IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Juror Understanding of DNA Evidence: An Empirical Assessment of Presentation Formats for Trace Evidence with a Relatively Small Random-Match Probability


  • Dale A. Nance
  • Scott B. Morris


In cases involving scientific evidence linking the accused to a crime (a “match†), expert testimony sometimes can provide a suitably reliable estimate of the chance of a coincidental match. Controversy attends the question whether, and in what form, to allow testimony reporting that probability. Further controversy concerns the implications of laboratory proficiency tests for the presentation of testimony about the chance of lab error. This large-scale empirical study, using members of an Illinois jury pool, confirms earlier research suggesting that, contrary to some predictions, jurors tend to undervalue forensic match evidence. Our results differ from most prior research, however, in showing that variation in the way the random-match probability is presented and explained can reduce the undervaluation, that it can do so without inducing significant inferential fallacies, and that incorporating information about comparatively large lab error rates, when it has any discernible effect, increases jurors' willingness to convict.

Suggested Citation

  • Dale A. Nance & Scott B. Morris, 2005. "Juror Understanding of DNA Evidence: An Empirical Assessment of Presentation Formats for Trace Evidence with a Relatively Small Random-Match Probability," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(2), pages 395-444, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:34:y:2005:p:395-444
    DOI: 10.1086/428020

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:34:y:2005:p:395-444. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Journals Division). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.