Old Habits Die Hard: Precedent, Psychology, and the Admissibility of Forensic Evidence

Event Description

Forensic evidence, long considered a cornerstone of criminal justice, has faced increasing scrutiny as recent studies and reports expose significant flaws in its scientific foundation. Techniques such as latent fingerprint analysis, microscopic hair comparison, and ballistics matching, which had been widely accepted for decades, are now being challenged for their lack of empirical validation. Yet despite the growing acknowledgement of widespread issues affecting the reliability and validity of many types of forensic evidence, there are surprisingly few successful challenges to the admissibility of this type of forensic evidence, and when the evidence is challenged, it is often found to be admissible. 

In this colloquium, Professor Gordon will draw from a recent paper to explore the role that cognitive biases may play in the judicial system's continued acceptance of unreliable forensic evidence. Biases like information cascades, the status quo bias, and the omissions bias can cause judges to favor precedent and established practices, even in the face of new scientific evidence challenging the validity of these forensic methods. The paper also considers how heuristics, like the bias blind spot, contribute to judges’ reluctance to reject long-standing but scientifically flawed forensic techniques. Notwithstanding these challenges, judicial education on scientific standards, greater diversity on the bench, and a heightened awareness of cognitive biases could help mitigate these issues and promote more rigorous evaluation of forensic evidence in the courtroom.

Forensic evidence, long considered a cornerstone of criminal justice, has faced increasing scrutiny as recent studies and reports expose significant flaws in its scientific foundation. Techniques such as latent fingerprint analysis, microscopic hair comparison, and ballistics matching, which had been widely accepted for decades, are now being challenged for their lack of empirical validation. Yet despite the growing acknowledgement of widespread issues affecting the reliability and validity of many types of forensic evidence, there are surprisingly few successful challenges to the admissibility of this type of forensic evidence, and when the evidence is challenged, it is often found to be admissible. 

In this colloquium, Professor Gordon will draw from a recent paper to explore the role that cognitive biases may play in the judicial system's continued acceptance of unreliable forensic evidence. Biases like information cascades, the status quo bias, and the omissions bias can cause judges to favor precedent and established practices, even in the face of new scientific evidence challenging the validity of these forensic methods. The paper also considers how heuristics, like the bias blind spot, contribute to judges’ reluctance to reject long-standing but scientifically flawed forensic techniques. Notwithstanding these challenges, judicial education on scientific standards, greater diversity on the bench, and a heightened awareness of cognitive biases could help mitigate these issues and promote more rigorous evaluation of forensic evidence in the courtroom. 

Please contact burchill@allard.ubc.ca for the Zoom link.

Speaker

Sara Gordon is an Associate Professor at the Allard School of Law. Her current research focuses on the ways in which psychology and mental health intersect with the criminal justice system and the many barriers faced by people with mental illness involved in that system. At Allard, Professor Gordon teaches Criminal Law, Evidence Law, Mental Health Law, and a seminar in Law and Psychology.

Professor Gordon’s recent work examines drug and other specialty courts, which were originally intended to divert people with criminal charges out of the criminal justice system and allow them to instead receive treatment for an underlying mental illness or substance use disorder. Research in both the medical and psychological fields is rapidly evolving and, although it bears heavily on many aspects of the criminal justice system, including the treatment received by individuals in drug and other specialty courts, many lawyers, judges, and even legal scholars often exhibit a limited understanding of medical and psychological knowledge. Professor Gordon’s research helps to fill this gap through careful attention to the state of scientific and psychological literature and interdisciplinary collaborations.

Prior to joining the Allard School of Law, Professor Gordon was the William S. Boyd Professor of Law at the UNLV Boyd School of Law in Las Vegas, Nevada, where she also served as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, and most recently, as Interim Dean of the law school.