title: DNA evidence in jury trials: the "CSI effect".
abstract: In Murdoch v The Queen (2007) 167 A Crim R 329, Hillier v The Queen (2007) 228 CLR 618 and Forbes v The Queen (2009) 167ACTR 1, Australian appellate courts considered the interpretation of DNA evidence and the possibility of secondary transfer of DNA samples and questions about the statistical calculations used to produce probabilities of DNA matches. Following the 2010 Victorian case of Farrah Jama, whose conviction for rape was quashed 16 months into his prison sentence after it was discovered that the incriminating DNA sample was contaminated, Mr FRH Vincent QC, in his report to the Victorian Attorney-General, was scathing of the conduct of the case and made a number of recommendations, all of which were immediately adopted by the Victorian Government. Following the release of the Vincent Report, Australia's Attorneys-General have established a working party to examine national standards for the use and collection of DNA evidence. The use and interpretation of DNA evidence in jury trials is considered and factors that improve jury understanding of DNA evidence are discussed.
authors.affiliation: High Security Inpatient Services, The Park--Centre for Mental Health, Sumner Park, Brisbane, Queensland. RussJ_Scott@health.qld.gov.au
authors.forename: Russ
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Scott
authors.forename: Catherine
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Skellern
mesh_terms: D001315:Australia; D059018:DNA Contamination; D016172:DNA Fingerprinting / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005554:Forensic Medicine; D006801:Humans; D011902:Rape / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence