Juror Perceptions of Trial Testimony as a Function of the Method of Presentation: A Comparison of Live, Color Video, Black-and-White Video, Audio, and Transcript Presentations

Summary of Contents I. Introduction A. Uses of videotape in the litigation process 1. Prelitigation videotape uses 2. Videotaped depositions 3. Electronic trial records 4. Electronic presentation of evidence B. A review of the research literature II. The Research Design: Rationale and Description A. The need to assess the impact of videotape in the litigation process B. The live trial as a standard of comparison C. Description of the research design 1. The stimulus trial 2. The trial participants 3. The physical setting 4. A description of the different trial procedures 5. The questionnaire III. Research Results A. Juror perceptions of the trial participants as rated on the bipolar adjective scales 1. Competency 2. Honesty 3. Friendliness 4. Appearance 5. Objectivity 6. Additional adjective pairs B. The amount of compensation awarded the landowner C. The relationship of the dollar awards to juror ratings of trial participants D. Juror preferences for the trial participants E. Juror reactions to the trials IV. Discussion of the Results A. Comparative merits of deposition presentation methods 1. Read transcript 2. Audiotape 3. Black-and-white videotape 4. Color videotape 5. Conclusion B. An evaluation of the use of videotape to present all testimony at trial C. Recommendations for future researc

Juror Perceptions of Trial Testimony as a Function of the Method of Presentation: A Comparison of Live, Color Video, Black-and-White Video, Audio, and Transcript Presentations

Summary of Contents I. Introduction A. Uses of videotape in the litigation process 1. Prelitigation videotape uses 2. Videotaped depositions 3. Electronic trial records 4. Electronic presentation of evidence B. A review of the research literature II. The Research Design: Rationale and Description A. The need to assess the impact of videotape in the litigation process B. The live trial as a standard of comparison C. Description of the research design 1. The stimulus trial 2. The trial participants 3. The physical setting 4. A description of the different trial procedures 5. The questionnaire III. Research Results A. Juror perceptions of the trial participants as rated on the bipolar adjective scales 1. Competency 2. Honesty 3. Friendliness 4. Appearance 5. Objectivity 6. Additional adjective pairs B. The amount of compensation awarded the landowner C. The relationship of the dollar awards to juror ratings of trial participants D. Juror preferences for the trial participants E. Juror reactions to the trials IV. Discussion of the Results A. Comparative merits of deposition presentation methods 1. Read transcript 2. Audiotape 3. Black-and-white videotape 4. Color videotape 5. Conclusion B. An evaluation of the use of videotape to present all testimony at trial C. Recommendations for future researc

Next generation tools for genomic data generation, distribution, and visualization

BACKGROUND: With the rapidly falling cost and availability of high throughput sequencing and microarray technologies, the bottleneck for effectively using genomic analysis in the laboratory and clinic is shifting to one of effectively managing, analyzing, and sharing genomic data. RESULTS: Here we present three open-source, platform independent, software tools for generating, analyzing, distributing, and visualizing genomic data. These include a next generation sequencing/microarray LIMS and analysis project center (GNomEx); an application for annotating and programmatically distributing genomic data using the community vetted DAS/2 data exchange protocol (GenoPub); and a standalone Java Swing application (GWrap) that makes cutting edge command line analysis tools available to those who prefer graphical user interfaces. Both GNomEx and GenoPub use the rich client Flex/Flash web browser interface to interact with Java classes and a relational database on a remote server. Both employ a public-private user-group security model enabling controlled distribution of patient and unpublished data alongside public resources. As such, they function as genomic data repositories that can be accessed manually or programmatically through DAS/2-enabled client applications such as the Integrated Genome Browser. CONCLUSIONS: These tools have gained wide use in our core facilities, research laboratories and clinics and are freely available for non-profit use. See http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnomex/, http://sourceforge.net/projects/genoviz/, and http://sourceforge.net/projects/useq

Incidental detection of classical galactosemia through newborn screening for phenylketonuria: a 10-year retrospective audit to determine the efficacy of this approach

In the UK, Classical Galactosaemia (CG) is identified incidentally from the Newborn Screening (NBS) for phenylketonuria (PKU) using an “Other disorder suspected” (ODS) pathway when phenylalanine (Phe) and tyrosine (Tyr) concentrations are increased. We aimed to determine the efficacy of CG detection via NBS and estimate the incidence of CG in live births in the UK. A survey was sent to all UK NBS laboratories to collate CG cases diagnosed in the UK from 2010 to 2020. Cases of CG diagnosed were determined if detected clinically, NBS, or by family screening, as well as age at diagnosis. Cases referred via the ODS pathway were also collated, including the final diagnosis made. Responses were obtained from 13/16 laboratories. Between 2010 and 2020, a total of 6,642,787 babies were screened, and 172 cases of CG were identified. It should be noted that 85/172 presented clinically, 52/172 were identified by NBS, and 17/172 came from family screening. A total of 117 referrals were made via the ODS pathway, and 45/117 were subsequently diagnosed with CG. Median (interquartile range) age at diagnosis by NBS and clinically was 8 days (7–11) and 10 days (7–16), respectively (Mann–Whitney U test, U = 836.5, p-value = 0.082). The incidence of CG is 1:38,621 live births. The incidence of CG in the UK is comparable with that of other European/western countries. No statistical difference was seen in the timing of diagnosis between NBS and clinical presentation based on the current practice of sampling on day 5. Bringing forward the day of NBS sampling to day 3 would increase the proportion diagnosed with CG by NBS from 52/172 (30.2%) to 66/172 (38.4%)

Next generation tools for genomic data generation, distribution, and visualization

Abstract Background With the rapidly falling cost and availability of high throughput sequencing and microarray technologies, the bottleneck for effectively using genomic analysis in the laboratory and clinic is shifting to one of effectively managing, analyzing, and sharing genomic data. Results Here we present three open-source, platform independent, software tools for generating, analyzing, distributing, and visualizing genomic data. These include a next generation sequencing/microarray LIMS and analysis project center (GNomEx); an application for annotating and programmatically distributing genomic data using the community vetted DAS/2 data exchange protocol (GenoPub); and a standalone Java Swing application (GWrap) that makes cutting edge command line analysis tools available to those who prefer graphical user interfaces. Both GNomEx and GenoPub use the rich client Flex/Flash web browser interface to interact with Java classes and a relational database on a remote server. Both employ a public-private user-group security model enabling controlled distribution of patient and unpublished data alongside public resources. As such, they function as genomic data repositories that can be accessed manually or programmatically through DAS/2-enabled client applications such as the Integrated Genome Browser. Conclusions These tools have gained wide use in our core facilities, research laboratories and clinics and are freely available for non-profit use. See http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnomex/, http://sourceforge.net/projects/genoviz/, and http://sourceforge.net/projects/useq.</p