Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Modelling the effects of crime type and evidence on judgments about guilt


Concerns over wrongful convictions have spurred an increased focus on understanding criminal justice decision-making. This study describes an experimental approach that complements conventional mock-juror experiments and case studies by providing a rapid, high-throughput screen for identifying preconceptions and biases that can influence how jurors and lawyers evaluate evidence in criminal cases. The approach combines an experimental decision task derived from marketing research with statistical modelling to explore how subjects evaluate the strength of the case against a defendant. The results show that, in the absence of explicit information about potential error rates or objective reliability, subjects tend to overweight widely used types of forensic evidence, but give much less weight than expected to a defendant’s criminal history. Notably, for mock jurors, the type of crime also biases their confidence in guilt independent of the evidence. This bias is positively correlated with the seriousness of the crime. For practising prosecutors and other lawyers, the crime-type bias is much smaller, yet still correlates with the seriousness of the crime.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Task design and manipulation checks.
Fig. 2: Evidence and crime effects on subject ratings for confidence in guilt.
Fig. 3: Similarities and differences between potential jurors and legally trained participants.
Fig. 4: Crime effects on confidence in guilt are positively correlated with seriousness of the crime.

Data availability

All data used in the analyses are available and documented at


  1. 1.

    Gross, S. R. & O’Brien, B. Frequency and predictors of false conviction: why we know so little, and new data on capital cases. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 5, 927–962 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Gross, S. R. Convicting the innocent. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 4, 173–192 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Gould, J. B., Carrano, J., Leo, R. A. & Hail-Jares, K. Predicting erroneous convictions. Iowa Law Rev. 99, 471–522 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Garrett, B. L. & Neufeld, P. J. Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Va. Law Rev. 95, 1–97 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Garrett, B. L. Convicting the Innocent. Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2011).

  6. 6.

    Cole, S. A. Forensic science and wrongful convictions: from exposer to contributor to corrector. N. Engl. Law Rev. 46, 711–736 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Vidmar, N. Case studies of pre- and midtrial prejudice in criminal and civil litigation. Law Hum. Behav. 26, 73–105 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Vidmar, N. When all of us are victims: juror prejudice and terrorist trials. Chic. Kent Law Rev. 78, 1143–1178 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Wiener, R. L., Arnot, L., Winter, R. & Redmond, B. Generic prejudice in the law: sexual assault and homicide. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 28, 145–155 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Vidmar, N. Generic prejudice and the presumption of guilt in sex abuse trials. Law Hum. Behav. 21, 5–25 (1997).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Gastwirth, J. L. & Sinclair, M. D. A re-examination of the 1966 Kalven-Zeisel study of judge-jury agreements and disagreements and their causes. Law Probab. Risk 3, 169–191 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Fabricant, M. C. & Carrington, T. The shifted paradigm: forensic science’s overdue evolution from magic to law. Va J. Crim. Law 4, 1–115 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Lander, E. S. et al. Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods (Executive Office of The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2016);

  14. 14.

    McQuiston-Surrett, D. & Saks, M. J. The testimony of forensic identification science: what expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear. Law Hum. Behav. 33, 436–453 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Morrison, G. S. Special issue on measuring and reporting the precision of forensic likelihood ratios: introduction to the debate. Sci. Justice 56, 371–373 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Ulery, B. T., Hicklin, R. A., Buscaglia, J. & Roberts, M. A. Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 7733–7738 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    National Commission on Forensic Sciences Reflecting Back—Looking Toward the Future (US Department of Justice, 2017);

  18. 18.

    Albright, T. D. Why eyewitnesses fail. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7758–7764 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    National Reseach Council. Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification (National Academies Press, 2014);

  20. 20.

    Steblay, N. K. Scientific advances in eyewitness identification evidence. William Mitchell Law Rev. 41, 1090–1127 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Wells, G. L. in Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony Vol. 2 (eds Faigman, D. L. et al.) 615–662 (Thomson/West, Eagan, 2016).

  22. 22.

    Thompson, W. C., Kaasa, S. O. & Peterson, T. Do jurors give appropriate weight to forensic identification evidence? J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 10, 359–397 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Smith, L. L. & Bull, R. Identifying and measuring juror pre-trial bias for forensic evidence: development and validation of the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale. Psychol. Crime Law 18, 797–815 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Smith, L. L., Bull, R. & Holliday, R. Understanding juror perceptions of forensic evidence: investigating the impact of case context on perceptions of forensic evidence strength. J. Forensic. Sci. 56, 409–414 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Schweitzer, N. J. & Saks, M. J. The CSI effect: popular fiction about forensic science affects the public’s expectations about real forensic science. Jurimetrics 47, 357–364 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Rind, B., Jaeger, M. & Strohmetz, D. B. Effect of crime seriousness on simulated jurors’ use of inadmissible evidence. J. Soc. Psychol. 135, 417–424 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Nance, D. A. & Morris, S. B. Juror understanding of DNA evidence: an empirical assessment of presentation formats for trace evidence with a relatively small random-match probability. J. Legal. Stud. 34, 395–444 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Martire, K. A., Kemp, R. I., Sayle, M. & Newell, B. R. On the interpretation of likelihood ratios in forensic science evidence: presentation formats and the weak evidence effect. Forensic. Sci. Int. 240, 61–68 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Lieberman, J. D., Carrell, C. A., Miethe, T. D. & Krauss, D. A. Gold versus platinum: do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence? Psychol. Public. Policy Law. 14, 27–62 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Kim, Y. S., Barak, G. & Shelton, D. E. Examining the ‘CSI-effect’ in the cases of circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony: multivariate and path analyses. J. Crim. Justice. 37, 452–460 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Kaye, D. H., Hans, V. P., Dann, B. M., Farley, E. & Albertson, S. Statistics in the jury box: how jurors respond to mitochondrial DNA match probabilities. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 4, 797–834 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E. & Kukucka, J. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2, 42–52 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Garrett, B. & Mitchell, G. How jurors evaluate fingerprint evidence: the relative importance of match language, method information, and error acknowledgment. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 10, 484–511 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Eisenberg, T. & Hans, V. P. Taking a stand on taking the stand: the effect of a prior criminal record on the decision to testify and on trial outcomes. Cornell Law. Rev. 94, 1353–1390 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Danziger, S., Levav, J. & Avnaim-Pesso, L. Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 6889–6892 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Hastie, R. & Pennington, N. Psychology of Learning and Motivation Vol. 32 (eds Busemeyer, J., Hastie, R. & Medin, D. L.) 1–31 (Academic Press, San Diego, 1995).

  37. 37.

    Pennington, N. & Hastie, R. Explaining the evidence: tests of the Story Model for juror decision making. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 62, 189–206 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Kalven, H. & Zeisel, H. The American Jury (Little, Brown & Company, Chicago, 1966).

  39. 39.

    Young, D. M., Levinson, J. D. & Sinnett, S. Innocent until primed: mock jurors' racially biased response to the presumption of innocence. PLoS ONE 9, e92365 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Simon, D. In Doubt: The Psychology of the Criminal Justice Process (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2012).

  41. 41.

    O’Brien, B. & Findley, K. Psychological Perspectives: Cognition and Decision Making. Examining Wrongful Convictions: Stepping Back, Moving Forward (Carolina Academic Press, Durham, 2014).

  42. 42.

    O’Brien, B. Prime suspect: an examination of factors that aggravate and counteract confirmation bias in criminal investigations. Psychol. Public. Policy Law. 15, 315–334 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Steblay, N., Hosch, H. M., Culhane, S. E. & McWethy, A. The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: a meta-analysis. Law Hum. Behav. 30, 469–492 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    O’Brien, B. A recipe for bias: an empirical look at the interplay between institutional incentives and bounded rationality in prosecutorial decision making. Miss. Law Rev. 74, 999–1050 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Hastie, R. in Better Than Conscious? Decision Making, the Human Mind, and Implications for Institutions (eds Engel, C. & Singer, W.) 371–390 (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2008).

  46. 46.

    Pennington, N. & Hastie, R. Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 242–258 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Gustafsson, A., Harrman, A. & Huber, F. Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2013).

  48. 48.

    Gelman, A. & Hill, J. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2006).

  49. 49.

    Gelman, A., Fagan, J. & Kiss, A. An analysis of the New York City police department’s ‘stop-and-frisk’ policy in the context of claims of racial bias. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 102, 813–823 (2007).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Brent, L. J. N. et al. Genetic origins of social networks in rhesus macaques. Sci. Rep. 3, 1042 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Chang, S. W. C. et al. Neural mechanisms of social decision-making in the primate amygdala. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 16012–16017 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Watson, K. K. et al. Genetic influences on social attention in free-ranging rhesus macaques. Anim. Behav. 103, 267–275 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Buckholtz, J. W. & Marois, R. The roots of modern justice: cognitive and neural foundations of social norms and their enforcement. Nat. Neurosci. 15, 655–661 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Treadway, M. T. et al. Corticolimbic gating of emotion-driven punishment. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 1270–1275 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Kerr, N. L. Severity of prescribed penalty and mock jurors’ verdicts. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 36, 1431–1442 (1978).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Bellin, J. The silence penalty. Iowa Law Rev. 103, 395–434 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Jones, A. M. & Penrod, S. Improving the effectiveness of the Henderson instruction safeguard against unreliable eyewitness identification. Psychol. Crime Law 24, 177–193 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Magnussen, S., Melinder, A., Stridbeck, U. & Raja, A. Q. Beliefs about factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness testimony: a comparison of judges, jurors and the general public. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 24, 122–133 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Martire, K. A. & Kemp, R. I. The impact of eyewitness expert evidence and judicial instruction on juror ability to evaluate eyewitness testimony. Law Hum. Behav. 33, 225–236 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Safer, M. A. et al. Educating jurors about eyewitness testimony in criminal cases with circumstantial and forensic evidence. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 47, 86–92 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Scurich, N. The differential effect of numeracy and anecdotes on the perceived fallibility of forensic science. Psychiatry, Psychol. Law 22, 616–623 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T. & Gosling, S. D. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6, 3–5 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Paolacci, G., Chandler, J. & Ipeirotis, P. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 5, 411–419 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Stewart, N. et al. The average laboratory samples a population of 7,300 Amazon Mechanical Turk workers. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 10, 479–491 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Chandler, J., Mueller, P. & Paolacci, G. Nonnaïveté‚ among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behav. Res. Methods 46, 112–130 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Carpenter, B. et al. Stan: a probabilistic programming language. J. Stat. Softw. 76, 1–32 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    National Research Council Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (National Academies Press, 2009).

  68. 68.

    Laudan, L. & Allen, R. J. The devastating impact of prior crimes evidence and other myths of the criminal justice process. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 101, 493–527 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Gross, S. R., O’Brien, B., Hu, C. & Kennedy, E. H. Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 7230–7235 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Ngo, L. et al. Two distinct moral mechanisms for ascribing and denying intentionality. Sci. Rep. 5, 17390 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Cole, S. A. Implementing counter-measures against confirmation bias in forensic science. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2, 61–62 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Desmarais, S. L. & Read, J. D. After 30 years, what do we know about what jurors know? A meta-analytic review of lay knowledge regarding eyewitness factors. Law Hum. Behav. 35, 200–210 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Ginther, M. R. et al. The language of mens rea. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 67, 1327 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Koehler, J. J. & Meixner, J. B. in T he Psychology of Juries (ed. Kovera, M. B.) 161–183 (American Psychological Association, Washington DC, 2017).

  75. 75.

    Scurich, N. What do experimental simulations tell us about the effect of neuro/genetic evidence on jurors? J. Law. Biosci. 5, 204–207 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    National Research Council Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification (National Academies Press, 2014);

  77. 77.

    Rouder, J. N. Optional stopping: No problem for Bayesians. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 21, 301–308 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Pennington, N. & Hastie, R. Explanation-based decision making: effects of memory structure on judgment. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 14, 521–533 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Thompson, W., Black, J., Jain, A. & Kadane, J. Forensic Science Assessments: A Quality and Gap Analysis—Latent Fingerprint Examination (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2017).

  80. 80.

    Gelman, A. et al. Bayesian Data Analysis (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2013).

Download references


We thank D. Angel for valuable discussion throughout this project. A. Demasi, M. Rabil, M. Nerheim, P. Campos and A. Buras provided invaluable help recruiting subjects for these studies. We are especially grateful to the law students, prosecutors and other lawyers who volunteered their time as research subjects. This work was supported by an Incubator Award from the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, NSF grant no. 1655445 and by a career development award from the NIH Big Data to Knowledge Program (grant no. K01-ES-025442 to J.M.P.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information




J.M.P. and J.H.P.S. conceived the project. All authors contributed to the task design. D.A.B., D.H.B. and J.A.G.S. wrote the crime scenarios and evidence modules. J.L., J.A.G.S. and J.M.P. designed and coded the online task, ran the mTurk experiments and processed the data. J.H.P.S. and D.H.B. recruited the legally trained subjects and administered the in-person sessions. J.M.P. wrote/designed the computational models. J.L., J.A.G.S. and J.M.P. analysed the data. J.H.P.S., J.M.P. and R.M.C. wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. H. Pate Skene.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

D.A.B. and A.M. are partners in a trial consulting firm, whose practise includes civil litigation and criminal defence. A.M., J.H.P.S. and D.H.B. are attorneys, part of whose practises include criminal defence. J.H.P.S. works with both criminal defence attorneys and prosecutors. D.H.B. represents plaintiffs in civil cases and death row inmates in post-conviction criminal cases.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Tables 1–10, Supplementary Figures 1–12, Supplementary References


Reporting Summary. Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pearson, J.M., Law, J.R., Skene, J.A.G. et al. Modelling the effects of crime type and evidence on judgments about guilt. Nat Hum Behav 2, 856–866 (2018).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing