Forensic Transcription: How Confident False Beliefs about Language and Speech Threaten the Right to a Fair Trial in Australia

References

• Allsop JLB 2016 Expert evidence practice note (GPN-EXPT) Federal Court of Australia Available at: http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/gpn-expt.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer L & P Trudgill 1998 Language Myths London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Burridge K 2017 ‘The dark side of mondegreens: how a simple mishearing can lead to wrongful conviction’ The Conversation Available at: http://theconversation.com/the-dark-side-of-mondegreens-how-a-simple-mishearing-can-lead-to-wrongful-conviction-78466.
   Google Scholar
• Coulthard M 1997 ‘A failed appeal’ International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 4: 287–302. doi: 10.1558/ijsll.v4i2.287
   Google Scholar
• Coulthard M, Johnson A & Wright D 2017 An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: language in evidence London/New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cutler A 2012 Native Listening Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davis D & RD Friedman 2007 ‘Memory for conversation: The orphan child of witness memory researchers’ Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology 2: 3–57.
   Google Scholar
• Eades D 2010 Sociolinguistics and the Legal Process Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Ecker UKH, S Lewandowsky & DTW Tang 2010 ‘Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation’ Memory & Cognition 38(8): 1087–1100. doi: 10.3758/MC.38.8.1087
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edmond G & San Roque M 2009 ‘Quasi-Justice: Ad Hoc Expertise and Identification Evidence’ Criminal Law Journal 33: 8–33.
   Google Scholar
• Edmond G, Martire KA & San Roque M 2011 ‘Unsound Law: Issues with “expert” voice comparison evidence’ Melbourne University Law Review 35: 52–112.
   Google Scholar
• Edmond G 2015 ‘What lawyers should know about the forensic sciences’ Adelaide Law Review 36(1): 33–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser H 2003 ‘Issues in transcription: factors affecting the reliability of transcripts as evidence in legal cases’ International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law - Forensic Linguistics 10(2): 203–226. doi: 10.1558/sll.2003.10.2.203
   Google Scholar
• Fraser H 2010 ‘Cognitive phonology as a tool for teaching pronunciation’ in S. de Knop, F. Boers & T. De Rycker (eds) Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency Through Cognitive Linguistics Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 357–380.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser H 2013 ‘Covert recordings as evidence in court: the return of police “verballing?”’ The Conversation Available at: https://theconversation.com/covert-recordings-as-evidence-in-court-the-return-of-police-verballing-14072.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser H 2014 ‘Transcription of indistinct forensic recordings: problems and solutions from the perspective of phonetic science’ Language and Law/Linguagem E Direito 1(2): 5–21.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser H 2015 ‘Transcription of indistinct covert recordings used as evidence in criminal trials’ in H. Selby & I. Freckelton (eds) Expert evidence. Thomson Reuters, pp.100-1-100-1004.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser H 2017a ‘How interpretation of indistinct covert recordings can lead to wrongful conviction: a case study and recommendations for reform’ in R Levy, M O’Brien, S Rice, P Ridge & M Thornton (eds) New Directions for Law in Australia: essays in contemporary law reform Canberra: ANU Press. pp. 191–200.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser H 2017b Transcription and interpretation of indistinct covert recordings used as evidence in court. Presented at the National Judicial College of Australia, Canberra Available at: https://forensictranscription.com.au/video-of-njca-talk/.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser H 2018a ‘Real forensic experts should pay more attention to the dangers posed by ‘ad hoc experts’’ Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 50(2): 125–128. doi: 10.1080/00450618.2017.1340523
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser H 2018b ‘Thirty years is long enough: it’s time to create a process that ensures covert recordings used as evidence in court are interpreted reliably and fairly’ Journal of Judicial Administration 27(3): 97–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser H 2018c ‘“Assisting” listeners to hear words that aren’t there: dangers in using police transcripts of indistinct covert recordings’ Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 50(2): 129–139. doi: 10.1080/00450618.2017.1340522
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser H in press “Enhancing” forensic audio: false beliefs and their effect in criminal trials. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2018.1491115.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser H & AC Schalley 2011 ‘Communicating about communication: intercultural communication as a factor in interdiscplinary collaboration’ in R Dale, DK Burnham & CJ Stevens (eds) Human Communication Science: a compendium Sydney: ARC Research Network in Human Communication Science. pp. 9–28.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser H & Stevenson B 2014 ‘The power and persistence of contextual priming: more risks in using police transcripts to aid jurors’ perception of poor quality covert recordings’ International Journal of Evidence and Proof 18(3): 205–229. doi: 10.1350/ijep.2014.18.3.453
   Google Scholar
• Fraser H, B Stevenson & T Marks 2011 ‘Interpretation of a crisis call: persistence of a primed perception of a disputed utterance’ International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 18(2): 261–292. doi: 10.1558/ijsll.v18i2.261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French P & L Stevens 2013 ‘Forensic speech science’ in R-A Knight & MJ Jones (eds) Bloomsbury companion to phonetics London: Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 183–197.
   Google Scholar
• Gould JB, J Carrano, R Leo & J Young 2012 Predicting Erroneous Convictions: a social science approach to miscarriages of justice Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Grant L 2014 Pronunciation Myths: applying second language research to classroom teaching Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harris DA 2012 Failed Evidence: why law enforcement resists science New York: NYU Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harris R 1981 The Language Myth London: Duckworth.
   Google Scholar
• Holmgren JA & J Fordham 2010 ‘The CSI effect and the Canadian and the Australian Jury’ Journal of Forensic Sciences 56: S63–S71. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01621.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes B 2011 ‘R v David Bain: a unique case in New Zealand legal and hinguistic History’ International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 18(1): 145–155. doi: 10.1558/ijsll.v18i1.145
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladefoged P & SF Disner 2012 Vowels and Consonants: an introduction to the sounds of language Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Linell P 2005 The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: its nature, origins and transformations London/New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lippi-Green R 2012 English with an Accent: language, ideology and discrimination in the United States London/New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Magnuson JS, D Mirman & G Myers 2013 ‘Spoken word recognition’ in D Reisbert (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 412–441.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council 2005 How students learn: history, mathematics, and science in the classroom Washington DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Niedzielski N & DR Preston 2003 Folk Linguistics Berlin: Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Olson DR 1994 The World on Paper: the conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading Cambridge: CUP.
   Google Scholar
• Port RF & AP Leary 2005 ‘Against formal phonology’ Language 81(4): 927–964. doi: 10.1353/lan.2005.0195
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pronin E, DY Lin & L Ross 2002 ‘The bias blind spot: perceptions of bias in self versus others’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28(3): 369–381. doi: 10.1177/0146167202286008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose P 2005 ‘Forensic speaker recognition at the beginning of the 21st century: An overview and a demonstration’ Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 37: 49–71. doi: 10.1080/00450610509410616
   Google Scholar
• Shockey L 2003’ Sound Patterns of Spoken English Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Shuy RW 2007 ‘A dozen reasons why linguistic expertise is rejected in court’ Available at: http://rogershuy.com/slr_selected_articles.html.
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell J & T Stivers 2012 The Handbook of Conversation Analysis Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Solan LM, J Ainsworth & RW Shuy (eds) 2015 Speaking of Language and Law: conversations on the work of peter tiersma Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson WC 2009 ‘Painting the target around the matching profile: the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in forensic DNA interpretation’ Law, Probability and Risk 8(3): 257–276. doi: 10.1093/lpr/mgp013
   Google Scholar
• Tiersma PM 2009 ‘Asking jurors to do the impossible’ Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy 5(2): 105–148.
   Google Scholar
• Wald B 1995 ‘The problem of scholarly predisposition: G. Bailey, N. Maynor, & P. Cukor-Avila, eds., The emergence of Black English: text and commentary’ Language in Society 24(2): 245–257. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500018601
   Google Scholar
• Warren P 2012 Introducing Psycholinguistics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar