Evaluating juror understanding of traumatic head injury with different formats of evidence presentation in court: a follow up study

Jurors rely on evidence presented in court to find the facts of a case. Consequently, the manner in which evidence is delivered may significantly impact the extent to which jurors comprehend and interpret the evidence. Building on a pilot study, the aim of this research was to further investigate which format for presenting forensic medical evidence in court was best for laypersons (i.e., jurors) to understand. This study presented a forensic medical testimony detailing a head injury to members of the community who had been called for jury duty. The evidence was presented using six different formats: verbal, autopsy photo, colour coded cross-sectional computed tomography (CT) image, volume rendered CT, three-dimensional (3D) print and interactive technology. Jurors found autopsy photographs to be more confronting than any other format. Verbal evidence was found to be the most complicated to understand, with volume rendered CT, the 3D print and interactive court technology being the least complicated. Jurors considered the 3D print easiest to understand, however when asked about the cause of the injuries, cause of death and severity of injuries, they showed there understanding was limited and the presentation format made little difference. These findings indicate that forensic medical evidence is inherently complex for a layperson to fully comprehend, regardless of the presentation format.