Location

Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Lobby

Description

When DNA evidence is presented in the courtroom, it is typically accompanied by complex testimony conveying information such as the method of generating population frequencies, match criteria and probabilities, as well as laboratory errors and error rates. Although this evidence may have high probative value, the legal community has expressed growing concern regarding jurors’ ability to comprehend it. However, courts have implemented a variety of jury trial innovations to facilitate jurors’ ability to process complex information. Although these innovations may have a positive effect on comprehension of complex trial evidence, it is unclear whether some jurors are more likely to benefit from these aids than others, particularly in cases involving DNA evidence. The present research explores this issue using data originally by Dann, Hans, and Kaye (2003). Juror typologies are constructed to better understand how trial innovations contribute to juror comprehension and satisfaction in cases where DNA evidence is present.

Keywords

DNA; Evidence (Law); Evidence, Expert; Jurors; Jury

Disciplines

Community-Based Research | Courts | Education | Evidence

Language

English

Comments

File: Poster

Attached file: Abstract


Share

COinS
 
Apr 15th, 1:00 PM Apr 15th, 3:00 PM

Juror Typologies and DNA Comprehension:Who Benefits from Jury Trial Innovations?

Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Lobby

When DNA evidence is presented in the courtroom, it is typically accompanied by complex testimony conveying information such as the method of generating population frequencies, match criteria and probabilities, as well as laboratory errors and error rates. Although this evidence may have high probative value, the legal community has expressed growing concern regarding jurors’ ability to comprehend it. However, courts have implemented a variety of jury trial innovations to facilitate jurors’ ability to process complex information. Although these innovations may have a positive effect on comprehension of complex trial evidence, it is unclear whether some jurors are more likely to benefit from these aids than others, particularly in cases involving DNA evidence. The present research explores this issue using data originally by Dann, Hans, and Kaye (2003). Juror typologies are constructed to better understand how trial innovations contribute to juror comprehension and satisfaction in cases where DNA evidence is present.