Science in the Jury Box: Jurors’ Comprehension of Mitochondrial DNA Evidence

Questions about how jurors understand and apply scientific evidence were addressed in a mock jury study in which 480 jury pool members watched a videotaped mock trial that included expert testimony about mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) evidence purportedly linking a defendant to a crime. Collectively, jurors showed moderately good comprehension of the mtDNA evidence, although some made definitional and inferential errors. Comprehension was better among jurors with higher educational attainment and more mathematics and science courses. Lower comprehension was associated with jurors’ reservations about science and concerns about the contamination of mtDNA evidence. The results suggest that most jurors are capable of comprehending and employing scientific evidence presented during trial, although errors and doubts about the evidence should be anticipated.     

Consent forms in genomics: the difference between law and practice

Consent forms are the principal method for obtaining informed consent from biomedical research participants. The significance of these forms is increasing as more secondary research is undertaken on existing research samples and information, and samples are deposited in biobanks accessible to many researchers. We reviewed a selection of consent forms used in European Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) and identified four common elements that were found in every consent form. Our analysis showed that only two of the four most commonly found elements in our sample of informed consent forms were required in UK law. This raises questions about what should be put in informed consent forms for research participants. These findings could be beneficial for the formulation of participant information and consent documentation in the future studies.     

Equity’s treatment of sexually transmitted debt

She was to a degree the tool of her husband. However, despite the fact she was under his influence to a degree she cannot escape if the Bank took all reasonable steps to ensure that she had appreciated and understood what she was signing. It may be that Mrs Wright-Bailey did not have an adequate comprehension of the nature of the charge... [E]ven if she did not, the Bank did take all reasonable steps I wish to thank Hilary Astor, Brian Cahill and the anonymous readers from FLS for their helpful comments and suggestions.     

Academic judgement,the university Visitor and the Human Rights Act 1998

Students have proved increasingly willing to challenge academic judgements in court, and the passage into law of the Human Rights Act 1998 is likely to have a major bearing on future challenges. The Act will make it unlawful for a public authority (including both a university and the courts) to act in a way which is incompatible with many of the provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights (and the Protocols attaching thereto). It will also permit a victim of such unlawfulness to bring proceedings in an appropriate court or tribunal, whether in the High Court as part of an application for judicial review or as an ordinary civil action for negligence or breach of contract. The court will have the power to grant whatever remedy it considers to be just and equitable, including an award of damages where it feels such an award to be appropriate. This could have significant consequences for the use of the Visitor in chartered universities as the final arbiter in disputes over academic judgements. For the Visitor does not conduct hearings in public and often fails to follow any recognised procedure. It may even be doubted whether the Visitor can be said to be truly independent of the institution against whose decision the student is appealing. In future, therefore, universities may have to be prepared to justify any marks awarded in the public forum of the courtroom.