Nicola Berkovic: The Accuracy Of DNA Evidence

Nicola Berkovic brings to her reader’s attention individual’s assumptions associated in the accuracy of DNA evidence. Berkovic writes that a lack of knowledge in relations to DNA evidence could be resulting in fallacious convictions, creating a requirement for protection within the legal justice system to further develop. Berkovic, along with Professor Field and many legal experts agree that it is vital for Jurors, judges and lawyers to become extensively educated in the understanding of DNA technology.

Berkovic references a survey established by Jane Goodman-Delahunty and Lindsay Hewson of Charles Sturt University conducted on 3600 potential jurors. The survey relieved the greater one’s knowledge is in DNA evidence, the poorer their chances

were in predominantly depending on it to convict someone. She explains that a 39 percent rise was present in the correctly answered questions provided throughout the survey after jurors had participated in a short educational lesson and DNA expert testimony. Berkovic states that, in short, individuals with a lack of knowledge in DNA evidence were significantly more likely to believe in the accuracy of it.
Berkovic quotes Goodman-Delahunty in saying ‘Those who understand it better and understood some of the chinks and weaknesses in the DNA evidence that had to do with its weight were less likely to convict’. She goes on to write that these chinks may include the possibility for laboratories to make a miscalculation and also that an acknowledged ‘’DNA match’’ is not 100 percent credible. Berkovis also mentions a quote made by independent DNA consultant Brain McDonald of “There are some laboratories that will stretch the limits of the technology to the point where it is patently unreliable”.
Berkovic acknowledges Goodman-Delahunty’s point of view by suggesting a lesson on DNA technology will provide all jurors an understanding of the evidence and therefore result in a reduced amount of wrongful convictions due to inadequate knowledge of evidence. Berkovic continues on by explaining a lack of knowledge and overlook of the science in DNA evidence can result in innocent people wrongfully convicted of crimes they didn’t commit, described as a ‘white coat effect’. Berkovic, then backs up Goodman-Delahunty’s comment by providing two previous wrongfully convicted cases due to a slipup associated with DNA evidence.
Berkovic provides a stat that jurors are over than 30 times more likely to vote guilty on a sexual assault case if DNA evidence is permitted and associated to the defendant. Berkovic goes on to conclude with a quote made by Brian McDonald of “evidence is sometimes presented in a deliberately misleading way to give jurors the impression a defendants DNA is connected to a particular crime and it would be helpful if all courts used a tutorial to educate individuals about DNA evidence.