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.

The use of nonverbal communication when assessing witness credibility: a view from the bench

The Influence of "Body Language" on the Assessment of Witness Credibility in Australian Written Court Judgments

The detection of deception during trials: Ignoring the nonverbal communication of witnesses is not the solution—A response to Vrij and Turgeon (2018)

Finnish district judges' assessments of live versus video‐mediated party statements in court

Gauging Court Adjudication: Qualification And Quantification

Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials

How Does Courtroom Broadcasting Influence Public Confidence in Justice? The Mediation Effect of Vicarious Interpersonal Treatment

Interrogation questions to native and non‐native eyewitnesses: The role of witness credibility

Narrative Style and Witness Testimony

Bio-behavioral scientific evidence alters judges' sentencing decision-making: A quantitative analysis

Judges in the Lab: No Precedent Effects, No Common/Civil Law Differences

Judges’ Perceptions of Systemic Racism in the Criminal Justice System

Dressing the part: The influence of police attire on outcomes in a simulated traffic violation case

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

The State of Commercial Automatic French Legal Speech Recognition Systems and their Impact on Court Reporters et al

Judges' attitudes and experiences related to a trauma-informed approach: An exploratory study

'So Help Me God'? Does oath swearing in courtroom scenarios impact trial outcomes?

How expert witnesses' counterfactuals influence causal and responsibility attributions of mock jurors and expert judges

The effect of following best practice reporting recommendations on legal and community evaluations of forensic examiners reports

The "Good Old Days" of Courtroom Questioning: Changes in the Format of Child Cross-Examination Questions Over 60 Years

Mock juror perceptions of an adult autistic witness: effect of diagnostic label and witness intermediary presence