The Eastman transcripts: A case study calling Australian linguists to action against legal misconceptions about language in forensic evidence

References

• Burridge, K. (2022). Truthiness and language: Popular perception and fall-out. In R. Dixon, & I. Storch (Eds.), The Art of language (pp. 17–41). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004510395_003
   Google Scholar
• Butcher, A., McClelland, E., & Mills, C. (1995, December 7–9). Buggers in evidence: Covert recordings, transcription and auto-suggestion. 10th Annual Australian language & speech conference, Adelaide, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, R. (1995). Eastman is guilty. The Canberra Times, 4(November), 46–47.
   Google Scholar
• Chin, J. (in press). What can law take from science after the pardon of Kathleen Folbigg? Law Society Journal (NSW), (August), https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4556224
   Google Scholar
• Cordner, S., Bruenisholz, E., Catoggio, D., Chadwick, P., Champion, J., Davey, A., Kogios, R., Williams, M., & Woodford, N. (2020). The Uniform Evidence Act and Australian judges’ ability to assess properly the validity and reliability of expert evidence. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 52(3), 243–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2020.1741762
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eades, D., Fraser, H., & Heydon, G. (2023). Forensic linguistics in Australia: Origins, progress and prospects. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ecker, U., Lewandowsky, S., & Tang, D. (2010). Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 38(8), 1087–1100. https://doi.org/10.3758/mc.38.8.1087
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edmond, G. (2014). The “science” of miscarriages of justice. UNSW Law Journal, 37(1), 376–406.
   Google Scholar
• Edmond, G., & Martire, K. (2018). Antipodean forensics: A comment on ANZFSS’s response to PCAST. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 50(2), 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2017.1340520
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, H. (2018). Forensic transcription: How confident false beliefs about language and speech threaten the right to a fair trial in Australia. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 38(4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2018.1510760
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, H. (2021a). Enhancing and priming at a voir dire: Can we be sure the judge reached the right conclusion? Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53(4), 224–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2019.1695939
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, H. (2021b). The development of legal procedures for using a transcript to assist the jury in understanding indistinct covert recordings used as evidence in Australian criminal trials: A history in three key cases. Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito, 8(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.21747/21833745/lanlaw/8_1a4
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, H. (2022a). Forensic transcription: Legal and scientific perspectives. In C. Bernardasci, D. Dipino, D. Garassino, E. Pellegrino, S. Negrinelli, & S. Schmid (Eds.), Speaker individuality in phonetics and speech sciences: Speech technology and forensic applications (pp. 19–32). Milano.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, H. (2022b). A framework for deciding how to create and evaluate transcripts for forensic and other purposes. Frontiers in Communication, 7(Capturing Talk), 898410. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.898410
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, H., & Kinoshita, Y. (2021). Injustice arising from the unnoticed power of priming: How lawyers and even judges can be misled by unreliable transcripts of indistinct forensic audio. Criminal Law Journal, 45(3), 142–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, H., & Loakes, D. (2020). Acoustic injustice: The experience of listening to indistinct covert recordings presented as evidence in court. Law Text Culture, 24(1), 405–429.
   Google Scholar
• French, P., & Fraser, H. (2018). Why “ad hoc experts” should not provide transcripts of indistinct forensic audio, and a proposal for a better approach. Criminal Law Journal, 42(5), 298–302.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, J. (2020). The David Eastman case: The use of inquiries to investigate miscarriages of justice in Australia. Alternative Law Journal, 45(1), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X19886348
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garnes, S., & Bond, Z. (1980). A slip of the ear: A snip of the ear? A snip of the year? In V. A. Fromkin (Ed.), Errors in linguistic performance (pp. 231–239). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Georgiou, G. (2019). “From a nagging doubt”. Criminal lawyers association of the northern territory conference. https://clant.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Georgiou-Paper.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gould, J., Carrano, J., Leo, R., & Young, J. (2012). Predicting erroneous convictions: A social science approach to miscarriages of justice. National Institute of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Hamer, D. (2015). The Eastman case: Implications for an Australian criminal cases review commission. Flinders Law Journal, 17, 433–469.
   Google Scholar
• Haworth, K. (2018). Tapes, transcripts and trials. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 22(4), 428–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712718798656
   Google Scholar
• Heffer, C., Rock, F., & Conley, J. (2013). Legal–lay communication: Textual travels in the Law. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Herald Sun. (2019). Shades of Lawyer X with solicitor taped dobbing in client over Colin Winchester murder. The Herald Sun. 4 January.
   Google Scholar
• Inman, M. (2018). Retrial of David Eastman cost about $6.5 million. Canberra Times. 22 November.
   Google Scholar
• Julian, R., Howes, L., & White, R. (2021). Critical forensic studies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429505782
   Google Scholar
• Knaus, C. (2014). Retired detective Richard Ninness fears he could be target if David Eastman freed from prison. The Canberra Times. 21 August.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, B. (2014). Inquiry into the Conviction of David Harold Eastman for the Murder of Colin Stanley Winchester. Report of the Board of Inquiry, 29 May.
   Google Scholar
• Maxwell, C. (2019). Preventing miscarriages of justice: The reliability of forensic evidence and the role of the trial judge as gatekeeper. Australian Law Journal, 93(8), 642–654.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMahon, M., & Fraser, H. (2023). Transcription of indistinct forensic audio: Time for reform. Law Institute of Victoria Journal, (August), 20–23.
   Google Scholar
• Odgers, S. (2021). Uniform evidence law (16th ed.). Lawbook Co.
   Google Scholar
• Robertson, J. (2014). Push for royal commission into forensic procedures. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46(4), 365–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2014.937457
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith-Khan, L. (2022). Incorporating sociolinguistic perspectives in Australian refugee credibility assessments: The case of CRL18. Journal of International Migration and Integration, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-022-00937-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vincent, S. (2019). The retrial of David Eastman. The Monthly, January.
   Google Scholar
• Waterford, J. (1995). Public’s doubts to continue over trial outcome. The Canberra Times, 4 November.
   Google Scholar
• Wistrich, A., Guthrie, C., & Rachlinski, J. (2005). Can judges ignore inadmissible information? The difficulty of deliberately disregarding. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153(4), 1251–1345. https://doi.org/10.2307/4150614
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar