The knowledge of experts presumably affects their credibility and the degree to which the trier of fact will agree with them. However, specific effects of demonstrated knowledge are largely unknown. This experiment manipulated a forensic expert’s level of knowledge in a mock trial paradigm. We tested the relation between low versus high expert knowledge on mock juror perceptions of expert credibility, on agreement with the expert, and on sentencing. We also tested expert gender as a potential moderator. Knowledge effects were statistically significant; however, these differences carried little practical utility in predicting mock jurors’ ultimate decisions. Contrary to hypotheses that high knowledge would yield increased credibility and agreement, knowledge manipulations only influenced perceived expert likeability. The low knowledge expert was perceived as more likeable than his or her high knowledge counterpart, a paradoxical finding. No significant differences across expert gender were found. Implications for conceptualizing expert witness knowledge, credibility, and their potential effects on juror decision-making are discussed.

Arizona is a unique state in that rain is not a normal occurrence throughout most of the year (NWS). Arizona averages from less than three months to half a month of measurable precipitation days per year (WRCC). With that, it is important to know the public’s understanding as well as their general trend of likeness towards the weather forecasts they receive. A questionnaire was distributed to 426 people in the state of Arizona to review what they understand from the forecasts and what they would like to see on social media and television.