DNA Evidence and Jury Comprehension

REFERENCES

• Butler J.M. Forensic DNA typing: Biology and technology behind STR markers, San Diego: Harcourt Academic Press, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Rose G.V. and Ogloff J.R.P. Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: A method and an example. Law and Human Behavior. 2001; 25(4): 409–431.
   Google Scholar
• Rose G.V. Social cognition and section 12 of the Canada Evidence Act: Can jurors “properly” use criminal record evidence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Burnaby, BC: Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Cowan J.D., Crishman T.M., Keating G.M., Pole D.E., Pope M.A., Schwarzer W.W., and Wester J.R. What attorneys think of jury trial innovations. Judicature. 2003; 86(4): 192–200.
   Google Scholar
• Boatright R. and Krauss E. Jury summit 2001: A report on the first national meeting of the ever-growing community concerned with improving the jury system. Judicature. 2002; 86(3): 144–151, 165.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs M.S. Testing the assumptions underlying the debate about scientific evidence: A closer look at juror “incompetence” and scientific “objectivity.” Connecticut Law Review. 1993; 25: 1083–1117.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman J. Juror's comprehension and assessment of probabilistic evidence. American Journal of Trial Advocacy. 1992; 16: 306–389.
   Google Scholar
• Lempert R. Some caveats concerning DNA as criminal identification evidence: With thanks to the Revered Bayes. Cardozo Law Review. 1991; 13: 303–341.
   Google Scholar
• Koehler J.J. Error and exaggeration in the presentation of DNA evidence at trial. Jurimetrics Journal. 1993; 34: 21–39.
   Google Scholar
• Cross K.P. The role of class discussion in the learning-centered classroom: The Cross Papers Number 6, Phoenix, AZ: League for Innovation in the Community College Educational Testing Service, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Zerubavel E. The rigid, the fuzzy, and the flexible: Notes on the mental sculpting of academic identity. Social Research: An International Quarterly of the Social Sciences. 1995; 62: 1093–1106.
   Google Scholar
• Bean J.C. Engaging ideas: The professor's guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Dann M.B. “Learning lessons” and “speaking rights”: Creating educated and democratic juries. Indiana Law Review. 1993; 68(4): 1229–1277.
   Google Scholar
• Mentkowski M., Rogers G., Doherty A., Loacker G., Reisetter Hart J., Rickards W., O'Brien K., Riordan T., Sharkey S., Cromwell L., Diez M., Bartels J., and Roth J. Learning that lasts: integrating learning, development, and performance in college and beyond. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Smith B.C., Penrod S.D., Otto A.L., and Park R.C. Juror's use of probabilistic evidence. Law and Human Behavior. 1996; 20: 49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steele W.W. and Thornbury E. G. Jury instructions: A persistent failure to communicate. North Carolina Law Review. 1988; 67: 77–119.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson W.C., and Schumann E.L. Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutor's fallacy and the defense attorney's fallacy. Law and Human Behavior. 1987; 11: 167–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiener R.L., Prichard C.C., and Weston M. Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1995; 80: 455–467.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saks M.J. and Kidd R. Human information processing and adjudication: Trial by heuristics. Law and Society Review. 1981; 15: 123–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch M. and Haney C. Discrimination and instructional comprehension: Guided discretion, racial bias, and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior. 2000; 24: 337–358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmgren J.A. Beyond the Walls of the Laboratory: Judge and Jury Interpretations, Perceptions and Understanding of DNA Evidence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Calgary AB: University of Calgary, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Holmgren J.A. and Winterdyk J. DNA evidence: Balancing the scales of justice. Law Now. 2001; 26(2): 11–13.
   Google Scholar
• Goos L.M., Silverman I., Rose D., and Newman J. (2002). The influence of probabilistic statements on the evaluation of the significance of a DNA match. Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J. 2002; 35(2): 77–90.
   Google Scholar