Comparing Categorical and Probabilistic Fingerprint Evidence
- 1 November 2018
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Forensic Sciences
- Vol. 63 (6), 1712-1717
- https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13797
Abstract
Fingerprint examiners traditionally express conclusions in categorical terms, opining that impressions do or do not originate from the same source. Recently, probabilistic conclusions have been proposed, with examiners estimating the probability of a match between recovered and known prints. This study presented a nationally representative sample of jury-eligible adults with a hypothetical robbery case in which an examiner opined on the likelihood that a defendant's fingerprints matched latent fingerprints in categorical or probabilistic terms. We studied model language developed by the U.S. Defense Forensic Science Center to summarize results of statistical analysis of the similarity between prints. Participant ratings of the likelihood the defendant left prints at the crime scene and committed the crime were similar when exposed to categorical and strong probabilistic match evidence. Participants reduced these likelihoods when exposed to the weaker probabilistic evidence, but did not otherwise discriminate among the prints assigned different match probabilities.Keywords
Funding Information
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Jurors’ Presumption of InnocenceThe Journal of Legal Studies, 2017
- How Jurors Evaluate Fingerprint Evidence: The Relative Importance of Match Language, Method Information, and Error AcknowledgmentJournal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2013
- Do Jurors Give Appropriate Weight to Forensic Identification Evidence?Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2013
- Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical powerJournal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2009
- Statistics in the Jury Box: How Jurors Respond to Mitochondrial DNA Match ProbabilitiesJournal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2007
- Thinking About Low-Probability EventsPsychological Science, 2004
- Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutor's fallacy and the defense attorney's fallacy.Law and Human Behavior, 1987
- Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal ProcessHarvard Law Review, 1971