Passage Summary: People trust science more when it's in a trial. Experts think this is because jurors assume the judge wouldn't have allowed the evidence if it weren't reliable.

Conclusion: The reason jurors trust courtroom scientific evidence more than outside evidence is that they know judges have already screened it for credibility.

Reasoning: Studies show jurors find evidence more credible in court, and legal theorists believe this is due to the jurors' awareness of the judicial prescreening process.

Analysis: To evaluate this hypothesis, we need to test the link between the jurors' trust and their knowledge of the judge's role. The theorists assume that jurors are actually aware that judges prescreen evidence and that this awareness is what drives their increased trust. If jurors don't even know that judges perform this 'gatekeeper' function, the hypothesis is likely wrong. Look for an answer that investigates whether jurors are aware of the screening process or if they would still trust the evidence regardless of that knowledge.