front 1 when you act differently because you are being watched | back 1 observer bias |
front 2 through experience it can lead to interpretation; if something happened to someone personally, it is going to affect how they interpret data; acting differently because you know you are being watched | back 2 observer effect |
front 3 drawing conclusions to confirm their beliefs (ex. thinking someone committed the crime because they didn't cry when questioned); makes you feel superior; can happen if you get too much context about a case as a forensic scientist; conclusions drawn to support own belief | back 3 confirmation bias |
front 4 "the process of placing an object in a unit category that consists of a single unit. Individualization implies uniqueness." Individualization refers to "absolute specificity and absolute identification." on page 205 of paper 5 | back 4 individualization |
front 5 reliance on emotion and cross linkages to draw conclusions (mental shortcut) | back 5 peripheral processing |
front 6 reliance on data to draw conclusions | back 6 central processing |
front 7 error rate associated within lab itself; always disclose that for your lab, these are the results (lawyer may try to discredit your response by saying how does your statement apply to other labs); error rate or variability within an experiment (published development study) | back 7 internal validation |
front 8 error rate in general among all labs; error rate within a real a world problem (applying study) | back 8 external validation |
front 9 prior experience makes you make mental shortcuts, application of things | back 9 anchoring effect |
front 10 gives insight to a case but does not individualize; most evidence is circumstantial; enough circumstantial evidence can lead to juries drawing conclusions; in conjunction with other evidence ties someone to the scene | back 10 circumstantial evidence |
front 11 A jury composed of educated people trained to avoid implicit bias, educated to be a juror | back 11 Blue Ribbon Jury |
front 12 can ask questions; Decides whether there is probable cause to charge someone with a crime (issue an indictment). | back 12 grand jury |
front 13 science can be taken the wrong way if you say it too inflexible; do not box yourself in; allow for interpretation | back 13 science is truth |
front 14 federal standard for evidence admissibility established in 1993 | back 14 Daubert |
front 15 judge is gatekeeper and has the discretion whether evidence fulfills Daubert (1996) | back 15 kumho Tire vs Carmichael |
front 16 can give opinions | back 16 consulting, expert, testimonial witness |
front 17 can give facts relevant to the case | back 17 fact or material witness |
front 18 interpretation of the law depends on location and scale of community engaged NOT SOCIETY | back 18 legal resolution |
front 19 following law exactly how its written | back 19 verbatim law |
front 20 interpreting law for a more modern interpretation | back 20 interpretative law |
front 21 evidence that can be traced back to a single source | back 21 individualizing evidence |
front 22 high courts must defer to lower courts for decisions | back 22 GE vs Joiner |
front 23 Thomas coon; huge shift in how things are done but it is based on previous data generated (ex. PMI vs TOC) | back 23 paradigm shift |
front 24 witness can render an opinion | back 24 expert witness |
front 25 low variance in response | back 25 precision |
front 26 disconnect between historical and current data resulting in a novel idea with no linkage to the past | back 26 revolution |
front 27 Federal standard for admissibility of evidence established in 1920s | back 27 frye |
front 28 witness possessing information going to facts that impact case merit | back 28 fact witness |
front 29 process for determining admissibility of evidence of expert for trial - typically done in the presence of a judge | back 29 voir dire |
front 30 rules developed by federal government regulating witnesses and how they are admitted | back 30 FRE 701-706 |
front 31 general acceptance | back 31 Criteria for Frye |
front 32 witness can render an opinion | back 32 consulting witness |
front 33 data, expert, or method utilized and are consistent/dependable | back 33 reliable |
front 34 law is verbatim with application | back 34 originalist |
front 35 Developed philosophy applied to Daubert standard | back 35 Karl Popper |
front 36 rules developed by society | back 36 Law |
front 37 data, method, or expert provide insight to investigation/trial | back 37 relevant |
front 38 witness can render an opinion | back 38 testimonial witness |
front 39 drug presumably responsible for birth defects- resulted in Supreme Court ruling govern evidence admissibility | back 39 Bendectin |
front 40 witness possessing information going to facts that impact case merit | back 40 Material witness |
front 41 data have variance but often capture true result | back 41 accuracy |
front 42 Producer of drug that led to Daubert decision | back 42 Dow pharmaceutical |
front 43 law is interpreted and changes with society NOT LOCATION (interpretation changes over time as society evolves) | back 43 living document |
front 44 Testable, published, error rate, specific community acceptance | back 44 Criteria for Daubert |
front 45 Starts with a general principle and applies it to reach a specific conclusion; "top-down"; uses a general principle or premise as grounds to draw specific conclusions | back 45 deductive reasoning |
front 46 moves from specific observations to a general conclusion; "bottom-up"; uses specific and limited observations to draw general conclusions that can be applied more widely | back 46 inductive reasoning |
front 47 someone that gets hired by an attorney | back 47 hired gun |
front 48 descriptions/categorical information | back 48 qualitative |
front 49 a number value | back 49 quantitative |
front 50 there is no basis on their findings | back 50 junk science |
front 51 develop a hypothesis then analyze data which avoids bias | back 51 A priori (priority=hypothesis first) |
front 52 develop hypothesis after collecting data | back 52 A posteriori (post= after experiment) |