INFORMATIONAL VIDEOS ON FORENSIC SCIENCES: A TOOL TO IMPROVE JUDICIAL UNDERSTANDING OF EXPERT EVIDENCE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62140/MJL1172024Palabras clave:
Expert Evidence; Forensic Science Validity; Evidence Assessment; Forensic Science Communication.Resumen
The increasing reliance on expert evidence in criminal proceedings has highlighted a growing tension between the technical sophistication of forensic sciences and the limited scientific literacy of legal decision-makers. However, the technical complexity of forensic methods is not always matched by a corresponding ability of judges to understand and critically assess the methods and inferences that underpin this type of evidence. Empirical studies have shown that judges and jurors frequently assign high probative value to expert testimony based on extrinsic markers of authority — such as the expert's declared experience, institutional status, or confident demeanor — rather than on scientific criteria of validity and reliability. This article examines the limitations in the validity and reliability of various commonly used forensic techniques, drawing attention to the risks associated with their uncritical use in criminal trials. Building on this diagnosis, the article proposes an innovative communicational solution: the use of standardized informational videos, shown prior to the presentation of forensic expert evidence, aimed at promoting a minimal but critical understanding among decision-makers. Drawing on recent experimental studies, it is shown that this intervention improves judges’ sensitivity to the methodological soundness of forensic evidence, without generating undue skepticism. The proposal is particularly relevant in the Portuguese legal context, where a culture of uncritical deference to technical expert discourse still prevails. In this setting, informational videos emerge as a low-cost pedagogical tool with high epistemic potential, capable of strengthening the rational basis of judicial decisions and fostering a more informed and methodologically aware criminal justice system.
Referencias
CALHEIROS, Maria Clara - Para uma teoria da prova. Coimbra: Coimbra editora, 2015. ISBN 978-989-96672-5-9.
CHAMPOD, Christophe; VUILLE, Joëlle - Scientific evidence in Europe: admissibility, evaluation and equality of arms. International Commentary on Evidence [Em linha]. V 9, N 1 (2011), pp. 1-69. [01.09.2021]. Disponível em https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/85212846.pdf. ISSN 1554-4567.
DROR, Itiel E.; CHARLTON, David – Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification. Vol. 56, n.º 4 (2006), p. 600–616. ISSN 0895-173X, p. 600.
DROR, Itiel E.; et al. – Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International. Vol. 156 (2006), p. 74–76. ISSN 0379-0738
DUCE, Mauricio - Prueba pericial y su impacto en los errores del sistema de justicia penal: antecedentes comparados y locales para iniciar el debate. Ius et Praxis [Em linha]. V 24, N 2 (2018), pp. 223-262 ISSN 0717-2877. Disponível em https://www.scielo.cl/pdf/iusetp/v24n2/0718-0012-iusetp-24-02-00223.pdf [01.05.2025].
EASTWOOD, Joanne; CALDWELL, Jeane – Educating jurors about forensic evidence: using an expert witness and judicial instructions to mitigate the impact of invalid forensic science testimony. Journal of Forensic Sciences [Em linha]. Vol. 60, n.º 6 (2015), p. 1523–1528. ISSN 0022-1198. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12832 [10.05.2025].
GARRETT, Brandon L.; CROZIER, William E.; GRADY, Richard – Error rates, likelihood ratios, and jury evaluation of forensic evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences [Em linha]. Vol. 65, n.º 4 (2020), p. 1199-1209. ISSN 0022-1198. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14323 [10.05.2025].
GARRETT, Brandon L.; NEUFELD, Peter J. – Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Virginia Law Review [Em linha]. Vol. 95, n.º 1 (2009), p. 1–97. ISSN 0042-6601. Disponível em: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25470665 [10.05.2025].
GARRETT, Brandon L.; NEUFELD, Peter J. – Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Virginia Law Review. Vol. 95, n.º 1 (2009), p. 1–97. ISSN 0042-6601.
GASCÓN ABELLÁN Marina - Conocimientos expertos y deferencia del juez (apunte para la superación de un problema). DOXA: Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho [Em linha]. N 39 (2016), pp. 347-365. [10.05.2022]. Disponível em https://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/60169/6/Doxa_39_18.pdf. ISSN 0214-8676.
GASCÓN ABELLÁN Marina - Prueba Científica: un mapa de retos. In VÁZQUEZ, Carmen - Estándares de Prueba y Prueba Científica. Marcial Pons: Madrid, 2013. ISBN 978-84-15664-53-6. Pp. 181-201.
GASCÓN ABELLÁN, Marina; LUCENA MOLINA, José Juan; GONZÁLEZ RODRÍGUEZ, Joaquín - Razones científico-jurídicas para valorar la prueba científica: una argumentación multidisciplinary. Diario La Ley [Em linha]. N 7481, pp. 1-9 [23.02.2025]. Disponível em https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3291545. pp. 2-5.
GROSS, S. R. - Convicting the innocent. Annual Review of Law and Social Science [Em linha]. V 4 (2008), pp. 173-192. [10.06.2022]. Disponível em https://standdown.typepad.com/SCHOLARSHIP-AnnualReviewLawSocialScience-2008-Gross-ConvictingTheInnocent.pdf. ISSN 1550-3631.
GROSS, Samuel; MNOOKIN, Jennifer L. - Expert information and expert evidence: a preliminary taxonomy. Seton Hall Law Review [Em linha]. V 34, N 1 (2003), pp. 141-189. [10.05.2025]. Disponível em https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=477202. ISSN 0586-5964.
KAYE, David H.; et al. – Statistics in the jury box: how jurors respond to mitochondrial DNA match probabilities. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies [Em linha]. Vol. 4, n.º 4 (2007), p. 797–834. ISSN 1740-1453. Disponível em: http://ssrn.com/abstract=996134 [10.05.2025].
KOEHLER, Jonathan J. – The psychology of numbers in the courtroom: how to make DNA-match statistics seem impressive or insufficient. Southern California Law Review [Em linha]. Vol. 74 (2000), p. 1275–1305. ISSN 0038-3910. Disponível em: https://silo.tips/download/the-psychology-of-numbers-in-the-courtroom-how-to-make-dna-match-statistics-seem [10.052025].
KOEHLER, Jonathan J.; SCHWEITZER, Nancy J.; SAKS, Michael J.; MCQUISTON, Dawn E. – Science, technology, or the expert witness: what influences jurors’ judgments about forensic science testimony? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law [Em linha]. Vol. 22, n.º 4 (2016), p. 401–413. ISSN 1076-8971. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000103 [[10.05.2025].
KOEHLER, Jonathan J.; SCHWEITZER, Nancy J.; SAKS, Michael J.; MCQUISTON, Dawn E. – Science, technology, or the expert witness: what influences jurors’ judgments about forensic science testimony. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law [Em linha]. Vol. 22, n.º 4 (2016), p. 401–413. ISSN 1076-8971. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000103 [10.05.2025].
LABAT, Devon E.; et al. – Improving juror assessments of forensic testimony and its effects on decision-making and evidence evaluation. Law and Human Behavior [Em linha]. Vol. 47, n.º 5 (2023), p. 566–578. ISSN 0147-7307. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000539 [10.05.2025].
LOURENÇO, Maria João - Regime da Prova Pericial no Ordenamento Jurídico Português: Contributos para o seu aperfeiçoamento, Coimbra, Almedina, 2024. ISBN 9789894020486.
MCQUISTON-SURRETT, Dawn; SAKS, Michael J. – Communicating opinion evidence in the forensic identification sciences: accuracy and impact. The Hastings Law Journal. Vol. 59, n.º 5 (2008), p. 1159–1189. ISSN 0017-8322.
MNOOKIN, Jennifer L. - Expert information and expert evidence: a preliminary taxonomy. Seton Hall Law Review [Em linha]. V 34, N 1 (2003), pp. 141-189. Disponível em https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=477202. ISSN 0586-5964 [10.05.2025].
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL - Strengthening forensic science in the united states: a path forward [Em linha]. Washington: The National Academies Press, 2009. [21.06.2021]. Disponível em https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf. ISBN 0-309-13131-6 [10.05.2025].
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY – Forensic science in criminal courts: ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods [Em linha]. [Washington, D.C.]: Executive Office of the President, 2016. Disponível em: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf [10.05.2025].
SAKS, Michael J.; MCQUISTON, Dawn – The testimony of forensic identification science: what expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear. Law and Human Behavior [Em linha]. Vol. 33, n.º 5 (2009), p. 436–453. ISSN 0147-7307. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9169-1 [10.05.2025].
SOUSA, João Henrique Gomes de - A “perícia” técnica ou científica revisitada numa visão prático-judicial. Julgar. Coimbra. ISSN 1646-6853. N 15 (2011). Pp. 27-52.
THOMPSON, William C.; SCHUMANN, Edward – Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: the prosecutor’s fallacy and the defense attorney’s fallacy. Law and Human Behavior [Em linha]. Vol. 11 (1987), p. 167–187. ISSN 0147-7307. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044641 [10.05.2025].
VÁZQUEZ, Carmen - De la Prueba Científica a la Prueba Pericial. Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2015. ISBN. 9788416402762.
VÁZQUEZ, Carmen - Los retos de las pruebas periciales a partir del nuevo Código Nacional de Procedimientos Penales: apuntes desde la epistemología jurídica. Problema Anuario de Filosofía y Teoría del Derecho [Em linha]. N 11 (2017). Pp. 341-378. ISSN 2448-7937. Disponível em https://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/paftd/n11/2007-4387-paftd-11-341.pdf [10.05.2025].
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2025 Revista Ibérica do Direito
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
