Comics could help explain science in court, study finds

Comics explaining the complexities of forensic science in simple terms could improve understanding for jurors in court cases, research conducted at UWE Bristol suggests.

The study involving almost 100 volunteers participating as ‘jurors’ in mock trials found that access to comics designed to aid comprehension of forensic science led to greater detail in jury discussions about evidence and increased confidence in reasoning and conclusions.

Izzy Baxter, a student studying for an MSc Science Communication at UWE Bristol, undertook an analysis of data from mock trials organised by researchers at the University of Dundee.

The research involved conducting an analysis of the discussions of two groups of jurors: one group which received only an oral expert witness testimony, and a second group which had access to the expert witness testimony and comics explaining forensic science concepts.

In the group that read the comics, jurors made more explicit references to scientific concepts and demonstrated a better ability to connect forensic science to their final decision. In contrast, in the groups that received only the oral explanation, more misinterpretations of the evidence emerged, with misunderstandings related to the meaning of probability and margins of error, whereas the comics helped clarify these concepts. Additionally, discussions in the groups with comics were more balanced and participatory, with greater interaction among jurors.

Scientific literature suggests that understanding of science in courtrooms is often quite limited.

Dr Andy Ridgway, Senior Lecturer in Science Communication at UWE Bristol and one of the study’s authors, said the analysis was designed to explore whether comics could be a possible solution in helping explain key forensic techniques and aiding the legal process.

He said: “The decisions being taken by members of juries are just so vitally important and often they’re shaped by their understanding of the forensic evidence that’s being presented.

“Jurors often have little to no science background and frequently lack prior knowledge of the forensic techniques they are expected to assess in making their decision.”

The full academic paper has been published in the Journal of Science Communication.