期刊
ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PSYCHOLOGIE-JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
卷 228, 期 3, 页码 216-220出版社
HOGREFE & HUBER PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000414
关键词
forensic science; confirmation bias; attorneys; cross-examination
资金
- National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (DGE) [1646736]
- Direct For Education and Human Resources
- Division Of Graduate Education [1646736] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
Knowledge of task-irrelevant information undermines the probative value of forensic evidence (i.e., forensic confirmation bias). Cross-examination may sensitize jurors to bias - but do attorneys recognize when bias has tainted evidence against their client and adjust their cross-examination strategy accordingly? To address this question, 130 defense attorneys imagined representing a man charged with manslaughter and reviewed a case file that included, among other things, an autopsy report from a medical examiner who was either aware or unaware of their client's recanted confession before ruling the death a homicide. When the examiner knew of the confession, attorneys rated the autopsy as no less probative or reliable, they were no less confident in their client's guilt, and only 46% raised the possibility of confirmation bias on cross-examination. Our findings suggest that defense attorneys underappreciate the impact of forensic confirmation bias, such that biased forensic testimony would be better avoided via procedural reform.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据