Search results

The purpose of this study was to fill the gap in understanding the impact of Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) evidence and testimony in driving under the influence (DUI) trials. This was accomplished by documenting and analyzing the perceptions of DREs and the DRE program across different stakeholders to understand how and when this type of evidence is used in DUI trials.

The methodology is a qualitative case study of the DRE program in one police agency in Washington. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with criminal justice actors and state-level experts on their perceptions of the DRE program for the agency. Themes were developed from these interviews to analyze their perceptions of the efficacy and utility of DREs in trials.

While the courts in Washington accept DRE evidence in criminal trials, DRE evidence is largely absent in the adjudication process. Participants noted multiple reasons for this, including the lack of trials, the primacy of blood evidence and the expansion of the Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) program.

Although the DRE program has been around for decades, there is a lack of peer-reviewed studies regarding DRE evidence, and no studies regarding how court actors perceive and use DRE evidence. Understanding when and how DRE evidence is utilized in DUI trials can increase its value and utility by prosecutors and the national DRE program.

The Scottish Government hope to pilot judge only rape trials to increase the woefully low rape conviction rates in Scotland. The reasoning is that by removing jurors, the court will be attenuating the role that rape myths and other cognitive and social biases have on conviction rates. However, a plethora of research from cognitive and social psychology, legal literature and decision-making science has shown that experts, including judges and other legal professionals, may be no less biased than laypeople. This paper aims to outline the research highlighting that experts may also be biased, why biases in judges can be elicited, and potential alternative recommendations (i.e. deselecting jurors who score highly on rape myths and providing training/education for jurors). Furthermore, piloting with real judges, in real trials, may not be best practice. Therefore, the authors recommend that any piloting is preceded by experimental research.

N/A

Furthermore, piloting with real judges, in real trials, may not be best practice; therefore, the authors recommend that any piloting is preceded by experimental research.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is the first of its kind to directly compared the decision-making of jurors and judges within the current Scottish legal context.