CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 37Jury Decision Making ProcessesLegal processes and jurisprudenceDeception detection and forensic psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How Jurors Evaluate Fingerprint Evidence: The Relative Importance of Match Language, Method Information, and Error Acknowledgment

Open access
Garrett, Brandon, Mitchell, Gregory·2013·Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
DOI 10.1111/jels.12017
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Fingerprint examiners use a variety of terms and phrases to describe a finding of a match between a defendant's fingerprints and fingerprint impressions collected from a crime scene. Despite the importance and ubiquity of fingerprint evidence in criminal cases, no prior studies examine how jurors evaluate such evidence. We present two studies examining the impact of different match phrases, method descriptions, and statements about possible examiner error on the weight given to fingerprint identification evidence by laypersons. In both studies, the particular phrase chosen to describe the finding of a match—whether simple and imprecise or detailed and claiming near certainty—had little effect on participants' judgments about the guilt of a suspect. In contrast, the examiner admitting the possibility of error reduced the weight given to the fingerprint evidence—regardless of whether the admission was made during direct or cross‐examination. In addition, the examiner providing information about the method used to make fingerprint comparisons reduced the impact of admitting the possibility of error. We found few individual differences in reactions to the fingerprint evidence across a wide range of participant variables, and we found widespread agreement regarding the uniqueness of fingerprints and the reliability of fingerprint identifications. Our results suggest that information about the reliability of fingerprint identifications will have a greater impact on lay interpretations of fingerprint evidence than the specific qualitative or quantitative terms chosen to describe a fingerprint match.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jels.12017

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 Garrett & Mitchell 2013

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. 10.1126/science.334.6054.307 · DOI
  2. 10.1177/1745691610393980 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Cole S. A., 2001, Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification, 10.4159/9780674029682 · DOI
  4. Cole S. A., 2004, Grandfathering Evidence: Fingerprint Admissibility Rulings from Jennings to Llera Plaza and Back Again, American Criminal Law Rev., 41, 1189
  5. Cole S. A., 2007, Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Thinking About Expert Evidence as Expert Testimony, Villanova Law Rev., 52, 803
  6. Cole S. A., 2011, Splitting Hairs? Evaluating ‘Split Testimony’ as an Approach to the Problem of Forensic Expert Evidence, Sidney Law Rev., 33, 459
  7. Cummings H., 1943, Finger Prints, Palms and Soles: An Introduction to Dermatoglyphics
  8. 10.3758/BF03193213 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00762.x · DOI
  11. Eldridge H., 2012, ‘I Am 100% Certain of My Conclusion.’ (But Should the Jury be Certain?), Evidence Technology Magazine, 8
  12. Garrett B. L., 2009, Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions, Virginia Law Rev., 95, 1
  13. Geddes L.(2009) “Forensic Evidence Goes on Trial ” February 28New Scientist6. · DOI
  14. Geddes L. (2010) “Fingerprints to Go Scientific at Last ” March 20New Scientist10. · DOI
  15. 10.1177/0272989X04265482 · DOI
  16. 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01233.x · DOI
  17. 10.1027/1618-3169.53.3.161 · DOI
  18. 10.1007/s10979-006-9074-4 · DOI
  19. 10.2307/2982696 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1023/A:1012892815916 · DOI
  21. 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01225.x · DOI
  22. Koehler J. J., 2008, The Individualization Fallacy in Forensic Science Evidence, Vanderbilt Law Rev., 61, 199
  23. Koehler J. J., 2010, Individualization Claims in Forensic Science: Still Unwarranted, Brooklyn Law Rev., 75, 1187
  24. 10.1177/0272989X0102100105 · DOI
  25. 10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1207/s15324834basp2602&3_3 · DOI
  27. McQuiston‐Surrett D., 2008, Communicating Opinion Evidence in Forensic Identification Sciences: Accuracy and Impact, Hastings Law J., 59, 1159
  28. 10.1007/s10979-008-9169-1 · DOI
  29. Mnookin J. L., 2001, Fingerprint Evidence in an Age of DNA Profiling, Brooklyn Law Rev., 67, 13
  30. 10.1093/lpr/mgm022 · DOI
  31. Mnookin J. L., 2010, The Courts, the NAS, and the Future of Forensic Science, Brooklyn Law Rev., 75, 1209
  32. 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2012.00539.x · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.08.008 · DOI
  34. Paolacci G., 2010, Running Experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk, Judgment & Decision Making, 5, 411, 10.1017/S1930297500002205 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1177/0963721411429960 · DOI
  36. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1016/1041-6080(95)90031-4 · DOI
  38. Saks M. J., 2003, The Legal and Scientific Evaluation of Forensic Evidence (Especially Fingerprint Expert Testimony), Seton Hall Law Rev., 33, 1167
  39. Saks M. J., 2009, The Past and Future of Forensic Science and the Courts, Judicature, 93, 94
  40. Schum D. A., 1994, The Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning
  41. Shelton D. E., 2008, The ‘CSI Effect’: Does it Exist?, NIJ J., 259, 1
  42. 10.1016/S0015-7368(91)73138-1 · DOI
  43. 10.1520/JFS11901J · DOI
  44. 10.1177/0956797611414729 · DOI
  45. 10.2307/20455645 · DOI
  46. 10.1177/0272989X07303824 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Garrett, B., & Mitchell, G.
Affiliations
University of Virginia (US)
Corresponding author
Mitchell, Gregory
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-08-19
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
484-511
ISSN
  • 1740-1453 (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-1461
DOI
10.1111/jels.12017
OpenAlex
W1894791294
Cited by
37
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2
FWCI
19.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (publishedVersion)
  • Duke Law Scholarship Repository (Duke University) (submittedVersion)
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
fingerprint evidence, jury decision-making, guilt judgments, forensic evidence reliability, individual differences, cross-examination

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