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

Commentators have recommended that forensic scientists' reports contain various disclosures to facilitate comprehension. However, little research has explored whether following best practice recommendations for disclosure impacts on receivers' impressions of the evidence. We examined whether forensic science reports that are more compliant with these best practice recommendations reduced overvaluing of the evidence and sensitized legal and community decision-makers to evidence quality. Across three experiments, 240 legal practitioners/trainees and 566 community decision-makers were presented with a fingerprint or footwear report that was either compliant or non-compliant with best practice recommendations. Participants were then asked to make evaluations and decisions based on the report. We found mixed effects of report compliance. Report compliance affected community participant's evaluations of the persuasiveness of the evidence but had limited impact on the judgments of legal practitioners/trainees. When presented with compliant reports, we found that community participants regarded unknown reliability evidence as less reliable and less persuasive than high reliability evidence, suggesting disclosures helped reduce overvaluing of the evidence and create sensitivity to differences in evidence quality. These results suggest compliance with reporting recommendations does affect community impressions, while only minimally influencing legal impressions of forensic science evidence. The costs and/or benefits of this outcome require further examination.

Novices cannot fill the examiners' shoes: Evidence of footwear examiners' expertise in shoe comparisons.

The value of a footwear examiner's opinion centres on their ability to determine whether a particular shoe made an impression with greater accuracy than a novice. However, there has been limited research on the expertise of footwear examiners and the accuracy and reproducibility of their decisions. In the current study, we measured the accuracy and consensus of 31 footwear examiners versus a comparison group of 29 novices. Participants completed 20 ground truth known mock shoe comparisons. Results demonstrated that footwear examiners were more accurate than novices, regardless of comparison difficulty. Overall, on trials where probative decisions were given, examiners made false identifications and false exclusions on a total of 3% and 2% of trials, while novices made false identifications and false exclusions on a total of 19% and 17% of trials. Examiners also demonstrated better consensus in their opinions than novices, although both groups demonstrated low levels of agreement in their responses and variability in their interpretation of the conclusion scale. In summary, these findings support the proposition that footwear examiners show expert-level performance in matching known and unknown footwear impressions. These performance estimates may help the criminal justice system to appropriately value footwear examination evidence.