Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
(1999)
Australian judicial perspectives on expert evidence: an empirical study. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration
R. Munday (1993)
Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making . Edited by Reid Hastie. [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993. 269, (Index of Names) 5 and (Index of Subjects) 2pp. Hardback £35.00 net. ISBN 0–521–41988–3.]The Cambridge Law Journal, 52
David Poole (1994)
The expert and the advocateForensic Science International, 68
(2007)
Jury comprehension of scientific evidence. Canberra (ACT): University of New South Wales ADFA
(2001)
Australian magistrates’ perspectives on expert evidence: a comparative study
S. Walsh (2005)
Legal perceptions of forensic DNA profiling part I: a review of the legal literature.Forensic science international, 155 1
R. Likert (2022)
“Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes, A”The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design
S. Jasanoff (2005)
Law's knowledge: science for justice in legal settings.American journal of public health, 95 Suppl 1
C. O'muircheartaigh, J. Krosnick, Armen Helic (2000)
Middle Alternatives, Acquiescence, and the Quality of Questionnaire Data
Peter Neufeld (2005)
The (near) irrelevance of Daubert to criminal justice and some suggestions for reform.American journal of public health, 95 Suppl 1
T. Gutheil (2000)
The presentation of forensic psychiatric evidence in court.The Israel journal of psychiatry and related sciences, 37 2
(2006)
Difficulties in using expert evidence -R v Karger -A case study. Paper presented at 10th Annual Conference of the International Association of Prosecutors
A. Broeders (2006)
Of earprints, fingerprints, scent dogs, cot deaths and cognitive contamination--a brief look at the present state of play in the forensic arena.Forensic science international, 159 2-3
(2003)
After objectivity: expert evidence and procedural reform
J. Cooper, Isaac Neuhaus (2000)
The “Hired Gun” Effect: Assessing the Effect of Pay, Frequency of Testifying, and Credentials on the Perception of Expert TestimonyLaw and Human Behavior, 24
Peter Sc (2004)
The Sally Clark Case: Another Collision Between Science and the Criminal LawAustralian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36
G. Edmond (1998)
Azaria's accessories: the social (legal-scientific) construction of the Chamberlains' guilt and innocence, 22
(1993)
Misapplied science: unreliability in scientific test evidence
(1991)
The forensic scientist & the open mind
(2005)
The Arizona jury past, present and future reform
S. Walsh, O. Ribaux, J. Buckleton, A. Ross, C. Roux (2004)
DNA Profiling and Criminal Justice: A Contribution to a Changing DebateAustralian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36
Rhonda Wheate (2009)
Jury Comprehension of Scientific Evidence
Assoc. BSc, D. Royds (1999)
Controversy Corner: Quieta Movere Magna Merces Videbatur: “Independent” Forensic Practitioners - Fact or Fiction?Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 31
The Arizona jury past, present and future reform. Paper presented at The University of Canberra School of Law Annual Jury Conference
M. Kirby (2003)
Expert evidence: causation, proof and presentation, 6
P. Wilson (1994)
Lessons from the antipodes: successes and failures of forensic scienceForensic Science International, 67
(2001)
Australian magistrates' perspectives on expert evidence: a comparative study. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration
(2006)
Difficulties in using expert evidence – R v Karger – A case study
D. Lucas (1989)
The Ethical Responsibilities of the Forensic Scientist: Exploring the LimitsJournal of Forensic Sciences, 34
(1999)
Australian judicial perspectives on expert evidence: an empirical study
Jens Rasmussen, Morten Lind (1981)
Coping with complexity
Forensic scientists occupy an important position in courts of law as expert witnesses. Despite a wealth of knowledge and experience about how scientific evidence is presented, Australian forensic scientists have not, until now, been asked for their perspective on how their evidence is used in the legal system. This paper highlights some of the results of a survey of Australian forensic scientists across a broad range of disciplines, which investigated their views on pre-trial processes, trial presentation of scientific evidence, their interaction with the judge, jury and other forensic experts, and finally, their comments on forensic science and expert evidence in general.
Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences – Taylor & Francis
Published: Dec 1, 2008
Keywords: prosecution; defence; expert; jury; scientific; comprehension
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.