Forensic Evidence Gathering and Analysis

Our legal system relies heavily on the collection and analysis of forensic evidence to solve crimes and ensure that guilty, not innocent, individuals are convicted. Although most people consider forensic science enterprises to be objective and immune from human bias and error, research and examples from wrongful convictions clearly demonstrate that errors in forensic evidence gathering and analysis can and do occur. Our research has examined factors associated with cognitive processes that can influence actual forensic experts' degree of biasability and reliability as well as jurors' perceptions of forensic evidence.

Related Publications

Guyll, M., Scherr, K. C., Madon, S., & Munoz, J. (2023). First steps in the path from innocence to conviction: Phenomenology of innocence, police stops, and expectancies. In D. DeMatteo & K.C. Scherr (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of psychology and law. New York: Oxford University Press.

Catlin, M., Piggott, D., Scherr, K. C., & Vallano, J.P. (2023). Schematic expectations influence mock jurors' sexual violence case recognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology 37, 558-568.

Dror, I.E., Scherr, K.C., Mohammed, L.A., MacLean, C.L., & Cunningham, L. (2021). Biasability and reliability of expert forensic document examiners. Forensic Science International, 318, 110610.

Scherr, K.C. and Dror, I. E. (2021).Ingroup biases of forensic experts: perceptions of wrongful convictions versus exonerations. Psychology, Crime and Law, 21, 89-104.

Scherr, K.C., Redlich, A.D, & Kassin, S.M. (2020). Cumulative disadvantage: A psychological framework for understanding how innocence can lead to confession, wrongful conviction, and beyond. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15, 353-383.

Hawkins, I., & Scherr, K. C. (2016). Engaging the CSI effect: The influences of experience-taking, type of evidence, and viewing frequency on juror decision-making. Journal of Criminal Justice, 49, 45-52.