Do evidence submission forms expose latent print examiners to task-irrelevant information?

Emerging research documents the ways in which task-irrelevant contextual information may influence the opinions and decisions that forensic analysts reach regarding evidence (e.g., Dror and Cole, 2010; National Academy of Sciences, 2009; President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2016). Consequently, authorities have called for forensic analysts to rely solely on task-relevant information—and to actively avoid task-irrelevant information—when conducting analyses (National Commission on Forensic Science, 2015). In this study, we examined 97 evidence submission forms, used by 148 accredited crime laboratories across the United States, to determine what types of information laboratories solicit when performing latent print analyses. Results indicate that many laboratories request information with no direct relevance to the specific task of latent print comparison. More concerning, approximately one in six forms (16.5%) request information that appears to have a high potential for bias without any discernible relevance to latent print comparison. Solicitations for task-irrelevant information may carry meaningful consequences and current findings inform strategies to reduce the potential for cognitive bias

Perceptions and estimates of error rates in forensic science: A survey of forensic analysts

Every scientific technique features some error, and legal standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence (e.g., Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1993; Kumho Tire Co v. Carmichael, 1999) guide trial courts to consider known error rates. However, recent reviews of forensic science conclude that error rates for some common techniques are not well-documented or even established (e.g., NAS, 2009; PCAST, 2016). Furthermore, many forensic analysts have historically denied the presence of error in their field. Therefore, it is important to establish what forensic scientists actually know or believe about errors rates in their disciplines. We surveyed 183 practicing forensic analysts to examine what they think and estimate about error rates in their various disciplines. Results revealed that analysts perceive all types of errors to be rare, with false positive errors even more rare than false negatives. Likewise, analysts typically reported that they prefer to minimize the risk of false positives over false negatives. Most analysts could not specify where error rates for their discipline were documented or published. Their estimates of error in their fields were widely divergent – with some estimates unrealistically low

How do latent print examiners perceive proficiency testing? An analysis of examiner perceptions, performance, and print quality

Proficiency testing has the potential to serve several important purposes for crime laboratories and forensic science disciplines. Scholars and other stakeholders, however, have criticized standard proficiency testing procedures since their implementation in laboratories across the United States. Specifically, many experts label current proficiency tests as non-representative of actual casework, at least in part because they are not sufficiently challenging (e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4]. In the current study, we surveyed latent print examiners (n = 322) after they completed a Collaborative Testing Services proficiency test about their perceptions of test items. We also evaluated respondents’ test performance and used a quality metric algorithm (LQMetrics) to obtain objective indicators of print quality on the test. Results were generally consistent with experts’ concerns about proficiency testing. The low observed error rate, examiner perceptions of relative ease, and high objective print quality metrics together suggest that latent print proficiency testing is not especially challenging. Further, examiners indicated that the test items that most closely resembled real-world casework were also the most difficult and contained prints of the lowest quality. Study findings suggest that including prints of lower quality may increase both the difficulty and representativeness of proficiency testing in latent print examination

As Far as the Eye Can See: Relationship between Psychopathic Traits and Pupil Response to Affective Stimuli

Psychopathic individuals show a range of affective processing deficits, typically associated with the interpersonal/affective component of psychopathy. However, previous research has been inconsistent as to whether psychopathy, within both offender and community populations, is associated with deficient autonomic responses to the simple presentation of affective stimuli. Changes in pupil diameter occur in response to emotionally arousing stimuli and can be used as an objective indicator of physiological reactivity to emotion. This study used pupillometry to explore whether psychopathic traits within a community sample were associated with hypo-responsivity to the affective content of stimuli. Pupil activity was recorded for 102 adult (52 female) community participants in response to affective (both negative and positive affect) and affectively neutral stimuli, that included images of scenes, static facial expressions, dynamic facial expressions and sound-clips. Psychopathic traits were measured using the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure. Pupil diameter was larger in response to negative stimuli, but comparable pupil size was demonstrated across pleasant and neutral stimuli. A linear relationship between subjective arousal and pupil diameter was found in response to sound-clips, but was not evident in response to scenes. Contrary to predictions, psychopathy was unrelated to emotional modulation of pupil diameter across all stimuli. The findings were the same when participant gender was considered. This suggests that psychopathy within a community sample is not associated with autonomic hypo-responsivity to affective stimuli, and this effect is discussed in relation to later defensive/appetitive mobilisation deficits

Judicial Decision Making About Forensic Mental Health Evidence

Judges play a central role in decision making in the justice system. This chapter reviews the extant empirical research on judicial decision making in criminal, juvenile, and civil cases. We discuss judges’ decision making about forensic mental health evidence introduced in these cases, judicial receptivity to various kinds of evidence, and their understanding of clinical and scientific evidence as well as the ways they make rulings about such evidence. We focus on decision making at the trial court level, in those arenas that are most relevant to the forensic mental health practitioner (psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) who is called on to provide testimony to the courts

Judicial Decision Making About Forensic Mental Health Evidence

Judges play a central role in decision making in the justice system. This chapter reviews the extant empirical research on judicial decision making in criminal, juvenile, and civil cases. We discuss judges’ decision making about forensic mental health evidence introduced in these cases, judicial receptivity to various kinds of evidence, and their understanding of clinical and scientific evidence as well as the ways they make rulings about such evidence. We focus on decision making at the trial court level, in those arenas that are most relevant to the forensic mental health practitioner (psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) who is called on to provide testimony to the courts