Abstract:In criminal trials, evidence often involves a degree of uncertainty and decision-making includes moving from the initial presumption of innocence to inference about guilt based on that evidence. The jurors’ ability to combine evidence and make accurate intuitive probabilistic judgments underpins this process. Previous research has shown that errors in probabilistic reasoning can be explained by a misalignment of the evidence presented with the intuitive causal models that people construct. This has been explored in abstract and context-free situations. However, less is known about how people interpret evidence in context-rich situations such as legal cases. The present study examined participants’ intuitive probabilistic reasoning in legal contexts and assessed how people’s causal models underlie the process of belief updating in the light of new evidence. The study assessed whether participants update beliefs in line with Bayesian norms and if errors in belief updating can be explained by the causal structures underpinning the evidence integration process. The study was based on a recent case in England where a couple was accused of intentionally harming their baby but was eventually exonerated because the child’s symptoms were found to be caused by a rare blood disorder. Participants were presented with a range of evidence, one piece at a time, including physical evidence and reports from experts. Participants made probability judgments about the abuse and disorder as causes of the child’s symptoms. Subjective probability judgments were compared against Bayesian norms. The causal models constructed by participants were also elicited. Results showed that overall participants revised their beliefs appropriately in the right direction based on evidence. However, this revision was done without exact Bayesian computation and errors were observed in estimating the weight of evidence. Errors in probabilistic judgments were partly accounted for, by differences in the causal models representing the evidence. Our findings suggest that understanding causal models that guide people’s judgments may help shed light on errors made in evidence integration and potentially identify ways to address accuracy in judgment.

A Study of Evidence Cognition in the Simpson Case Towards Smart Justice.

Legal Techniques for Rationalizing Biased Judicial Decisions: Evidence from Experiments with Real Judges

Using Dempster-Shafer Theory Of Evidence For Situation Inference

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

Gauging Court Adjudication: Qualification And Quantification

Examination of the "CSI Effect" on Perceptions of Scientific and Testimonial Evidence in a Hong Kong Chinese Sample

A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence

Police evaluation of evidence: statistical format and evidence type

Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials

A Logical Approach to Criminal Case Investigation

The biasing nature of gang evidence: inducing memory errors for evidence of past criminal behavior

Program Design of Criminal Evidence Discovery

Correlating Processes for Automatic Memory Evidence Analysis

Reflect on the System of Evidence Spoliation in Civil Procedure —Perspective on Theory, Practice and System Optimization

The Study on Synchronization Fusion of Evidence Theory from Two-dimensional to Multi-dimensional

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

The perfect match: Do criminal stereotypes bias forensic evidence analysis?

Is justice blind or myopic? An examination of the effects of meta-cognitive myopia and truth bias on mock jurors and judges

A Study on The Current Status of Electronic Evidence Preservation in Internet Crime

Theory Base Study of Evidence Jurisprudence

From understanding to justifying: Computational reliabilism for AI-based forensic evidence evaluation