It has been argued that jurors often undervalue Circumstantial Evidence (fingerprints, DNA, etc.) and overvalue direct evidence (eyewitness identifications, confessions), even when the circumstantial evidence is more reliable than the direct evidence (Heller, 2006). A reluctance to impose liability on the basis of circumstantial evidence is referred to as the anti-inference bias. How much does the anti-inference bias affect verdicts in criminal cases? Zamir and colleagues (2017) conducted four experimental studies to test the scope of factfinders' aversion towards circumstantial evidence and found that... Teichman and colleagues (2023) examined the extent of the anti-inference bias in the decision-making of jurors, law students and lawyers, and found that....