Using multimedia to support jury understanding of DNA profiling evidence

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 55-64

  Hewson, Lindsay ^a   Goodman Delahunty, Jane ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Crime scene investigation; Deoxyribonucleic acid; DNA profile; Multimedia; Random match probability

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COURT; CRIME; DNA DETERMINATION; DNA FINGERPRINTING; FEMALE; FORENSIC MEDICINE; HOMICIDE; HUMAN; LEGAL EVIDENCE; MALE; MULTIMEDIA; NORMAL HUMAN; PRETEST POSTTEST DESIGN;

EID: 45849094781     PISSN: 00450618     EISSN: 1834562X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00450610802050782     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Gans J, Urbas G. DNA identification in the criminal justice system. Austr Inst Criminol Trends Iss 2002;226:1-6.
2. Goodman-Delahunty J, Tait D. DNA and the changing face of justice. Austr J Forens Sci 2006;38:97-106.
3. Bornstein B. The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors' liability verdict. Psychol Crime Law 2004;10:429-446.
4. Tyler T. Viewing CSI and the threshold of guilt: managing truth and justice in reality and fiction. Yale Law J 2006;115:1050-1085.
5. Wheate R. Australian juries and scientific evidence. Austr J Forens Sci 2006;38:75-84.
6. Findlay M. Juror comprehension and the hard case: making forensic evidence simpler. Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 06/59, 2006.
7. Koehler J, Thompson W. Mock jurors' reactions to selective presentation of evidence from multiple-opportunity searches. Law Human Behav 2006;30:455-468.
8. National Research Council of Canada. Executive summary, Ottowa: Author, 1996.
9. Dartnall S, Goodman-Delahunty J. Enhancing juror understanding of probabilistic DNA evidence. Austr J Forens Sci 2006;38:86-96.
10. Dann BM, Hans VP, Kaye DH. Can jury trial innovations improve jury understanding of DNA evidence?. Judicature 2007;90:152-156.
11. Ibid.
12. Mayer RE. Multimedia learning.. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
13. Sweller J, Chandler P. Why some material is hard to learn. Cognit Instruct 1994;12:185-233.
14. Supra 12.
15. Mayer R, Massa L. Three facets of visual and verbal learners: cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preference. J Educ Psychol 2003;95:833-846.
16. Chun D, Plass J. Research on text comprehension in multimedia environments. Lang Learn Technol 1997;1:60-81.
17. Felder RM, Spurlin J. Applications, reliability and validity of the Index of Learning Styles. Int J Engng Educ 2005;21:103-112.
18. Biggs JB, Collis KF. Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy.. New York: Academic Press; 1982.
19. Biggs JB. A qualitative approach to grading students. HERDSA News 1992;14:3-6.
20. Hewson L. Animating the mind: an analysis of animation as a representational mode for learning. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia, 2001.
21. Supra 12.
22. Felder RM, Soloman BA. Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire, 1997. Retrieved 23 April, 2007, from http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb. html
23. Ibid.
24. Supra 10.
25. Supra 3.
26. Haesler A. DNA for defence lawyers. Presentation for NSW Public Defenders Office, Sydney, 2005.
27. Champod C. The strength of scientific evidence: DNA, fingerprints, and the illusion of certainty. Presentation at the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Technology, Sydney, 2006.
28. Goodman-Delahunty J, Newell B. One in how many trillion?. Austr Sci 2004;25:14-17.
29. Dunn MA, Salovey P, Feigenson N. The jury persuaded (and not): computer animation in the courtroom. Law Policy 2006;28:228-248.
30. Supra 22.
31. Supra 2.
32. Supra 10.