Consistent with: what doctors say and jurors hear

Abstract

While there is an extensive body of literature regarding the factors that influence how juries interpret medical expert statements, there is limited empirical evidence regarding the effects of word choice. The term ‘consistent with’ is widely used in legal proceedings and expert witness statements, so it is important to understand what this term means to a jury. The aim of this research is to understand how potential jurors interpret the phrase ‘consistent with’ in a forensic medical context. Potential jurors were recruited for a survey containing three mock vignettes where the doctor stated that the injury was ‘consistent with’ either self-inflicted injury, accidental injury, or injury by a third party. Participants were asked what the doctor meant, using a range of options taken from the United Nations’ Istanbul Protocol definitions of medico-legal terms used to describe lesions caused by torture. The results from 151 surveys indicate there was no consistent interpretation of the phase within each vignette or between vignettes. This research demonstrates that the phrase ‘consistent with’ can be interpreted in a variety of ways: caution is therefore required when using this expression in legal proceedings. Further research regarding the best choice of terms to use in court is required.