Cognitive bias research in forensic science: A systematic review

Improving forensic examiner decision-making through deliberate practice

Forensic examiners make important decisions to address legal questions, yet there is now ample evidence that their decisions can be subjective and inconsistent. This commentary suggests that elements of deliberate practice may help in not only having more consistent forensic decisions but also toward expected accuracy. Specifically, four elements of deliberate practice: (1) setting a goal, (2) motivation, (3) feedback, and (4) repetition are outlined with examples for addressing issues of cognitive bias and managing stress at work. If any of these elements are missing, such as delayed or no feedback, then suboptimal or no improvement of examiners' decision-making may result. This tool for deliberately improving decision-making may be applicable to other legal professionals; thus, potentially driving policies that may help enhance the criminal justice system broadly.

The effects of cognitive bias, examiner expertise, and stimulus material on forensic evidence analysis

Forensic examiners have come under scrutiny due to high-profile exonerations, highlighting the consequences that contextual bias can have on investigations. Researchers have proposed solutions to reduce the effects of bias including blind testing and redacting task-irrelevant information. Practitioners have concerns over the limitations of some of this research that uses untrained students to examine complex pieces of forensic evidence (e.g., fingerprints) (1; but see 2 for studies including trained experts and/or actual casework). This study sought to (a) examine the effect of contextual bias on examiners' evaluation of forensic evidence by varying the amount of pre-comparison information available to participants, (b) compare student and expert examiners' performance and their vulnerability to contextual bias, and (c) examine the effects of contextual bias on examiners' evaluation of different types of forensic evidence. Expert fingerprint examiners and student participants were presented with varying amounts of pre-comparison case information and compared matching and non-matching fingerprint and footwear impression evidence. Results suggest no effects of blinding examiners from case information or redacting task-irrelevant information. As expected, expert fingerprint examiners were more likely to correctly identify matching fingerprints and correctly exclude non-matching fingerprints than students. However, expert fingerprint examiners were no better than student participants at comparing footwear impression evidence. These findings suggest that sample, stimulus selection, and discipline-specific training matter when investigating bias in forensic decision making. These findings suggest caution when using forensic stimuli with student samples to investigate forensic decision-making and highlight the need for more research on redaction procedures.

A global survey of the attitudes and perspectives of cognitive bias in forensic anthropology

It is now well established that decision making can be susceptible to cognitive bias in a broad range of fields, with forensic science being no exception. Previously published research has revealed a bias blind spot in forensic science where examiners do not recognise bias within their own domain. A survey of 101 forensic anthropology practitioners (n = 52) and students (n = 38) was undertaken to assess their level of awareness of cognitive bias and investigate their attitudes towards cognitive bias within forensic anthropology. The results revealed that the forensic anthropology community (∼90%) had a high level of awareness of cognitive bias. Overall ∼89% expressed concerns about cognitive bias in the broad discipline of forensic science, their own domain of forensic anthropology, and in the evaluative judgments they made in reconstruction activities, identifying a significant reduction in the bias blind spot. However, more than half of the participants believed that bias can be reduced by sheer force of will, and there was a lack of consensus about implementing blinding procedures or context management. These findings highlight the need to investigate empirically the feasibility of proposed mitigating strategies within the workflow of forensic anthropologists and their capabilities for increasing the transparency in decision making.

Shifting decision thresholds can undermine the probative value and legal utility of forensic pattern-matching evidence

Forensic pattern analysis requires examiners to compare the patterns of items such as fingerprints or tool marks to assess whether they have a common source. This article uses signal detection theory to model examiners' reported conclusions (e.g., identification, inconclusive, or exclusion), focusing on the connection between the examiner's decision threshold and the probative value of the forensic evidence. It uses a Bayesian network model to explore how shifts in decision thresholds may affect rates and ratios of true and false convictions in a hypothetical legal system. It demonstrates that small shifts in decision thresholds, which may arise from contextual bias, can dramatically affect the value of forensic pattern-matching evidence and its utility in the legal system.

Cognitive bias during clinical decision-making and its influence on patient outcomes in the emergency department: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

An integral part of clinical practice is decision-making. Yet there is widespread acceptance that there is evidence of cognitive bias within clinical practice among nurses and physicians. However, how cognitive bias among emergency nurses and physicians' decision-making influences patient outcomes remains unclear.

AIM

The aim of this review was to systematically synthesise research exploring the emergency nurses' and physicians' cognitive bias in decision-making and its influence on patient outcomes.

METHODS

This scoping review was guided by the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. The databases searched included CINAHL, MEDLINE, Web of Science and PubMed. No date limits were applied. The Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice and Research recommendation (PAGER) framework was used to guide the discussion.

RESULTS

The review included 18 articles, consisting of 10 primary studies (nine quantitative and one qualitative) and eight literature reviews. Of the 18 articles, nine investigated physicians, five articles examined nurses, and four both physicians and nurses with sample sizes ranging from 13 to 3547. Six primary studies were cross-sectional and five used hypothetical scenarios, and one real-world assessment. Three were experimental studies. Twenty-nine cognitive biases were identified with Implicit bias (n = 12) most frequently explored, followed by outcome bias (n = 4). Results were inconclusive regarding the influence of biases on treatment decisions and patient outcomes. Four key themes were identified; (i) cognitive biases among emergency clinicians; (ii) measurement of cognitive bias; (iii) influence of cognitive bias on clinical decision-making; and (iv) association between emergency clinicians' cognitive bias and patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified that cognitive biases were present among emergency nurses and physicians during clinical decision-making, but it remains unclear how cognitive bias influences patient outcomes. Further research examining emergency clinicians' cognitive bias is required.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Awareness of emergency clinicians' own cognitive biases may result to the provision of equity in care.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION IN THIS REVIEW

We intend to disseminate the results through publication in a peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

The application of cognitive neuroscience to judicial models: recent progress and trends

Legal prediction presents one of the most significant challenges when applying artificial intelligence (AI) to the legal field. The legal system is a complex adaptive system characterized by the ambiguity of legal language and the diversity of value functions. The imprecision and procedural knowledge inherent in law makes judicial issues difficult to be expressed in a computer symbol system. Current semantic processing and machine learning technologies cannot fully capture the complex nature of legal relations, thereby raising doubts about the accuracy of legal predictions and reliability of judicial models. Cognitive computing, designed to emulate human brain functions and aid in enhancing decision-making processes, offers a better understanding of legal data and the processes of legal reasoning. This paper discusses the advancements made in cognitive methods applied to legal concept learning, semantic extraction, judicial data processing, legal reasoning, understanding of judicial bias, and the interpretability of judicial models. The integration of cognitive neuroscience with law has facilitated several constructive attempts, indicating that the evolution of cognitive law could be the next frontier in the intersection of AI and legal practice.

Reducing the impact of cognitive bias in decision making: Practical actions for forensic science practitioners

Previously published methods for reducing the impact of cognitive bias in forensic decision making have focused primarily on actions at the laboratory or organizational levels. This paper presents generalized and specific actions that forensic science practitioners can take to reduce the impact of cognitive bias in their work. Practical examples illustrating ways that practitioners can implement many of the specific actions are also provided, along with some suggestions for handling court testimony about cognitive bias. The actions presented in this paper provide a means through which individual practitioners can take ownership for minimizing cognitive bias in their work. Such actions can provide supporting evidence to stakeholders that forensic practitioners acknowledge the existence of cognitive bias and its potential influence on their work, and they can also stimulate implementation of methods that focus on solutions at the laboratory and organizational levels.

Operationalizing the structural vulnerability profile within the medical examiner context

The medicolegal death investigation process in the United States, historically focused on personal identification and determination of cause and manner of death, has evolved in recent decades to include space for advocacy centered around public health. Particularly, in the domain of forensic anthropology, practitioners have begun to incorporate a structural vulnerability perspective on human anatomical variation, with the goals of articulating the social determinants of ill health and early death and ultimately influencing public policy. This perspective has explanatory power far beyond the anthropological sphere. In this piece, we argue that biological and contextual indicators of structural vulnerability can be incorporated into medicolegal reporting with potentially powerful impacts on policy. We apply theoretical frameworks from medical anthropology, public health, and social epidemiology to the context of medical examiner casework, highlighting the recently proposed Structural Vulnerability Profile developed and explored in other articles in this special issue. We argue that: 1. Medicolegal case reporting provides a valuable opportunity to record a faithful accounting of structural inequities in the annals of death investigation, and 2. Existing reporting infrastructure could, with limited modifications, provide a powerful opportunity to inform State and Federal policy with medicolegal data, presented within a structural vulnerability framework.

Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence

The results are reported of a study to examine case factors associated with 732 wrongful convictions classified by the National Registry of Exonerations as being associated with "False or Misleading Forensic Evidence." A forensic error typology has been developed to provide a structure for the categorization and coding of factors relating to misstatements in forensic science reports; errors of individualization or classification; testimony errors; issues relating to trials and officers of the court; and evidence handling and reporting issues. This study, which included the analysis of 1391 forensic examinations, demonstrates that most errors related to forensic evidence are not identification or classification errors by forensic scientists. When such errors are made, they are frequently associated with incompetent or fraudulent examiners, disciplines with an inadequate scientific foundation, or organizational deficiencies in training, management, governance, or resources. More often, forensic reports or testimony miscommunicate results, do not conform to established standards, or fail to provide appropriate limiting information. Just as importantly, actors within the broader criminal justice system-but not under the purview of any forensic science organization-may contribute to errors that may be related to the forensic evidence. System issues include reliance on presumptive tests without confirmation by a forensic laboratory, use of independent experts outside the administrative control of public laboratories, inadequate defense, and suppression or misrepresentation of forensic evidence by investigators or prosecutors. In approximately half of wrongful convictions analyzed, improved technology, testimony standards, or practice standards may have prevented a wrongful conviction at the time of trial.

Dental hygiene students' matching accuracy when comparing antemortem dental radiographs and oral photographs to simulated postmortem WinID3® odontograms

Matching dental antemortem (AM) and postmortem (PM) data for human identification is especially challenging when the workforce is limited. Dental hygienists have served mass fatality incidents (MFIs) due to dental-related expertise. However, forensics within dental hygiene education and research on transferable skills is limited. This qualitative balance design study assessed senior dental hygiene students' match accuracy of simulated cases varying in dental identifiers based on AM full mouth series (FMS) radiographs and oral photographs to PM WinID3^® odontograms to demonstrate possible disaster victim identification (DVI) transferable skills gained during formal education. A convenience sample of senior dental hygiene students (n = 31) was presented information on WinID3^® interpretation, then presented with 5 mismatched cases and asked to visually interpret each to make 10 total matches; five based on AM FMS with simulated PM WinID3^® odontograms and five based on AM photographs with PM WinID3^® odontograms. Match accuracy scores ranged from 41.9% to 58.1% for cases with 1-10 identifiers, and 77.4% to 93.5% for cases with 11-40 identifiers. Accuracy when matching AM radiographs to PM odontograms versus AM photographs to PM odontograms was compared and revealed no statistical differences in match accuracy depending on image type (p = 0.388 to 1.000). Results of this pilot study suggests transferable match accuracy skills resulted from the participants' dental hygiene formal education. These baseline skills with additional specialized training support the rationale for dental hygienists serving on DVI teams. More research is needed in education and practice when preparing dental hygienists for forensic-based service.

Cognitive and human factors in legal layperson decision making: Sources of bias in juror decision making

Juries in adversarial courts are tasked with several responsibilities. They are asked to: 1) assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented; 2) deliberate; 3) and then reach a decision. Jurors are expected to evaluate said evidence in a rational/impartial manner, thus allowing the defendant their right to a fair trial. However, psychological research has shown that jurors are not rational and can reach inaccurate decisions by being biased by certain factors. The aim of the current review was to explore the potential sources from which biases are introduced into the jury. Three main sources of bias were focussed upon: 1) pre-trial bias; 2) cognitive bias; 3) bias from external legal actors (expert witnesses). Legal scholars commonly cite deliberations as a method of attenuating individual juror bias, this claim is evaluated in the review. The review concludes that bias is a multifaceted phenomenon introduced from many different elements, and that several sources of bias may interact with one another during a jury trial to cause the effects of bias to snowball. Four recommendations are made: 1) juror selection should be utilised to create heterogenous juries that challenge problematic biases from individual jurors; 2) increase the quality of expert testimony through training; 3) procedures such as Linear Sequential Unmasking should be adopted by expert witnesses to filter out some sources of bias; 4) legal professionals and jurors should be educated about the effects that biases may have on decision making; 5) more research into bias in jurors is needed.

The Sydney declaration - Revisiting the essence of forensic science through its fundamental principles

Unlike other more established disciplines, a shared understanding and broad acceptance of the essence of forensic science, its purpose, and fundamental principles are still missing or mis-represented. This foundation has been overlooked, although recognised by many forensic science forefathers and seen as critical to this discipline's advancement. The Sydney Declaration attempts to revisit the essence of forensic science through its foundational basis, beyond organisations, technicalities or protocols. It comprises a definition of forensic science and seven fundamental principles that emphasise the pivotal role of the trace as a vestige, or remnant, of an investigated activity. The Sydney Declaration also discusses critical features framing the forensic scientist's work, such as context, time asymmetry, the continuum of uncertainties, broad scientific knowledge, ethics, critical thinking, and logical reasoning. It is argued that the proposed principles should underpin the practice of forensic science and guide education and research directions. Ultimately, they will benefit forensic science as a whole to be more relevant, effective and reliable.

The logic of forensic pathology opinion

Evaluating evidence and providing opinions are at the heart of forensic science, and forensic experts are expected to provide opinions that are based on logically sound and transparent scientific reasoning, and that honour the boundaries of their area of expertise. In order to meet these objectives, many fields of science explicitly apply Bayes' theorem, which describes the logically correct way to update probabilities on the basis of observations. Making a distinction between 'investigative' and evaluative' modes of operating helps to implement the theorem into daily casework. Use of these principles promotes the logic and transparency of the reasoning that leads to expert's opinion and helps the expert to stay within her remit. Despite these important benefits, forensic pathology seems slow to adopt these principles. In this article, we explore this issue and suggest a way forward. We start with a short introduction to Bayes' theorem and its benefits, followed by a discussion of why its application is actually second nature to medical practitioners. We then discuss the difference between investigative and evaluative opinions, and how they enable the forensic pathologist to reconcile Bayes' theorem with the different phases of a forensic investigation. Throughout the text, practical examples illustrate the various ways in which the logically correct way of evidence interpretation can be implemented, and how it may help the forensic pathologist to provide an appropriate and relevant opinion.

Advancing a paradigm shift in evaluation of forensic evidence: The rise of forensic data science

Widespread practice across the majority of branches of forensic science uses analytical methods based on human perception, and interpretive methods based on subjective judgement. These methods are non-transparent and are susceptible to cognitive bias, interpretation is often logically flawed, and forensic-evaluation systems are often not empirically validated. I describe a paradigm shift in which existing methods are replaced by methods based on relevant data, quantitative measurements, and statistical models; methods that are transparent and reproducible, are intrinsically resistant to cognitive bias, use the logically correct framework for interpretation of evidence (the likelihood-ratio framework), and are empirically validated under casework conditions.

Shifting forensic science focus from means to purpose: A path forward for the discipline?

Forensic science is facing a persistent crisis that is often addressed by organizational responses, with a strong focus on the improvement and standardisation of means and processes. However, organisations and processes are highly dependent on the political, economical and legal structures in which they operate. This may explain why most proposed solutions had difficulties in addressing the crisis up to now, as they could hardly be applied transversally to all forensic science models. Moreover, new tools and technologies are continuously developed by a quasi-infinite number of different scientific disciplines, thus leading to further diversity and fragmentation of forensic science. In this paper, it is proposed to shift the focus from means to purpose and consider forensic science current challenges in terms of discipline, before addressing organisations' specific issues. As a distinct discipline, forensic science can refocus research and development on shared principles and purposes, such as reconstructing, monitoring, and preventing crime and security issues. This focus change will facilitate a better understanding of the trace as the object of study of forensic science and eventually lead to a more impactful and long-lasting effect. This approach will also foster the development of a forensic science culture (instead of a primarily technological culture) unified by purpose rather than means through more relevant education and research.

Objectivity is a myth that harms the practice and diversity of forensic science

•

Forensic science data are theory laden; pure scientific objectivity is a myth.

•

Upholding this myth marginalizes forensic scientists with subjective positionalities

•

Objectivity rhetoric is exclusive; ethical forensic science needs diverse perspectives.

•

Espousing objectivity prevents us from supporting the communities we serve.

•

Mitigated objectivity acknowledges implicit bias, constraining it via quality control.

The biasing impact of irrelevant contextual information on forensic odontology radiograph matching decisions

The potential biasing effect of irrelevant context information on the forensic odontology method of radiograph-based identification has never been empirically investigated despite being a recognized problem in other forensic science disciplines. This study examines the effect of irrelevant context information on the probability judgment of match (JOM) of practicing forensic odontologist and dentist participants who were asked to match pairs of dental radiographs supplemented with irrelevant case information. The irrelevant case information contained domain task-irrelevant context information which varied in strength (strong or weak). It suggested either supportive or contradictory bias relative to the actual match status of the radiograph pairs. The dental radiographs consisted of verified match and non-match radiographs pairs sampled and de-identified from actual forensic cases. Changes in accuracy and JOM between supportive and contradictory contexts conditions revealed a contextual bias. Mixed model analysis showed that strong supportive context increased the odds ratio of correct decisions by a factor of 2.4 [1.23, 4.46]; p = 0.0097. Consistent with the biasing effect, the JOM score differences between strong supportive and contradictory irrelevant context information were 1.03 and 0.43 respectively for the non-match and match decisions. The direction of context suggestion (p = 0.0067), the radiograph match status (p = 0.014), and their interactions (p = 0.0061), were all found to impact the participants' decision. The weak context information was not strong enough to have a significant effect on accuracy or JOM scores. This study demonstrates that radiograph match judgment is affected and can be biased by strong irrelevant contextual information.

PRECEPT-4-Justice: A bias-neutralising framework for digital forensics investigations

Software invisibly permeates our everyday lives: operating devices in our physical world (traffic lights and cars), effecting our business transactions and powering the vast World Wide Web. We have come to rely on such software to work correctly and efficiently. The generally accepted narrative is that any software errors that do occur can be traced back to a human operator's mistakes. Software engineers know that this is merely a comforting illusion. Software sometimes has bugs, which might lead to erratic performance: intermittently generating errors. The software, hardware and communication infrastructure can all introduce errors, which are often challenging to isolate and correct. Anomalies that manifest are certainly not always due to an operator's actions. When the general public and the courts believe the opposite, that errors are usually attributable to some human operator's actions, it is entirely possible for some hapless innocent individual to be blamed for anomalies and discrepancies whose actual source is a software malfunction. This is what occurred in the Post Office Horizon IT case, where unquestioning belief in the veracity of software-generated evidence led to a decade of wrongful convictions. We will use this case as a vehicle to demonstrate the way biases can influence investigations, and to inform the development of a framework to guide and inform objective digital forensics investigations. This framework, if used, could go some way towards neutralising biases and preventing similar miscarriages of justice in the future.

The impact of contextual information on decision-making in footwear examination: An eye-tracking study

In order to investigate whether context factors and expectations might potentially influence the decision-making of forensic footwear examiners, we collected the gaze process of experts examining the shoeprint image sets through the eye-tracking recorder. Additional to eye movement data as an objective measure, questionnaires were completed, and survey was conducted afterwards. Twenty-three qualified examiners assessed the similarity among shoe images for 22 different cases, including three sets were laterally reversed. We divided the experiment into two sessions, and then compared the examiners' performance with and without contextual information. The results showed the effects of contextual bias manipulate on both behavioral data and eye tracking data. The consensus and accuracy of examiners with contextual information were higher than those without contextual information. In the eye-tracking data, there is a significant difference between fixation counts and saccadic counts under contextual information. In addition, we found that the contextual information produced significant changes in inter-examiner consistency as measured by the Earth Mover Distance metric. However, there is no significant statistic differences in saccadic amplitude and total fixation duration of the examiners after exposure to contextual information. Our research results are instructive for understanding the cognitive process of shoeprint examination involved in real cases. In this process, stimuli related to context factors may affect decision-making and behavior. Implications for contextual effect causes are discussed.

'Anyone who commits such a cruel crime, must be criminally irresponsible': context effects in forensic psychological assessment

In recent years, it has become clear that expert opinion can be biased. It has been argued that forensic psychologists may also be susceptible to bias. In the present study, the vulnerability of forensic psychological evaluation of the suspect's mental health to the context effect (i.e. the influencing of the expert opinion by irrelevant information) was tested. Master students in forensic psychology were asked to interpret test scores of a suspect in a fictitious double murder case. Some participants received a version of the case in which the description of the murders was neutral. Others received a more explicit version. Whereas the explicitness should not affect the forensic psychological evaluation, it was found that participants in the latter condition seemed more concerned about the suspect's mental health than those in the former. It is concluded that training programmes in forensic psychological assessment should devote attention to bias.

A different perspective on the forensic science crisis

Recurrent mentions of a forensic science crisis are reported in the literature. Some 15 years ago, the discussion was focused on the backlog problem. Other issues have been regularly debated since then, including the risk of error, need for independence, importance and risk of contextualisation, increasing fragmentation into separate processes and specialisations. Proposed solutions to solve one problem often led to other issues in other parts of the process. This paper attempts to address the apparent crisis using a different perspective, through a comparison with established disciplines, namely material science, medicine and historical science. The comparison with material science shows that, despite the varied organisational and legal models and the interdisciplinary nature of the field, a common element to all forensic science endeavours exists: the trace. A greater focus on the trace might thus help the development of a holistic approach in forensic science. The comparison with medicine demonstrates that, through the overall process, the main risk shifts from the risk to overlook important hypotheses or traces at the beginning of the process (e.g. problems in the detection of traces/symptoms and formulation of hypotheses) to the risk of supporting the wrong hypothesis at the end of the process (e.g. erroneous test of the hypotheses/diagnostic). Further, in medicine, symptoms are rarely evaluated in isolation, while traces are often evaluated separately. By analogy, epidemiology illustrates forensic science's critical role in preventing crime through forensic intelligence, supporting a more extensive and more collaborative application of forensic science in security issues. The comparison with historical science also indicates that a single trace (i.e. the observed effect) is rarely sufficient to reason on its cause. Retrodiction (abduction) is proposed as an alternative reasoning approach to reconstruct events from the past based on signs uncovered in the present. Finally, the impact of science in investigating crimes is presented as an evolving process. A new trace or information can bring an entirely different light on the reconstruction of past events or prevention of future issues. Thus, issues or challenges in the first stages of the process (i.e., crime scene investigation) should be addressed in priority for subsequent stages to function correctly.

Cognitive bias in forensic pathology decisions

Forensic pathologists’ decisions are critical in police investigations and court proceedings as they determine whether an unnatural death of a young child was an accident or homicide. Does cognitive bias affect forensic pathologists’ decision‐making? To address this question, we examined all death certificates issued during a 10‐year period in the State of Nevada in the United States for children under the age of six. We also conducted an experiment with 133 forensic pathologists in which we tested whether knowledge of irrelevant non‐medical information that should have no bearing on forensic pathologists’ decisions influenced their manner of death determinations. The dataset of death certificates indicated that forensic pathologists were more likely to rule "homicide" rather than "accident" for deaths of Black children relative to White children. This may arise because the base‐rate expectation creates an a priori cognitive bias to rule that Black children died as a result of homicide, which then perpetuates itself. Corroborating this explanation, the experimental data with the 133 forensic pathologists exhibited biased decisions when given identical medical information but different irrelevant non‐medical information about the race of the child and who was the caregiver who brought them to the hospital. These findings together demonstrate how extraneous information can result in cognitive bias in forensic pathology decision‐making.

Translational Application of a Neuro-Scientific Multi-Modal Approach Into Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation: Why and How?

A prominent body of literature indicates that insanity evaluations, which are intended to provide influential expert reports for judges to reach a decision "beyond any reasonable doubt," suffer from a low inter-rater reliability. This paper reviews the limitations of the classical approach to insanity evaluation and the criticisms to the introduction of neuro-scientific approach in court. Here, we explain why in our opinion these criticisms, that seriously hamper the translational implementation of neuroscience into the forensic setting, do not survive scientific scrutiny. Moreover, we discuss how the neuro-scientific multimodal approach may improve the inter-rater reliability in insanity evaluation. Critically, neuroscience does not aim to introduce a brain-based concept of insanity. Indeed, criteria for responsibility and insanity are and should remain clinical. Rather, following the falsificationist approach and the convergence of evidence principle, the neuro-scientific multimodal approach is being proposed as a way to improve reliability of insanity evaluation and to mitigate the influence of cognitive biases on the formulation of insanity opinions, with the final aim to reduce errors and controversies.

Interpol review of forensic science management literature 2016-2019

This paper reviews and summarizes the forensic management literature from late 2016 to late 2019, covering laboratory decision making, business strategy, and industry identity and transparency. The review papers are also available at the Interpol website at: https://www.interpol.int/content/download/14458/file/Interpol%20Review%20Papers%202019.pdf.

Biasability and reliability of expert forensic document examiners

The performance of experts can be characterized in terms of biasability and reliability of their judgments. The current research is the first to explore the judgments of practicing forensic document experts, professionals who examine and compare disputed handwritten evidence to handwriting exemplars of individuals involved in criminal or civil litigation. Forensic handwriting experts determine if questioned and known handwritten items are of common authorship or written by different individuals, and present their findings in legal proceedings. The expert participants in our study (N=25) were not aware that they were part of a research study. Thirteen participants were led to believe that they were working on a case commissioned from the prosecution and the other twelve that it was for the defense. We did not find evidence in this study that this information biased their judgments, which may make sense since document examiners (in contrast to many other forensic domains) do not primarily work within an organizational forensic laboratory culture. The lack of bias in our findings may have been also due to the stimuli we used or/and the great variability in the judgments within each group, reflecting a lack of consistency in conclusions among examiners. A detailed discussion of our findings is presented along with the limitations that may have affected our results.

A multidisciplinary approach to insanity assessment as a way to reduce cognitive biases

Insanity assessment requires the evaluation of the psychopathological condition that underlies the mens rea. Psychopathological evaluation may be quite challenging due to (i) absence of biomarkers; (ii) low inter-rater reliability; (iii) presence of cognitive bias. This intrinsic low reliability of forensic psychiatric diagnosis does impact on insanity assessment, leading to arbitrary and unjust legal outcomes for the examinee. Thus, strategies to improve the reliability of insanity evaluation are strongly needed. A multidisciplinary approach has been proposed as a way to enrich clinical diagnosis with reliable and biologically founded data, thus minimizing subjectivity, reducing controversies and increasing inter-subject concordance in insanity assessment. By discussing a real case, here we show how the convergence of multiple indices can produce evidence that cannot be denied without introducing logical fallacies. Applying this approach, the forensic discussion will move from the presence/absence of psychopathology to the impact of psychopathology on insanity. This article illustrates how a multidisciplinary evaluation, which integrates neuroscientific methods with the classical insanity assessment, may lead to a more accurate approach in insanity evaluation. Critically, this approach will minimize the impact of cognitive bias on insanity opinion and thus result in an improvement of the whole criminal justice process.

Firearm examination: Examiner judgments and computer-based comparisons

Forensic firearm examination provides the court of law with information about the source of fired cartridge cases. We assessed the validity of source decisions of a computer-based method and of 73 firearm examiners who compared breechface and firing pin impressions of 48 comparison sets. We also compared the computer-based method's comparison scores with the examiners' degree-of-support judgments and assessed the validity of the latter. The true-positive rate (sensitivity) and true-negative rate (specificity) of the computer-based method (for the comparison of both the breechface and firing pin impressions) were 94.4% and at least 91.7%, respectively. For the examiners, the true-positive rate was at least 95.3% and the true-negative rate was at least 86.2%. The validity of the source decisions improved when the evaluations of breechface and firing pin impressions were combined and for the examiners also when the perceived difficulty of the comparison decreased. The examiners were reluctant to provide source decisions for "difficult" comparisons even though their source decisions were mostly correct. The correlation between the computer-based method's comparison scores and the examiners' degree-of-support judgments was low for the same-source comparisons to negligible for the different-source comparisons. Combining the outcomes of computer-based methods with the judgments of examiners could increase the validity of firearm examinations. The examiners' numerical degree-of-support judgments for their source decisions were not well-calibrated and showed clear signs of overconfidence. We suggest studying the merits of performance feedback to calibrate these judgments.

Forensic Confirmation Bias: Do Jurors Discount Examiners Who Were Exposed to Task-Irrelevant Information?*, †

Knowledge of task-irrelevant information influences judgments of forensic science evidence and thereby undermines their probative value (i.e., forensic confirmation bias). The current studies tested whether laypeople discount the opinion of a forensic examiner who had a priori knowledge of biasing information (i.e., a defendant's confession) that could have influenced his opinion. In three experiments, laypeople (N = 765) read and evaluated a trial summary which, for some, included testimony from a forensic examiner who was either unaware or aware of the defendant's confession, and either denied or admitted that it could have impacted his opinion. When the examiner admitted that the confession could have influenced his opinion, laypeople generally discounted his testimony, as evidenced by their verdicts and other ratings. However, when the examiner denied being vulnerable to bias, laypeople tended to believe him-and they weighted his testimony as strongly as that of the confession-unaware examiner. In short, laypeople generally failed to recognize the superiority of forensic science judgments made by context-blind examiners, and they instead trusted examiners who claimed to be impervious to bias. As such, our findings highlight the value of implementing context management procedures in forensic laboratories so as not to mislead fact-finders.

Quality of Laypersons' Assessment of Forensically Relevant Stimuli

The current study examined the potential for cognitive bias in lay examiners' comparisons of footwear impressions within the technical review process while addressing limitations of previous research. Prior research has found inconsistent results regarding the extent to which cognitive bias may influence forensic comparisons, often asking non-experts to review forensic stimuli above their competency level. Furthermore, past research has largely ignored the potential for cognitive bias during the technical review process. In collaboration with the Miami-Dade Police Department's Forensic Services Bureau, we examined the effects of previous examiners' level of experience and prior knowledge of the previous examiner's decision on the technical review stage of footwear impression stimuli. Before lay examiners were presented with pairs of known match and nonmatch footwear impressions, they were either told that an expert or a novice had previously examined them and determined them to be either a match, nonmatch, or inconclusive (plus a no-information condition). Participants then evaluated each pair of footwear impressions to make their own determinations of match, nonmatch, or inconclusive. Results support the technical review process for all decision types, as known nonmatch stimuli were generally more difficult for lay examiners to assess than known match stimuli. Knowledge of a prior examiner's decision and status was observed only when the prior decision was inconclusive, suggesting the need for inclusion of inconclusive decisions in future research examining cognitive bias in forensic examination.

Can Defense Attorneys Detect Forensic Confirmation Bias?

Abstract. 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.

The effect of contextual information on decision-making in forensic toxicology

The impact of cognitive bias on decisions in forensic science has been demonstrated in numerous disciplines such as DNA and fingerprints, but has not been empirically investigated in the more objective domains, such as forensic toxicology. In the first experiment, participants (n = 58) were affected by irrelevant case information when analysing data from an immunoassay test for opiate-type drugs. In the second experiment, participants (n = 53) were biased in their choice of tests, for example, the age of the deceased impacted testing strategy: for older people, medicinal drugs were commonly chosen, whereas for younger people drugs of abuse were selected. Based on the results that examiners analyzing case data may have biases if they are given access to case context, we propose that examiners analysing presumptive test data are blind to irrelevant contextual information. Furthermore, that forensic toxicology laboratories use a consistent protocol for selecting tests, and that any deviations are documented and justified.

Cognitive and Human Factors in Expert Decision Making: Six Fallacies and the Eight Sources of Bias

Fallacies about the nature of biases have shadowed a proper cognitive understanding of biases and their sources, which in turn lead to ways that minimize their impact. Six such fallacies are presented: it is an ethical issue, only applies to "bad apples", experts are impartial and immune, technology eliminates bias, blind spot, and the illusion of control. Then, eight sources of bias are discussed and conceptualized within three categories: (A) factors that relate to the specific case and analysis, which include the data, reference materials, and contextual information, (B) factors that relate to the specific person doing the analysis, which include past experience base rates, organizational factors, education and training, and personal factors, and lastly, (C) cognitive architecture and human nature that impacts all of us. These factors can impact what the data are (e.g., how data are sampled and collected, or what is considered as noise and therefore disregarded), the actual results (e.g., decisions on testing strategies, how analysis is conducted, and when to stop testing), and the conclusions (e.g., interpretation of the results). The paper concludes with specific measures that can minimize these biases.

Interpol review of fingermarks and other body impressions 2016-2019

This review paper covers the forensic-relevant literature in fingerprint and bodily impression sciences from 2016 to 2019 as a part of the 19th Interpol International Forensic Science Managers Symposium. The review papers are also available at the Interpol website at: https://www.interpol.int/content/download/14458/file/Interpol%20 Review%20 Papers%202019. pdf.