The biasing influence of linguistic variations in DNA profiling evidence

References

• Aytugrul v The Queen. 205 A Crim R 157. 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Smith M, Urbas G. Regulating New Forms of Forensic DNA Profiling under Australian Legislation: Familial Matching and DNA Phenotyping. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2012;44:63–81.10.1080/00450618.2011.581250
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aytugrul v The Queen. No S315 of 2011. 2011; Submissions of Respondent to the High Court.
   Google Scholar
• Aytugrul v The Queen. No S315 of 2011. 2011; Submissions of Appellant to the High Court.
   Google Scholar
• Urbas G. The High Court and The Admissibility of DNA Evidence: Aytugrul v The Queen [2012] HCA 15 (18 April 2012)’. Canb Law Rev. 2012;11:89–95.
   Google Scholar
• Koehler JJ, Chia A, Lindsey JS. The random match probability (RMP) in DNA evidence: Irrelevant and prejudicial? Jur. 1995;35:201–219.
   Google Scholar
• Koehler JJ. The psychology of numbers in the courtroom: How to make DNA match statistics seem impressive or insufficient. S Cal L Rev. 2001;74:1275–1305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koehler JJ. When are people persuaded by DNA match statistics? Law & Hum Behav. 2001;25:493–513.10.1023/A:1012892815916
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Barr WM. Linguistics evidence: language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Hale S. The discourse of court interpreting. Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins; 2004/2010.10.1075/btl.52
   Google Scholar
• Jules S, McQuiston D. Speech style and occupational status affect assessments of eyewitness testimony. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2013;43:741–748.10.1111/jasp.2013.43.issue-4
   Google Scholar
• Loftus EF, Palmer JC. Reconstruction of automobile destruction: an example of the interaction between language and memory. J Verbal Learn & Verbal Behav. 2013;14:585–589.10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80011-3
   Google Scholar
• Charrow R, Charrow V. Making legal language understandable: a psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Colum L Rev. 1979;79:1306–1374.10.2307/1121842
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumas BK. US pattern jury instructions: problems and proposals. Forensic Linguist. 2000;7(1): 49–71.
   Google Scholar
• Levi J. Evaluating jury comprehension of the Illinois capital sentencing instructions. Am Speech. 1993;68:20–49.10.2307/455834
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Napier J, Shearim G, Rohan M, Spencer D. Comprehension of courtroom discourse: How do deaf and hearing people compare? [Unpublished research report]. Macquarie University; No date.
   Google Scholar
• Saxton B. How well do jurors understand jury instructions? A field test using real juries and real trials in Wyoming. Land & Water Lit Rev. 1998;33:59.
   Google Scholar
• Coulthard M. The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London: Routledge; 2010. Chapter 31, Experts and opinions; p. 473-486.
   Google Scholar
• Prideaux GD. Syntactic form and textual rhetoric: The cognitive basis for certain pragmatic principles. J Pragmat. 1991;16:113–129.10.1016/0378-2166(91)90076-A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leshowitz B, Okun M. Effects of an evidence-based text on scepticism, methodological reasoning, values and juror decision-making. Educ Psychol: An Inter J Exp Educ Psychol. 2011;31:319–337.10.1080/01443410.2011.557043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briody M. The effects of DNA evidence on homicide cases in court. Austral & NZ J Criminol. 2004;37:231–252.10.1375/acri.2004.37.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briody M. The effects of DNA evidence on sexual offence cases in court. Current Issues in Criminal Justice. 2002;14:159–181.
   Google Scholar
• Dartnall S, Goodman-Delahunty J. Enhancing juror understanding of probabilistic DNA evidence. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2006;38:886–896.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman-Delahunty J, Hewson L. Improving jury understanding and use of DNA evidence. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. 2010;392:1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Lieberman JD, Carrell CA, Miethe TD, Krauss DA. Gold versus platinum: Do jurors recognise the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence? Psychol Public Pol L. 2008;14:27–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schklar J, Diamond S. Juror reactions to DNA evidence: Errors and expectancies. Law & Hum Behav. 1999;23:159–184.10.1023/A:1022368801333
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koehler JJ. On conveying the probative value of DNA evidence: Frequencies, likelihood ratios and error rates. Univ Colo Law Rev. 1996;67:859–886.
   Google Scholar
• Twenty Scholars of Forensic Evidence. Amicus Curiae brief in support of Troy Brown, McDaniel v. Brown, US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 08-559. 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Walsh S. DNA profiling: the form of the expert evidence. Paper presentation at the Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences Conference on Impressions and Expressions: Expert Evidence in Reports & Courts; 2011, Dec; Sydney, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Koehler JJ. 1997. One in millions, billions or trillions: Lessons from People v. Collins (1968) for People v. Simpson. J Legal Educ. 1995;47:214–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDaniel v. Brown. 130 S.Ct. 665, 558 US ___ (2010). 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Budowle B, Bottrell MC, Bunch SG, Fram R, Harrison D, Meagher S, … Stacy RB. A perspective on errors, bias, and interpretation in the forensic sciences and direction for continuing advancement. J Forensic Sci. 2009;54:798-809.10.1111/jfo.2009.54.issue-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dove A. Forensics follow new clues. Sci. 2011;331:1211–1214.10.1126/science.331.6021.1211
   Google Scholar
• Murphy E. What ‘Strengthening Forensic Science’ today means for tomorrow: DNA exceptionalism and the 2009 NAS Report. Law Prob & Risk. 2010;9:7–24.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson WC. Tarnish on the ‘gold standard’: Recent problems in forensic DNA testing. The Champion. 2006;30:10–21.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffrage U, Lindsey S, Hertwig R, Gigerenzer G. Communicating statistical information. Sci. 2010;290:2261–2262.10.1126/science.290.5500.2261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Lovallo D. 1993. Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking. Manag Sci. 39 :17–31.10.1287/mnsc.39.1.17
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aytugrul v The Queen. HCA 15. 2012.
   Google Scholar