DNA Evidence: Judge and Jury Challenges

The rapid advancement of DNA techniques has turned
courtrooms into scientific forums. The principal aim
of this dissertation, from a Canadian perspective,
was to evalute how judges and jurors interpret,
perceive, and understand DNA evidence. In order to
address this research question, a multi-method
design was adopted consisting of the following:
three separate focus groups (consisting of jury
eligible persons, defence lawyers, and Crown
prosecutors); seven in-depth interviews with Court
of Queen''s Bench Justices; 500 jury eligible
surveys; and a mock scripted murder trial. The data
suggests that jurors assign greater weight to DNA
evidence than they do other types of evidence.
Several recommendations unfolded as a result of this
research: the encouragement for jurors to take
notes, which includes providing jurors with note
books; encouragement by judges to allow written
questions from jurors; recognition of individual
learning styles including providing sworn jurors
with a learning style survey; making the courtroom a
more comfortable learning environment; and the
allowance for real jury research in Canada.

Autorentext
Janne A. Holmgren, Ph.D. completed her her doctoral degree at the University of Calgary in 2003. Her primary areas of interest include judge and jury comprehension of forensic evidence in court. Dr. Holmgren is a tenured faculty member in the department of Criminal Justice Studies at Mount Royal College, Calgary, AB, Canada.

Klappentext
The rapid advancement of DNA techniques has turned courtrooms into scientific forums. The principal aim of this dissertation, from a Canadian perspective, was to evalute how judges and jurors interpret, perceive, and understand DNA evidence. In order to address this research question, a multi-method design was adopted consisting of the following: three separate focus groups (consisting of jury eligible persons, defence lawyers, and Crown prosecutors); seven in-depth interviews with Court of Queen's Bench Justices; 500 jury eligible surveys; and a mock scripted murder trial. The data suggests that jurors assign greater weight to DNA evidence than they do other types of evidence. Several recommendations unfolded as a result of this research: the encouragement for jurors to take notes, which includes providing jurors with note books; encouragement by judges to allow written questions from jurors; recognition of individual learning styles including providing sworn jurors with a learning style survey; making the courtroom a more comfortable learning environment; and the allowance for real jury research in Canada.