NCJ Number
212056
Journal
Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal Volume: 38 Issue: 3 Dated: September 2005 Pages: 123-141
Date Published
September 2005
Length
19 pages
Annotation
This Canadian study identified the factors that influence judges' and juries' interpretations, perceptions, and understanding of DNA evidence.
Abstract
Five hundred surveys were distributed to jury-eligible persons living in Calgary, and focus groups were held with attorneys (both defense and prosecution) and jury-eligible individuals. In-depth interviews were conducted with higher court justices (Queen's Bench); and a mock scripted murder trial was conducted. The focus of this report is on the survey findings. The first 12 questions of the questionnaire related to respondents' experiences with DNA evidence and the criminal trial setting. Five questions pertained to demographic or personal information. Twenty-eight assertions then addressed various issues related to respondents' perceptions, interpretations, and understanding of DNA evidence. Four varying probabilistic statements were also included; these required the respondents to assign significance to an expert's testimony. The criminal justice professionals indicated that they have adequate resources and procedures for gaining knowledge of DNA technology and its use in the presentation of DNA evidence. The survey showed, however, that laypersons who are eligible jury participants must be able to ask questions for the purpose of enhancing their understanding of DNA evidence. Although the majority of the survey respondents did not understand the specifics of DNA evidence, they seemed to favor an expert's testimony that included some kind of statistical information. Numeric values were apparently better understood than such terms as likelihood, frequency, or probability. Based on the findings, some recommendations are to encourage jury note taking, provide jurors with notebooks, and encourage jurors to ask questions that could aid in their understanding of DNA evidence being presented in court. 6 tables, 23 references, and appended survey questionnaire