Enhancing Juror Understanding of Probabilistic DNA Evidence

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 38, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 85-96

  Dartnall, Stephanie ^a   Goodman Delahunty, Jane ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

DNA; Judicial instructions; Jurors; Laboratory error

Indexed keywords

COURT; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DNA FINGERPRINTING; HUMAN; LEGAL EVIDENCE; LEGAL PROCEDURE; REVIEW;

EID: 33947214424     PISSN: 00450618     EISSN: 1834562X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00450610609410635     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Walsh SJ, Ribaux O, Buckleton JS, Ross A, and Roux C: DNA profiling and criminal justice: A contribution to a changing debate. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36: 34-43.2004.
2. Schklar J and Diamond SS: Juror reactions to DNA evidence: Errors and expectancies. Low and Human Behavior, 23: 159-184.1999
3. Findlay hl and Grix J: Challenging forensic evidence? Observations on the use of DNA in certain criminal trials. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 14: 269-282.2003
4. Villejoubert G and Mandel DR: The inverse fallacy: An account of deviations from Bayes’ Theorem and the additivity principle. Memory & Cognition, 30: 171-178,2002
5. Thompson WC and Schumann EL Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutor’s fallacy and the defense attorney’s fallacy. Low and Human Behavior, 11: 167-187, 1987.
6. Koehler JJ: On conveying the probative value of DNA evidence: Frequencies, likelihood ratios and error rates. University of Colorado Law Review, 67: 859-886, 1996.
7. Thompson WC: Are juries competent to evaluate statistical evidence? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52: 9-41, 1989.
8. Koehler JJ, Chia A and Lindsey JS: The random match probability (RMP) in DNA evidence: Irrelevant and prejudicial? Jurimetrics Journal, 35: 201-219,1995.
9. Nance DA and Morris SB: Jury understanding of DNA evidence: An empirical assessment of presentation formats for trace evidence with relatively small random match probability. The Journal of Legal Studies, 34: 395-444, 2005.
10. Bornstein BH: The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors’liability verdict. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 10: 429-446, 2004.
11. Dann BM, Hans VP and Kaye DH: Testing the effects of selected jury trial innovations on juror comprehension of contested tntDNA evidence: Final technical report. US Department of Justice, Rockville, MD, 2005.
12. Thompson WC, Taroni F and Aitken CGG: How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48: 1-8, 2003.
13. Rocder K: DNA fingerprinting: A review of the controversy: Rejoinder. Statistical Science, 9:267-278,1992.
14. Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC): Discussion paper 66: Protection of human genetic information. Sydney: ALRC, 2002.
15. Jackson J: Juror decision-making and the trial process. In G. Davis & S. LIoyd-Bostock (eds.), Psychology Law, and Criminal Justice: International Developments in Research and Practice. De Gniyter, Oxford, UK, 327-336, 1992.
16. Rose VG, Chopra SR and Ogloff JRP: Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: A method and an example. Law and Human Behavior, 25: 409-431,2001.
17. Dartnall S: Juror Decisions and DNA Evidence: Impact of a Judicial Caution and Juror Attitudes. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2005.
18. Goos LM, Silverman I, Rose D and Newman J: The influence of probabilistic statements on the evaluation of the significance of a DNA match. Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, 35: 77-90, 2002.
19. Koehler JJ: When are people persuaded by DNA match statistics? Law and Human Behavior, 25: 493-513,2001.
20. Cox M and Tanford S: Effects of evidence and instructions in civil trials: An experimental investigation of rules of admissibility. Social Behavior, 4: 31-55, 1989.
21. Devine DJ, Clayton LD, Dunford BB, Seying R and Pryce J: Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7: 622-727, 2001.
22. Thompson CM and Dennison S: Graphic evidence of violence: The impact on juror decisionmaking.the influence of judicial instructions and the effcct of juror biases. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 11: 323-337,2004.
23. Edwards K and Bryan TS: Judgmental biases produced by instructions to disregard: The (paradoxical) ease of emotional information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23:849-864, 1997.
24. Pennington N and Hastie R: Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2): 189-206, 1992.
25. Koehler JJ: Train Our Jurors. In G Gigerenzer and C Engel (eds.). Heuristics and the Law. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, Dahlem Workshops Report 94: 303-326,2006.
26. Hannaford PL, Hans G and Munsterman T: The Arizona Jury Reform Permitting Civil JuryTrial Discussions: The Views of Trial Participants, Judges, and Jurors, Law and Human Behavior, 24 (3): 359-382, 2000.
27. Myers RD, Reinstein RS and Griller GM: Complex scientific evidence and the jury. Judicature, 83: 150-156, 1999.
28. Fong GT and Nisbett RE: Immediate and delayed transfer of training effects in statistical reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120: 34-45, 1991.
29. Podlas K: “The CSI effect” Exposing the media myth. Fordham Intellectual Property Media and Entertainmen Law Journal, 16: 429-465,2006.