Search

DNA evidence can be extremely compelling. With ongoing scientific advances and applications of DNA evidence in the criminal justice system, it is increasingly important that police, lawyers, and judges recognise both the limitations of DNA evidence and the strength of the evidence in particular cases. Because most forensic sciences are formally communicated via expert reports, we analysed the readability of 68 such reports of DNA evidence from 6 of 8 Australian jurisdictions. We conducted content analyses using three categories: content and sequence, language, and format. Categories contained qualitative and quantitative items drawn from theory and past research. Report styles differed by jurisdiction and by main audience - police and the courts. Reports for police were brief and few links were made between sections in these reports. Reports for courts were less brief and used either legal or scientific styles. Common sections in reports for courts included: the scientist's specialised knowledge; laboratory accreditation information; item list; results; and notes on interpretation. Sections were often not in a logical sequence, due to the use of appendices. According to Flesch Reading Ease scores, reports for police had language that was fairly difficult, and reports for courts, difficult. Difficulty was compounded by the use of specialist terms. Reports for police and the appendices of reports for court often used very small font and single line spacing. Many reports for court contained tables that spanned several pages. Suggestions based on theory and past research are provided to assist scientists to enhance the readability of reports for non-scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific language contains features that may impede understanding for non-scientists. Forensic scientists'written reports are read by police, lawyers, and judges, and thus assessment of readability is warranted. Past studies of readability differed in background theory and approach, but analysed one or more of: content and sequence; language; and format. Using a holistic approach, we assessed the readability of expert reports (n = 78) of forensic glass comparison from 7 Australian jurisdictions. Two main audiences for reports were relevant: police and the courts. Reports for police were presented either as a completed form or as a brief legal-style report. Reports for court were less brief and used either legal or scientific styles, with content and formatting features supporting these distinctions. Some jurisdictions prepared a single report to satisfy both the courts and police. In general, item list, analytical techniques, results, notes on interpretation, and conclusions were included in reports of all types. However, some reports omitted analytical techniques, and results and conclusions were sometimes combined. According to Flesch Reading Ease, language was difficult, with a Flesch-Kincaid grade level of university undergraduate. Sentences were long and contained undefined specialist terms. Information content per clause (lexical density), was typically high, as for other scientific texts. Uncertainty was expressed differently by jurisdiction. Reports from most jurisdictions were cluttered in appearance, with single-line spacing, narrow margins, and gridlines in tables. Simple suggestions, based on theory and past research, are provided to assist scientists to enhance the readability of expert reports for non-scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientists have an ethical responsibility to assist non-scientists to understand their findings and expert opinions before they are used as decision-aids within the criminal justice system. The communication of scientific expert opinion to non-scientist audiences (e.g., police, lawyers, and judges) through expert reports is an important but under-researched issue. Readability statistics were used to assess 111 conclusions from a proficiency test in forensic glass analysis. The conclusions were written using an average of 23 words per sentence, and approximately half of the conclusions were expressed using the active voice. At an average Flesch-Kincaid Grade level of university undergraduate (Grade 13), and Flesch Reading Ease score of difficult (42), the conclusions were written at a level suitable for people with some tertiary education in science, suggesting that the intended non-scientist readers would find them difficult to read. To further analyse the readability of conclusions, descriptive features of text were used: text structure; sentence structure; vocabulary; elaboration; and coherence and unity. Descriptive analysis supported the finding that texts were written at a level difficult for non-scientists to read. Specific aspects of conclusions that may pose difficulties for non-scientists were located. Suggestions are included to assist scientists to write conclusions with increased readability for non-scientist readers, while retaining scientific integrity. In the next stage of research, the readability of expert reports in their entirety is to be explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]