IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v154y1991i1p75-81.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can Jurors Understand Probabilistic Evidence?

Author

Listed:
  • D. H. Kaye
  • Jonathan J. Koehler

Abstract

Some courts have been reluctant to admit testimony expressing probabilities because of a concern that jurors will overweight it relative to other evidence. However, empirical studies indicate a tendency to underweight statistical evidence when other sources of evidence are available. This paper reviews recent studies with mock jurors.

Suggested Citation

  • D. H. Kaye & Jonathan J. Koehler, 1991. "Can Jurors Understand Probabilistic Evidence?," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 154(1), pages 75-81, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:154:y:1991:i:1:p:75-81
    DOI: 10.2307/2982696
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2307/2982696
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2307/2982696?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas Weber, 2010. "Simple methods for evaluating and comparing binary experiments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 257-288, August.
    2. William C. Thompson & Suzanne O. Kaasa & Tiamoyo Peterson, 2013. "Do Jurors Give Appropriate Weight to Forensic Identification Evidence?," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 359-397, June.
    3. Jonathan J. Koehler, 2011. "If the Shoe Fits They Might Acquit: The Value of Forensic Science Testimony," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(s1), pages 21-48, December.
    4. Brandon Garrett & Gregory Mitchell, 2013. "How Jurors Evaluate Fingerprint Evidence: The Relative Importance of Match Language, Method Information, and Error Acknowledgment," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 484-511, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:bla:jorssa:v:154:y:1991:i:1:p:75-81. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.