Jurors' Judgments About Forensic Identification Evidence, Arizona, 2011-2014 (ICPSR 36169)
Version Date: Aug 31, 2021 View help for published
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Nicholas J. Schweitzer, Arizona State University
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36169.v1
Version V1
Summary View help for Summary
This data file describes three different experiments that were designed to examine how differences in the way forensic scientific evidence is communicated affects jurors.
In each experiment, participants consisted of jury-eligible community members in Maricopa County, Arizona. Groups of participants attended a research session in which they were shown a 35-40-minute videotapes of one of two mock criminal trials (one, a rape case, centers around bitemark evidence, and the other, an attempted murder, centers around fingerprint evidence). Within each trial the content of a forensic scientist's testimony was manipulated. These manipulations involved: 1) whether the technique used by the forensic scientist was "high tech" or "low tech," 2) the amount of experience possessed by the forensic scientist, 3) whether the technique used by the forensic scientist had been scientifically validated, 4) whether the forensic scientist conceded that an error was possible, and 5) whether any exculpatory evidence was present at the crime scene.
Immediately following the trial, each individual participants completed a questionnaire in which they gave their individual impressions of the strength of the case. Following that, the group of participant would deliberate and attempt to reach a unanimous verdict. Finally, each individual participant completed an additional questionnaire that again measured perceptions of the case along with individual difference measures and demographics.
Citation View help for Citation
Export Citation:
Funding View help for Funding
Subject Terms View help for Subject Terms
Geographic Coverage View help for Geographic Coverage
Smallest Geographic Unit View help for Smallest Geographic Unit
County
Restrictions View help for Restrictions
Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.
Distributor(s) View help for Distributor(s)
Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)
Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection
Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose
The purpose of the study was to garner a better understanding of how jurors respond to forensic identification expert testimony presented at trial. Researchers pursued this goal by conducting a series of controlled studies involving jury simulations (experimental studies in which the researcher attempts to construct a setting that mirrors a jury decision-making environment) or mock trials.
The first experiment examined how an expert's experience level, the "tech-factor" of the methods used (high-tech vs low-tech), and the extent to which the expert's methods have been scientifically validated combine to influence jurors' judgments about the forensic evidence.
The second experiment examined the forensic expert's subjective level of certainty over his findings combined with the presence or absence of any exculpatory forensic evidence.
The third experiment examined the scientific validity of a forensic technique combined with whether the forensic expert concedes that forensic identifications may be made in error.
Study Design View help for Study Design
Researchers used a "mock-trial paradigm" in which they created fictitious criminal trials and asked a sample of laypeople to serve as "jurors" in the cases. As a starting point, they created two completely different cases: one, a rape case, involved a defendant who allegedly bit the victim's shoulder, leaving a bitemark behind. The second case, an attempted murder, included fingerprints left behind on a mug that the suspect had touched during the crime. Both trials were strategically designed such that the strength of the forensic evidence - bitemark or fingerprint - would be the key piece of evidence that jurors would use to base their decisions.
Sample View help for Sample
There were two samples for this study: One of rejected jurors in Phoenix, AZ, and another of mock trial jurors recruited by a market research firm.
Time Method View help for Time Method
Universe View help for Universe
Jury-eligible residents of Maricopa County, AZ.
Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)
Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection
Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables
Variables related to experiment 1 include variables on the level of technology in the presented evidence, the experience of the expert, and the scientific testing of technique.
Variables related to experiment 2 include variables on the strength of exculpatory evidence, and the subjective certainty of the expert.
Variables related to experiment 3 include variables on the scientific testing of the technique, and the concession that an error is possible.
Response Rates View help for Response Rates
Not available.
HideNotes
The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.
ICPSR usually offers files in multiple formats for researchers to be able to access data and documentation in formats that work well within their needs. If you have questions about the accessibility of materials distributed by ICPSR or require further assistance, please visit ICPSR’s Accessibility Center.
One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.