when you act differently because you are being watched

observer bias

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

observer effect

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

confirmation bias

"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

individualization

reliance on emotion and cross linkages to draw conclusions (mental shortcut)

peripheral processing

reliance on data to draw conclusions

central processing

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)

internal validation

error rate in general among all labs; error rate within a real a world problem (applying study)

external validation

prior experience makes you make mental shortcuts, application of things

anchoring effect

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

circumstantial evidence

A jury composed of educated people trained to avoid implicit bias, educated to be a juror

Blue Ribbon Jury

can ask questions; Decides whether there is probable cause to charge someone with a crime (issue an indictment).

grand jury

science can be taken the wrong way if you say it too inflexible; do not box yourself in; allow for interpretation

science is truth

federal standard for evidence admissibility established in 1993

Daubert

judge is gatekeeper and has the discretion whether evidence fulfills Daubert (1996)

kumho Tire vs Carmichael

can give opinions

consulting, expert, testimonial witness

can give facts relevant to the case

fact or material witness

interpretation of the law depends on location and scale of community engaged NOT SOCIETY

legal resolution

following law exactly how its written

verbatim law

interpreting law for a more modern interpretation

interpretative law

evidence that can be traced back to a single source

individualizing evidence

high courts must defer to lower courts for decisions

GE vs Joiner

Thomas coon; huge shift in how things are done but it is based on previous data generated (ex. PMI vs TOC)

paradigm shift

witness can render an opinion

expert witness

low variance in response

precision

disconnect between historical and current data resulting in a novel idea with no linkage to the past

revolution

Federal standard for admissibility of evidence established in 1920s

frye

witness possessing information going to facts that impact case merit

fact witness

process for determining admissibility of evidence of expert for trial - typically done in the presence of a judge

voir dire

rules developed by federal government regulating witnesses and how they are admitted

FRE 701-706

general acceptance

Criteria for Frye

witness can render an opinion

consulting witness

data, expert, or method utilized and are consistent/dependable

reliable

law is verbatim with application

originalist

Developed philosophy applied to Daubert standard

Karl Popper

rules developed by society

Law

data, method, or expert provide insight to investigation/trial

relevant

witness can render an opinion

testimonial witness

drug presumably responsible for birth defects- resulted in Supreme Court ruling govern evidence admissibility

Bendectin

witness possessing information going to facts that impact case merit

Material witness

data have variance but often capture true result

accuracy

Producer of drug that led to Daubert decision

Dow pharmaceutical

law is interpreted and changes with society NOT LOCATION (interpretation changes over time as society evolves)

living document

Testable, published, error rate, specific community acceptance

Criteria for Daubert

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

deductive reasoning

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

inductive reasoning

someone that gets hired by an attorney

hired gun

descriptions/categorical information

qualitative

a number value

quantitative

there is no basis on their findings

junk science

develop a hypothesis then analyze data which avoids bias

A priori (priority=hypothesis first)

develop hypothesis after collecting data

A posteriori (post= after experiment)