Accurate and reliable decision-making in the criminal justice system depends on accurate expert reporting and on the correct interpretation of evidence by the judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers. The present study aims to gain insight into the judiciary's capability to assess the accuracy and reliability of forensic expert reports by first examining the extent to which criminal justice professionals are able to differentiate between an accurate (or sound) expert report and an inaccurate (or unsound) expert report. In an online questionnaire, 133 participants assessed both a sound and an unsound expert report. The findings show that, on average, participants were unable to significantly distinguish between sound and unsound forensic expert reports. Second, the study explored the influence of institutional authority on the evaluation of forensic expert reports. Reports that were not recognized as flawed—particularly those originating from well-known and reputable institutions—were subjected to less critical examination, increasing the risk of evaluation errors. These results suggest that the perceived institutional authority influences the assessment of forensic evidence. The study highlights the need for tools to support criminal justice professionals in evaluating forensic evidence, particularly when experts are unregistered. Recommendations include adhering to established quality standards, consulting counter-expert evaluations, improving courtroom communication, and enhancing forensic knowledge through training. Overall, the findings underscore the importance of critical evidence evaluation to reduce the risk of misinterpretation and wrongful convictions in the judicial process.
Document
OpenAccess
