Download Free Testing The Effects Of Selected Jury Trial Innovations On Juries Comprehension Of Dna Evidence In New Castle County Delaware 2003 Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Testing The Effects Of Selected Jury Trial Innovations On Juries Comprehension Of Dna Evidence In New Castle County Delaware 2003 and write the review.

This study tested whether the use of selected jury trial reforms enhanced jurors' understanding of complex and challenging scientific evidence presented during a criminal trial. The study examined the use of several jury reform techniques using a controlled mock jury approach in which mock juries composed of jury pool members watched a videotaped armed robbery trial featuring conflicting expert testimony about mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) evidence. A total of 480 mock jurors were randomly assigned to eight-person juries and to one of the six conditions in the experiment. Ten mock juries were run in each of the six conditions (No Innovations, Note Taking, Question Asking and Note Taking, DNA Checklist and Note Taking, Jury Notebook and Note Taking, and All Innovations). At various points throughout the study (before the trial, after watching the videotaped trial, and after reaching a verdict), mock jurors were asked to complete questionnaires to gauge their understanding of mtDNA and the mtDNA evidence presented during the trial. They were also asked if and how the use of the jury trial innovations helped in their understanding of the mtDNA evidence. Specific variables contained in the study include demographic variables of the mock jurors, including their math and science background, mock jurors' views of science, their understanding of mtDNA, their perceptions of the reliability of different types of evidence, and the credibility of the prosecutor, defense attorney, detective, eyewitness, defendant, and expert witnesses, and whether the mock jurors favor or oppose the various innovations ... Cf. : http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR-STUDY/04356.xml.
The development of DNA technology furthers the search for truth by helping police & prosecutors in the fight against violent crime. Most of the individuals whose stories are told in the report were convicted after jury trials & were sentenced to long prison terms. They successfully challenged their convictions, using DNA tests on existing evidence. They had served, on average, seven years in prison. By highlighting the importance & utility of DNA evidence, this report presents challenges to the scientific & justice communities. A task ahead is to maintain the highest standards for the collection & preservation of DNA evidence.
A clear and comprehensive guide to the scientific and legal issues surrounding forensic DNA testing.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the ways in which juror beliefs and attitudes about Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) evidence impact juror decision making and verdicts. Accordingly, this study utilized a mock jury trial that included a deliberative phase to examine the impact of juror attitudes and beliefs about DNA evidence on juror pre- and post-deliberation verdicts. After reviewing a written trial summary, 91 male and female jury-qualified adults were selected to participate as research jurors on eight 12-person juries and deliberate a case via the Internet. Following deliberations via a private Internet chat room, jurors were then assessed for their beliefs about DNA evidence and the personality variable of authoritarianism. Limitations in data analysis from this initial study led to the decision to conduct a second study. Participants in Study 2 included 72 male and female jury-qualified adults who agreed to take part as research jurors on six 12-person juries and deliberate a criminal case on the Internet. Three regression analyses examined whether beliefs about DNA evidence, authoritarianism, gender, race/ethnicity, and pre-deliberation/no pre-deliberation were significant predictors of post-deliberation verdicts and change in post-deliberation verdicts. No significant predictors of post-deliberation verdict of change in post-deliberation verdict were found. However, additional findings from exploratory direct entry logistic regression analyses revealed that (a) non-Asian jurors who rendered pre-deliberation verdicts were more likely to vote guilty post-deliberation, and (b) married, Catholic, Republican jurors with positive beliefs about DNA evidence were more likely to change their verdict preference post-deliberation. Implications of the present study for forensic practice as well as for future research on the effect of jurors' beliefs about DNA evidence outcomes are discussed.
The Story Model of Juror Decision Making states that as jurors are exposed to new pieces of evidence, they continually integrate evidence into a "story" about what happened in the case; this process includes evaluating contradictory testimony and discounting evidence that does not fit within the juror's narrative about the case. Existing research has neglected to test how forensic DNA evidence is incorporated into jurors' narratives, especially if the DNA is inconsistent with the non-forensic evidence. The lack of emphasis on forensic evidence should be addressed given the perception of infallibility that surrounds DNA. Study 1 manipulated non-forensic evidence strength and whether there was a DNA match to test how jurors integrated DNA evidence into their narrative interpretation of the case. Results indicated that utilization of forensic testimony depended on the non-forensic evidence strength and reliance on non-forensic evidence depended on whether there was a DNA match. To expand the results from Study 1 and incorporate the possibility of error in DNA testing, Study 2 manipulated whether a DNA match did or did not contain laboratory error rate evidence and the strength of the non-forensic evidence to examine how jurors integrate error rates into their narrative about a case. Results showed that jurors were not sensitive to the laboratory error rates manipulation. Together, these studies indicate that jurors are not sensitive to the possibility of erroneous DNA results, but integrate DNA identifications into their narrative; this suggests that bias might be integrated into their narratives that facilitate false convictions.
The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence was created in 1998 at the request of Attorney General Janet Reno. When she read about the use of DNA to exonerate someone wrongfully convicted of rape and homicide, she became concerned that others might also have been wrongly convicted. The Attorney General then directed the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to identify how often DNA had exonerated wrongfully convicted defendants. After extensive study, NIJ published the report Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial, which presents case studies of 28 inmates for whom DNA analysis was exculpatory. On learning of the breadth and scope of the issues related to forensic DNA, the Attorney General asked NIJ to establish the Commission as a means to examine the future of DNA evidence and how the Justice Department could encourage its most effective use. The Commission was appointed by the former Director of the National Institute of Justice, Jeremy Travis, and represents the broad spectrum of the criminal justice system. Chaired by the Honorable Shirley S. Abrahamson, Chief Justice of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, the Commission consists of representatives from the prosecution, the defense bar, law enforcement, the scientific community, the medical examiner community, academia, and victims' rights organizations.
Albertson seeks to analyze the influence of jurors' race on perceptions of complex scientific evidence. Jury eligible citizens viewed a mock criminal trial involving the presentation of mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid (mtDNA). White and African American mock jurors' perceptions of mtDNA were measured. Although robust findings were discovered regarding race, results imply that an educational background in science and math is important. The present study has shown the negative impact that low levels of science and math courses have on perceptions of scientific evidence. Courtroom evidence will only continue to become even more complex in the future. The importance of scientific literacy and jury reform is discussed.