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.

Juror understanding of the weight of evidence presented as a likelihood ratio and the impact on the deliberative process: a response to Buckleton, et al.

A review of likelihood ratios in forensic science based on a critique of Stiffelman "No longer the Gold standard: Probabilistic genotyping is changing the nature of DNA evidence in criminal trials"

Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials

Logical implications of applying the principles of population genetics to the interpretation of DNA profiling evidence

Truth, knowledge, and the standard of proof in criminal law

On the limitations of probabilistic claims about the probative value of mixed DNA profile evidence

On Rational Jurisprudence: A Problem in Bayesian Confirmation Theory

Subtleties in Bayesian decision-theoretic analysis for forensic findings: Notes on recent discussion of the role of validation study data in rational decision making

Extending the discussion on inconsistency in forensic decisions and results

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

A response to: "NIST experts urge caution in use of courtroom evidence presentation method"

Defence Against the Modern Arts: the Curse of Statistics "Score-based likelihood ratios"

Commentary on Guyll et al. (2023): Misuse of Statistical Method Results in Highly Biased Interpretation of Forensic Evidence

Likelihood Ratio as Weight of Forensic Evidence: A Metrological Perspective

Gauging Court Adjudication: Qualification And Quantification

Bayesian reasoning and the prior in court: not legally normative but unavoidable

Evidence of Herding and Stubbornness in Jury Deliberations

Police evaluation of evidence: statistical format and evidence type

The Role of the Bayes Factor in the Evaluation of Evidence

Resolving the Cohenian Paradox in Judicial Probability Theory

Lottery paradox, DNA evidence and other stories: How to accept uncertain statements