Mock jurors' use of error rates in DNA database trawls

Forensic science is not infallible, as data collected by the Innocence Project have revealed. The rate at which errors occur in forensic DNA testing-the so-called "gold standard" of forensic science-is not currently known. This article presents a Bayesian analysis to demonstrate the profound impact that error rates have on the probative value of a DNA match. Empirical evidence on whether jurors are sensitive to this effect is equivocal: Studies have typically found they are not, while a recent, methodologically rigorous study found that they can be. This article presents the results of an experiment that examined this issue within the context of a database trawl case in which one DNA profile was tested against a multitude of profiles. The description of the database was manipulated (i.e., "medical" or "offender" database, or not specified) as was the rate of error (i.e., one-in-10 or one-in-1,000). Jury-eligible participants were nearly twice as likely to convict in the offender database condition compared to the condition not specified. The error rates did not affect verdicts. Both factors, however, affected the perception of the defendant's guilt, in the expected direction, although the size of the effect was meager compared to Bayesian prescriptions. The results suggest that the disclosure of an offender database to jurors might constitute prejudicial evidence, and calls for proficiency testing in forensic science as well as training of jurors are echoed.