Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine 24-1 - 17

Educating the Jury on Metrology
Ted Vosk and Gil Sapir

oo often science is relied upon to prove some proposition in the courtroom. Guilt or innocence, liability or
mitigation, the possibilities seem endless. The truth
is that science cannot prove anything; it only makes the likelihood of a proposition more or less likely. Courts and many
practitioners have made considerable progress in understanding the principles of metrology over the past few years, as have
forensic scientists. One of the consequences of this is that the
justice system is issuing more just outcomes and less wrongful convictions. Unfortunately, one of the most difficult tasks
in this process is educating juries of such concepts. Science has
its own language, application and use. The law encompasses
certainty and finality, while science accepts neither only being
able to yield relative degrees of belief in a proposition. These
conflicting perspectives cause tension and conflict between
law and science.
This article briefly presents another method of informing and educating judges and jurors concerning limitations
of forensic science through metrology. Educating the trier of
fact on typical issues in metrology (the science of measurement) is a relevant problem in many civil and criminal trials.
The endemic problem transcends the international spectrum
of justice and is not restricted to jury trials in criminal cases.
Uncertainty is important especially with scientific evidence
that people assume is " highly reliable. " However, uncertainty
does not affect all scientific evidence equally. Judges generally
understand the rules and requirements for admissibility of
evidence, but not always the content of presented scientific evidence. This quandary is significant when the judge is the trier
of fact [1]. Therefore, both the jury and judge must be educated
in understanding and comprehending metrology. The attorney should begin educating the judge in metrology during the
opening statement with cognitive reinforcement throughout
witness examinations, summation and closing argument. The
jury's education begins during its voir dire.
The jury uses a combined deliberative process for comprehension and interpretation while the judge is the sole decision
maker. Anglo-American courts do not insist juries hear metrological information, especially uncertainty and likelihood
February 2021

ratios [2] including the misuse of scientific evidence in forensic science [3]. Unfortunately, jury instructions do not usually
provide specific guidance on scientific evidence, its standards,
limitations and metrology [4].

Jury Composition
The scientific method and process is often misunderstood by
the legal system. The media's fictional portrayal of it serves
to ignore the limitations of science, society's expectations and
ignorance. The judicial system ironically favors and perpetuates intellectual discrimination through its jury selection
process (voir dire). Certainly, there are times when an engineer or qualified scientist is part of the jury pool, but because
the science presented often favors one side, they are frequently
dismissed. This leaves a lay jury to not only learn the basic
principles of science as a whole, but then the subtleties of the
science being relied upon as evidence. It's not that a lay jury is
incapable of learning these things, they are simply ignorant of
them. And why wouldn't they be. The jury relies on their life's
experience, its prejudices and expectations. The judiciary is
compelled to expedite and reduce their increasingly large case
load. Less time during a jury trial is devoted to educating the
jury concerning its understanding of the scientific method and
metrology. The jury is left in an educational haze. As a result,
many verdicts are determined by more or less guessing at what
the scientific evidence really means.
If the judicial system is expected to improve with advances
in science and technology, then attorneys must fundamentally change how science is communicated to jurors. First, the
judiciary must preclude the practice of routinely striking prospective jurors who are scientists, physicians, engineers or
technologists simply because they are better educated academically or vocationally.

Jury Voir Dire-Peremptory Challenges
Opposing counsel often dismisses the potential juror because
they would understand the evidence better. Despite objections
every time, judges usually permit the dismissal based upon
cause or a peremptory challenge [5]. The ensuing question is:

IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine 17
1094-6969/21/$25.00©2021IEEE

Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine 24-1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine 24-1