Book chapter 147 views
Judge and Jury Perceptions of Open Source Evidence
Yvonne McDermott Rees 
,
Anne Hausknecht
,
Anne Hausknecht
Digital Witness: Using Open Source Information for Human Rights Investigation, Documentation and Accountability
Swansea University Authors:
Yvonne McDermott Rees , Anne Hausknecht
Abstract
Open source evidence has come to play a central role for our ways of knowing about human rights violations and atrocity crimes. Yet, little is known about how judges and juries assess and evaluate such evidence. This chapter presents unique empirical insights from qualitative interviews with interna...
| Published in: | Digital Witness: Using Open Source Information for Human Rights Investigation, Documentation and Accountability |
|---|---|
| Published: |
Oxford
Oxford University Press
2026
|
| URI: | https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa70523 |
| first_indexed |
2025-09-29T16:02:03Z |
|---|---|
| last_indexed |
2025-10-31T18:12:33Z |
| id |
cronfa70523 |
| recordtype |
SURis |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2025-10-30T14:39:23.6794494</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>70523</id><entry>2025-09-29</entry><title>Judge and Jury Perceptions of Open Source Evidence</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>e6e1ae537327fc3f38d2af4a9d9834d8</sid><ORCID>0000-0003-0111-9049</ORCID><firstname>Yvonne</firstname><surname>McDermott Rees</surname><name>Yvonne McDermott Rees</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author><author><sid>080f820f9654e855145c7e8e4d2d9989</sid><firstname>Anne</firstname><surname>Hausknecht</surname><name>Anne Hausknecht</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2025-09-29</date><deptcode>HRCL</deptcode><abstract>Open source evidence has come to play a central role for our ways of knowing about human rights violations and atrocity crimes. Yet, little is known about how judges and juries assess and evaluate such evidence. This chapter presents unique empirical insights from qualitative interviews with international judges, and from a fictional jury trial designed to explore lay factfinders’ perceptions of open source evidence. It examines the perceived limits of open source evidence, source credibility and source bias, and factfinders’ perceptions of the role of expert testimony. The chapter reveals that factfinders are conscious of the limits of open source evidence and emphasize the need for corroboration in view of those limits. They consider the source of open source evidence, and their potential bias, as important in their assessment of the evidence. Expert testimony is also seen as crucial, although questions remain about who qualifies as an expert and what kinds of expertise are required in a rapidly-evolving field.</abstract><type>Book chapter</type><journal>Digital Witness: Using Open Source Information for Human Rights Investigation, Documentation and Accountability</journal><volume/><journalNumber/><paginationStart/><paginationEnd/><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><placeOfPublication>Oxford</placeOfPublication><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic/><keywords/><publishedDay>18</publishedDay><publishedMonth>5</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2026</publishedYear><publishedDate>2026-05-18</publishedDate><doi/><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Hillary Rodham Clinton Law School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>HRCL</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm>Other</apcterm><funders>UKRI (EP/X016021/1)</funders><projectreference/><lastEdited>2025-10-30T14:39:23.6794494</lastEdited><Created>2025-09-29T10:31:16.5516642</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences</level><level id="2">Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Yvonne</firstname><surname>McDermott Rees</surname><orcid>0000-0003-0111-9049</orcid><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Anne</firstname><surname>Hausknecht</surname><order>2</order></author></authors><documents/><OutputDurs/></rfc1807> |
| spelling |
2025-10-30T14:39:23.6794494 v2 70523 2025-09-29 Judge and Jury Perceptions of Open Source Evidence e6e1ae537327fc3f38d2af4a9d9834d8 0000-0003-0111-9049 Yvonne McDermott Rees Yvonne McDermott Rees true false 080f820f9654e855145c7e8e4d2d9989 Anne Hausknecht Anne Hausknecht true false 2025-09-29 HRCL Open source evidence has come to play a central role for our ways of knowing about human rights violations and atrocity crimes. Yet, little is known about how judges and juries assess and evaluate such evidence. This chapter presents unique empirical insights from qualitative interviews with international judges, and from a fictional jury trial designed to explore lay factfinders’ perceptions of open source evidence. It examines the perceived limits of open source evidence, source credibility and source bias, and factfinders’ perceptions of the role of expert testimony. The chapter reveals that factfinders are conscious of the limits of open source evidence and emphasize the need for corroboration in view of those limits. They consider the source of open source evidence, and their potential bias, as important in their assessment of the evidence. Expert testimony is also seen as crucial, although questions remain about who qualifies as an expert and what kinds of expertise are required in a rapidly-evolving field. Book chapter Digital Witness: Using Open Source Information for Human Rights Investigation, Documentation and Accountability Oxford University Press Oxford 18 5 2026 2026-05-18 COLLEGE NANME Hillary Rodham Clinton Law School COLLEGE CODE HRCL Swansea University Other UKRI (EP/X016021/1) 2025-10-30T14:39:23.6794494 2025-09-29T10:31:16.5516642 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law Yvonne McDermott Rees 0000-0003-0111-9049 1 Anne Hausknecht 2 |
| title |
Judge and Jury Perceptions of Open Source Evidence |
| spellingShingle |
Judge and Jury Perceptions of Open Source Evidence Yvonne McDermott Rees Anne Hausknecht |
| title_short |
Judge and Jury Perceptions of Open Source Evidence |
| title_full |
Judge and Jury Perceptions of Open Source Evidence |
| title_fullStr |
Judge and Jury Perceptions of Open Source Evidence |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Judge and Jury Perceptions of Open Source Evidence |
| title_sort |
Judge and Jury Perceptions of Open Source Evidence |
| author_id_str_mv |
e6e1ae537327fc3f38d2af4a9d9834d8 080f820f9654e855145c7e8e4d2d9989 |
| author_id_fullname_str_mv |
e6e1ae537327fc3f38d2af4a9d9834d8_***_Yvonne McDermott Rees 080f820f9654e855145c7e8e4d2d9989_***_Anne Hausknecht |
| author |
Yvonne McDermott Rees Anne Hausknecht |
| author2 |
Yvonne McDermott Rees Anne Hausknecht |
| format |
Book chapter |
| container_title |
Digital Witness: Using Open Source Information for Human Rights Investigation, Documentation and Accountability |
| publishDate |
2026 |
| institution |
Swansea University |
| publisher |
Oxford University Press |
| college_str |
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences |
| hierarchytype |
|
| hierarchy_top_id |
facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences |
| department_str |
Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law |
| document_store_str |
0 |
| active_str |
0 |
| description |
Open source evidence has come to play a central role for our ways of knowing about human rights violations and atrocity crimes. Yet, little is known about how judges and juries assess and evaluate such evidence. This chapter presents unique empirical insights from qualitative interviews with international judges, and from a fictional jury trial designed to explore lay factfinders’ perceptions of open source evidence. It examines the perceived limits of open source evidence, source credibility and source bias, and factfinders’ perceptions of the role of expert testimony. The chapter reveals that factfinders are conscious of the limits of open source evidence and emphasize the need for corroboration in view of those limits. They consider the source of open source evidence, and their potential bias, as important in their assessment of the evidence. Expert testimony is also seen as crucial, although questions remain about who qualifies as an expert and what kinds of expertise are required in a rapidly-evolving field. |
| published_date |
2026-05-18T05:31:02Z |
| _version_ |
1851098045315284992 |
| score |
11.089386 |