The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Can Jurors Understand Probabilistic Evidence?
Abstract
SUMMARY Some courts have been reluctant to admit testimony expressing probabilities because of a concern that jurors will overweight it relative to other evidence. However, empirical studies indicate a tendency to underweight statistical evidence when other sources of evidence are available. This paper reviews recent studies with mock jurors.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
Statistical analysis allows the scientist to evaluate their evidence and assign probabilities to their conclusions as a way of communicating uncertainty.
“Statistical analysis allows the scientist to evaluate their evidence and assign probabilities to their conclusions as a way of communicating uncertainty (Donnelly, 2007;Kaye & Koehler, 1991).”
From Communication, forensic science, and the law (2021) · cites this paper as Kaye & Koehler, 1991
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Communication, forensic science, and the law
Hackman, L. (2021) · WIREs Forensic Science · doi:10.1002/wfs2.1396 · Cited by 20
“Statistical analysis allows the scientist to evaluate their evidence and assign probabilities to their conclusions as a way of communicating uncertainty (Donnelly, 2007; Kaye & Koehler, 1991).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaye, D. H., & Koehler, J. J.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- ORCID
- Kaye, D. H.
- Venue
- Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society)
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1991
- Volume
- 154
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 75
- ISSN
- 0964-1998 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3124213503
- Cited by
- 101
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 39.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Jury Decision Making Processes
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- probabilistic evidence, jury decision-making, statistical evidence, weight of evidence, mock jurors
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
