Author ORCID Identifier

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3611-1469

Semester

Fall

Date of Graduation

2023

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Type

PhD

College

Eberly College of Arts and Sciences

Committee Chair

Christopher P. Scheitle

Committee Member

Corey J. Colyer

Committee Member

Joshua Woods

Committee Member

Amy Cyphert

Abstract

As science and technology evolve, they impact society at different levels. With these changes, it is important to understand how members of society will be affected. One area where there has been a rise in the use of scientific information is in jury trials. Those who are on trial for a criminal offense are more often relying on forensic evidence, and forensic experts, to aid in their defense, and those who are prosecuting a criminal case are also relying on forensic evidence and forensic experts. However, forensic evidence is not consistent in type or interpretation – what one person may find at a crime scene could differ than what another person does, and how one forensic scientist interprets a piece of forensic evidence can differ from what another forensic scientist will find. Because of inconsistencies in forensic science, and other scientific disciplines generally, there is a legal standard that judges use to evaluate whether a potential expert has the scientific expertise to be allowed to give testimony in a criminal trial – namely, the Daubert standard. However, who is a scientific expert will vary – an expert will have different credentials, professional experience, and personal characteristics that will influence how a potential juror will perceive them. Despite there being a vast body of academic literature focusing on forensic expert testimony, there are gaps in understanding how indicators of credentials and expertise specific to forensic science are understood by potential jurors. And, it is not only important to understand the characteristics that potential jurors associate with a “good” scientific expert; it is also important to understand how a juror’s own social characteristics and experiences will influence their perceptions of forensic expert testimony. Using an experimental design, this dissertation sought to better understand how an expert’s credentials impact how a potential juror will evaluate a forensic expert’s testimony. Participants were recruited using MTurk, resulting in 857 usable responses. Participants were randomly assigned one of eight vignettes designed to be understood as an excerpt of a court transcript, where an attorney was questioning a forensic expert about blood spatter patterns. The vignettes varied in how the expert was addressed, indicating the expert’s credentials (Dr. vs. Mr.), the expert’s laboratory affiliation (State vs. Private), and the forensic expert’s gender (Tim vs. Amy). Three studies were constructed from the data. Each study utilized a combined-scale variable representing credibility as the measurable outcome. The first study (n = 857) used the vignettes as a control variable, focusing solely on understanding how a juror’s own social characteristics influence how they perceive forensic expert testimony, generally. The second study (n = 211) focused on the expert’s gender, and how the expert’s perceived gender influences how a potential juror will evaluate the expert testimony. Finally, the third study (n = 646) focused on how the credentials of the expert, along with their laboratory affiliation, impact how a participant rated the forensic expert testimony.

Download

Share

COinS