Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Research Spotlight

Can Defense Attorneys Detect Forensic Confirmation Bias?

Effects on Evidentiary Judgments and Trial Strategies

Published Online:July 15, 2020https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000414

Abstract

Abstract. Knowledge of task-irrelevant information undermines the probative value of forensic evidence (i.e., forensic confirmation bias). Cross-examination may sensitize jurors to bias – but do attorneys recognize when bias has tainted evidence against their client and adjust their cross-examination strategy accordingly? To address this question, 130 defense attorneys imagined representing a man charged with manslaughter and reviewed a case file that included, among other things, an autopsy report from a medical examiner who was either aware or unaware of their client’s recanted confession before ruling the death a homicide. When the examiner knew of the confession, attorneys rated the autopsy as no less probative or reliable, they were no less confident in their client’s guilt, and only 46% raised the possibility of confirmation bias on cross-examination. Our findings suggest that defense attorneys underappreciate the impact of forensic confirmation bias, such that biased forensic testimony would be better avoided via procedural reform.

References

  • Appleby, S. C., & McCartin, H. R. (2019). Effective assistance of counsel? An empirical study of defense attorneys’ decision-making in false-confession cases. Cardozo Law Review De Novo, 7, 123–165. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Austin, J. L., & Kovera, M. B. (2015). Cross-examination educates jurors about missing control groups in scientific evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21, 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000049 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chorn, J. A., & Kovera, M. B. (2019). Variations in reliability and validity do not influence judge, attorney, and mock juror decisions about psychological expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000345 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cooper, G. S., & Meterko, V. (2019). Cognitive bias research in forensic science: A systematic review. Forensic Science International, 297, 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.016 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dror, I. E., & Charlton, D. (2006). Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56, 600–616. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Dror, I. E., Thompson, W. C., Meissner, C. A., Kornfield, I., Krane, D., Saks, M., & Risinger, M. (2015). Context management toolbox: A linear sequential unmasking (LSU) approach for minimizing cognitive bias in forensic decision making. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60, 1111–1112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12805 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Key, K. N., Neuschatz, J. S., Bornstein, B. H., Wetmore, S. A., Luecht, K. M., Dellapaolera, K. S., & Quinlivan, D. S. (2018). Beliefs about secondary confession evidence: A survey of laypeople and defense attorneys. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1351968 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Koehler, J. J. (2017). Intuitive error rate estimates for the forensic sciences. Jurimetrics, 57, 153–168. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2817443 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., Zapf, P. A., & Dror, I. E. (2017). Cognitive bias and blindness: A global survey of forensic science examiners. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 452–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lieberman, J. D., Carrell, C. A., Miethe, T. D., & Krauss, D. A. (2008). Gold versus platinum: Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 27–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.14.1.27 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McAuliff, B. D., & Duckworth, T. D. (2010). I spy with my little eye: Jurors’ detection of internal validity threats in expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 489–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9219-3 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mitchell, G., & Garrett, B. L. (2019). The impact of proficiency testing information and error aversions on the weight given to fingerprint evidence. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 37, 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2402 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Pezdek, K., & O’Brien, M. (2014). Plea bargaining and appraisals of eyewitness evidence by prosecutors and defense attorneys. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20, 222–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.770855 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Thompson, W. C. (2011). What role should investigative facts play in the evaluation of scientific evidence? Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43, 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2010.541499 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Thompson, W. C., & Scurich, N. (2019). How cross‐examination on subjectivity and bias affects jurors’ evaluations of forensic science evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 64, 1379–1388. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14031 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Westfall, J. (2015). PANGEA: Power analysis for general ANOVA designs. Retrieved from http://jakewestfall.org/publications/pangea.pdf First citation in articleGoogle Scholar