  We investigate how the use of bullet comparison algorithms and demonstrative
evidence may affect juror perceptions of reliability, credibility, and
understanding of expert witnesses and presented evidence. The use of
statistical methods in forensic science is motivated by a lack of scientific
validity and error rate issues present in many forensic analysis methods. We
explore what our study says about how this type of forensic evidence is
perceived in the courtroom where individuals unfamiliar with advanced
statistical methods are asked to evaluate results in order to assess guilt. In
the course of our initial study, we found that individuals overwhelmingly
provided high Likert scale ratings in reliability, credibility, and
scientificity regardless of experimental condition. This discovery of scale
compression - where responses are limited to a few values on a larger scale,
despite experimental manipulations - limits statistical modeling but provides
opportunities for new experimental manipulations which may improve future
studies in this area.
