> But aren't prosecutors and lawyers really a part of the general public when it comes to forensics? In this case, no, they aren't. A better comparison would b

> But aren't prosecutors and lawyers really a part of the general public when it comes to forensics? In this case, no, they aren't. A better comparison would be to a general contractor hiring an electrician. A prosecutor is likely to have no more formal education or hands-on experience with forensic science. But, as professional "consumers" of expert testimony, and a motivation (professional duty) to win, you can't evaluate their scientific ignorance the same way you'd evaluate a juror's. I don't think the reason bite mark analysis lasted so long is because Judge Goodsense watched cop shows, any more than you can say a GC can't be blamed for shoddy wiring because they weren't a member of the Electrician's Local. To swap contexts, nontechnical people who work with programmers may not be able to give you the big-O cost of a loop, but they tend to know when a programmer is bullshitting about something. This goes to my contention that the CSI effect isn't just 'I believe it 'cause I saw it on the toob'. Education, lived experience, class, personality and other priors play in to it. In the case of criminal evidence admissibility, I think there is at least motivated reasoning as there is true belief in methods. The motivation is in part the same as with how plea deals have evolved - the current criminal justice system would collapse if trials were needed for more than a tiny fraction of cases. Magic evidence is a performance hack. I don't disagree that ambient falsehoods matter. I am saying that comparing motivated professionals in a field with random MOPs misses a lot of the picture, and that even your MOP is going to react to ambient falsehoods they can't evaluate differently, based on priors.