Chapter 9 A Race to the Top: Enabling Juries to make Informed Decisions when Confronted with Forensic Evidence

Abstract

This chapter examines whether the view of the jury in cases involving forensic evidence can be changed from that of “naïve automatons” to that of “sophisticated decision makers”; whether the defense and prosecution must provide the jurors with information to help them develop a schema upon which to evaluate the forensic evidence; and whether to remove decision making from the expert forensic scientist and return it to the jury. The chapter uses secondary sources of information collected from criminal cases, the current federal law, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with expert testimony, studies of how to enable juries confronted with forensic evidence, as well as a framework of learning theory and persuasion games. I argue that expert forensic scientists make errors. Juries are capable of making decisions based on complex forensic evidence if provided the knowledge within which to develop schema to evaluate that evidence. Competition between the defense and prosecution in presenting interpretations of scientifically valid evidence, as well as providing schema to enable the jury to evaluate the information, provides juries with the ability to arrive at a full information decision. Expert nullification of jury decision making should be halted and decision making returned to the jury. The value of this chapter is to integrate learning theory from cognitive psychology with one-shot and extended persuasion games to evaluate the roles of the jury and the expert forensic scientists within the criminal justice system.

Citation

Cowan, E.J. (2012), "Chapter 9 A Race to the Top: Enabling Juries to make Informed Decisions when Confronted with Forensic Evidence", Koppl, R., Horwitz, S. and Dobuzinskis, L. (Ed.) Experts and Epistemic Monopolies (Advances in Austrian Economics, Vol. 17), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 143-170. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1529-2134(2012)0000017011