skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 248829 Find in a Library
Title: Potential of Blind Collaborative Justice: Testing the Impact of Expert Blinding and Consensus Building on the Validity of Forensic Testimony
Date Published: August 2015
Page Count: 40
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Washington, DC 20531
Grant Number: 2013-IJ-CX-0002
Document: PDF
Type: Report (Grant Sponsored); Report (Study/Research); Report (Summary); Report (Technical Assistance); Report (Technical); Research (Applied/Empirical)
Format: Document; Document (Online)
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This study examined the effects of two techniques for quantifying and reducing bias in expert testimony, so as to reduce one of the underlying causes of wrongful convictions.
Abstract: One of the techniques examined is the “blinding” of expert witnesses, which means that prior to their testimony they do not know whether they will be testifying for the prosecution or the defense. The second technique provides consensus feedback on an expert’s findings prior to his/her testimony. The study found that a consensus of experts regarding an expert’s findings prior to his/her testimony resulted in fewer scientifically invalid conclusions. The study determined that without a consensus of qualified experts regarding a single expert witness’s findings, 88 percent of the findings were incorrect. Thus, expert consensus feedback decreased the rate of erroneous expert testimony. On the other hand, the use of the “blinding” technique did not result in fewer errors in expert testimony. The hypothetical case developed for the study involved criminal trespass and grand theft larceny of property belonging to a private business. The forensic question to be answered by the expert witness was the probability that the defendant used the stairwell. The solution could be derived by using Bayesian probability techniques familiar to those with experience or academic training in a variety of physical and social science fields such as math, chemistry, psychology, criminology, and law. In the consensus exercise, a panel of 12 scientists with doctorates in relevant fields evaluated the case in order to reach a consensus about the best answer to the probability question. 5 figures, 4 tables, and a 61-item bibliography
Main Term(s): Court procedures
Index Term(s): Expert witnesses; National Institute of Justice (NIJ); NIJ final report; NIJ grant-related documents; Peer assessment; Statistical bias; Wrongful conviction
Note: Report revised August 2015.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=270934

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.