Psychology Crime and Law · doi:10.1080/1068316x.2022.2041014 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Retracted: Generalisability and stability of visual comparison ability
Growns, B., Gough, M., & Helm, R. K. (2023) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.4127 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
RetractedSmith, R. L., Kannemeyer, M., Adams, E., Nguyen, V. V., Munshaw, R., & Burr, W. S. (2020) · Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal · doi:10.1080/00085030.2020.1748284 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Cippitani, R., Mirabile, A., & Onofri, M. (2021) · Justicia &Derecho · doi:10.32457/rjyd.v4i2.1440 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Han, Y. (2025) · Victims & Offenders · doi:10.1080/15564886.2025.2551183 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Diverging Decisions? A Comparison of Jury Verdict Procedures
Burd, K. A., Hans, V. P., Phalen, H. J., Madon, S., Guyll, M., & Reed, K. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15121666
EEG Lie Detection Evidence and Potential Australian Jurors
Wilcoxson, R., Browne, M., Brooks, N., & DUCKETT, P. S. (2024) · Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology · doi:10.1007/s11896-024-09670-1 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Smith, J., Horne, J., Singh, M., Mashaba, P., & Ramohlale, M. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4825544
Jones, A. C. T., & Haga, M. R. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15081071
LaBat, D. E., Evans, J. R., Goldfarb, D., & Compo, N. S. (2023) · doi:10.64628/aai.qguayedy5
Cain, C. F., & Smith, O. K. H. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15101411
Gittings, K. L., Giffin, C. E., & Salerno, J. M. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15121670
Martire, K. A., & Younan, M. (2023) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)
Comunicación de la prueba pericial: el informe y el testimonio en los procedimientos judiciales
Soria, M. L. N. (2026) · Revista Española de Medicina Legal · doi:10.1016/j.reml.2026.500518
Expert evidence communication: the report and testimony in judicial proceedings
Soria, M. L. N. (2026) · Revista Española de Medicina Legal · doi:10.1016/j.remle.2026.500518
- Authors
- Koehler, J. J., Schweitzer, N. J., Saks, M. J., & McQuiston, D. E.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Arizona State University (US)
- Wofford College (US)
- Venue
- Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
- Published
- 2016-11
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 401-413
- ISSN
- 1076-8971 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1528
- OpenAlex
- W2542849884
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 25.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Psychology Public Policy and Law (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- National Institute of Justice (2008-DN-BX-0003)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Jury Decision Making Processes
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Keywords
- expert witnesses, jury decision-making, science communication, credibility of evidence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
