[Home] [Help] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Feedback]
	Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law

Title : QUEST Evidence Computer Tutorials - A Review
Author : Jeffrey Rosales-Castaneda
Organisation : Murdoch University School of Law
Keywords : Evidence; computer assisted learning;
: computerised tutorials
Abstract : A student review of a computer based tutorial for
: use in teaching Australian evidence law.
Contact Name : The Editors, E Law
Contact Address: Murdoch University School of Law, PO Box 1014,
: Canning Vale, Western Australia, 6155
Contact Phone : + 61 09 360 2976
Contact Email : elaw-editors@csuvax1.murdoch.edu.au
Last Verified : 9 December 1994
Last Updated : 9 December 1994
Creation Date : 5 December 1994
Filename : quest.txt
File Size : 13.4K
File Type : Document
File Format : ASCII
Publication Status: Final
COPYRIGHT POLICY:
Material appearing in E Law is accepted on the basis that the
material is the original, uncopied work of the author or
authors. Authors agree to indemnify E Law for all damages,
fines and costs associated with a finding of copyright
infringement by the author or by E Law in disseminating the
author's material. In almost all cases material appearing in
E Law will attract copyright protection under the Australian
_Copyright Act 1968_ and the laws of countries which are
member states of the _Berne Convention_, _Universal Copyright
Convention_ or have bi-lateral copyright agreements with
Australia. Ownership of such copyright will vest by operation
of law in the authors and/or E Law. E Law and its authors
grant a license to those accessing E Law to call up copyright
materials onto their screens and to print out a single copy
for their own personal non-commercial use subject to proper
attribution of E Law and/or the authors.
ISSN: 1321-8247
EMAIL RETRIEVAL: message "get elaw-j quest.txt"
URL:
gopher://infolib.murdoch.edu.au:70/00/.ftp/pub/subj/law/jnl/elaw/
current/quest.txt
ftp://infolib.murdoch.edu.au/pub/subj/law/jnl/elaw/current/
quest.txt

--------------------------------------------------------------

QUEST Evidence Computer Tutorials - A Review

Jeffrey Rosales-Castaneda

Computer technology has penetrated in many areas of learning. One of these
areas is the study of the law. Programmes are being deviced in order to
make the study of the law more enjoyable and efficient for those who have
access to a microprocessor. One of the programmes deviced for such a
purpose is QUEST, a computer tutorial dealing with the rules of evidence,
and published by the Law Book Company in 1994. QUEST was devised and
written by Ian Wilson, a Senior Lecturer and Barrister at law, and
programmed by Mark Looi.

_Aims_

QUEST has been designed to test and enhance the student's knowledge on
evidence rules in general through the stimulating interactive environment
of a computer. The student is provided with a practical problem, a set of
questions, and a set of multiple choice answers.

_Hardware Requirements_

QUEST can be used on any IBM compatible computer. That is a good feature,
since - technically speaking - the tutorial does not need to be run in the
latest microprocessors such as 386 SL or 486 DX. However, in order to use
the programme, one needs to have access to a small 3 1/4 high density disk-
drive. This feature makes it difficult to use the tutorial for those who
have access to relatively old computers equipped with double-density disk-
drives. This problem may be overcome by loading the tutorial into a double-
density floppy disk. One needs, however, to have access to a high-density
disk-drive in order to do this.

_Installation_

The tutorial can be run either from the floppy disk itself, or from hard
disk. In order to run it from a floppy disk, one needs to select the
appropriate floppy drive (usually "A:" or "B:"), type "QUEST" (without the
inverted commas) and press ENTER.

If the tutorial is to be loaded into a hard-disk, one must place the floppy
disk on the appropriate drive, type "A:" or "B:", and then type "INSTALL"
at the "A:" or "B:" prompt; the screen will then display a series of
instructions that the user must follow. Once the installation is completed,
the user must log into the directory QUEST, and type "QUEST" at the prompt
of the programme.

_Structure and Contents_

QUEST is divided into two main parts, namely ECHO and EPIC. ECHO deals with
concepts of hearsay. The objective of this part of the tutorial is to test
and expand the student's knowledge on hearsay and original evidence.
However, ECHO does not deal with the exceptions to hearsay nor with the Res
Gestae doctrine. EPIC deals with other general rules of evidence.

_ECHO_

The instructions for this part are found in the menu option "About ECHO",
which can be started by pressing "1". One may select the tutorial itself by
pressing "C". Once this is done, the screen displays the "ECHO Lesson
Menu", where the user may choose the level of knowledge to be tested. The
levels range from SKILL 1 (beginners) to SKILL 6 (advanced).

Echo presents a series of hypothetical statements made in a court
environment. The student is then asked whether they are hearsay. The choice
is simple, one has to answer "yes" or "no". The questions are easy to
follow. If the user chooses the wrong answer, the tutorial points that out;
then, the tutorial provides the principle relevant to the question, and
expands on the theoretical grounds of hearsay. Having arrived to a
satisfactory answer, the user is invited to press another key to go to the
next question. The above process is then repeated.

A sample of the questions presented in this part of the tutorial is the
following:

Crown v Defendant for murder by poison.

Defendant claims that she bought poison for rats and that her husband took
it to commit suicide.

The prosecution claims she bought poison to kill her husband.

Defendant tenders testimony of Groscer that Defendant's daughter told
Grocer: " I saw some rats in the basement and Mum is going to come in and
buy poison for them."

Hearsay? Press "Y" for Yes or "N" for No.

After the student has answered "yes" or "no", the screen displays the
correct answer as follows:

Answer:

The statement does not fall within any of the established categories of
original evidence.

It would be offered for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e.: that rats
were present and that Defendant's intent was as stated.

It is otherwise irrelevant to know what the daughter believed to be the
case.

It is hearsay and is therefore inadmissible.

The question-answer format of this section of the tutorial allows the
student to test his/her knowledge of evidence in relation to hearsay. The
student has the chance to apply what he/she has learned on a hypothetical
situation. The answer provided by the tutorial goes beyond the mere "right"
or "wrong"; it provides the student with the basis for which the statement
should or should not be regarded as hearsay. Sometimes, in other questions,
the tutorial even cites cases supporting the principle stated. The only
shortcoming of this section is that the authorities cited tend to be from the
British jurisdiction.

_EPIC_

As discussed above, EPIC deals with general rules of evidence such as -
inter alia - The Best Evidence Rule, Original Evidence, Res Gestae,
Admissions by the Opponent, Personal Knowledge, and Prior admissible
statement. EPIC places the student in a real-life court situation, enabling
him/her to apply what he/she has learned in a practical way.

The dynamics of this part of the tutorial consist on a hypothetical
situation where the student plays the role of a judge. The student is asked
to rule on objections to evidence raised in the course of a trial.

The case is a civil one, dealing with a claim for personal injuries derived
from a motor-vehicle accident. The plaintiff seeks to prove that the
defendant ran a red light, drove at an excessive speed, drove with
defective brakes, and failed to keep a proper lookout. The defendant, on
the other hand, denies the acts of negligence, and counterclaims that the
plaintiff was drunk (and thus, negligent), and ignored the police officer's
traffic directions (as the traffic lights were not working at the time of
the accident).

There is a choice of three witnesses to be examined and cross-examined,
namely the plaintiff, the plaintiff's passenger, and a bystander. Once a
witness is selected, the screen displays the testimony in question and
answer form; an objection is made, and the student is asked to rule on it
by choosing the appropriate rule of evidence as the basis of his/her
ruling.

An example of the type of question provided by EPIC is the following:

Defendant's counsel concluded her cross-examination of Passenger with the
previous question. Plaintiff's counsel now closes his case, and Defendant's
counsel starts presenting the defence case. As her first witness, White
calls Bystander, a pedestrian at the scene of the accident.

Q. Were the traffic lights in the intersection prior to the collision?
A. No.

Q. Was anyone standing in the intersection prior to the collision?
A. Yes, there was a policeman directing traffic.

Q. Did he say anything to Plaintiff prior to the collision?
A. Yes.

Q. What did the policeman say to Plaintiff?
OBJECTION!

At this stage, the student must assume the role of a judge, and rule on the
objection. The student has now three choices: Press "S" to sustain, press
"O" to overrule, or press "H" for a hint.

If the student chooses to overrule, the screen displays the following:

You have sustained the objection.
Why?

1. Not Relevant
2. Best Evidence Rule
3. Leading
4. Opinion
5. Hearsay
6. Privilege
7. No Personal Knowledge

If the student choses the "wrong" ground to sustain - if sustaining were
appropriate in the present question - the screen displays information about
this ground, explaining when that rule of evidence can be appropriately
applied. Next, the tutorial invites the student to try again - until he/she
gets it right - .

If, on the other hand, the student opts for overruling the objection, the
screen displays the following:

You have overruled the Objection.
Why?

1. Res Gestae
2. Admission of a Party Opponent
3. Prior Admissible Statement
4. Original Evidence
5. Circumstantial Evidence
6. Corroboration

The above question, according to the tutorial, should be overruled on the
grounds of Res Gestae. The screen shows as follows:

The objection should be overruled on this ground.

Not every out of court statement is hearsay. A statement is hearsay only if
it implicitly or explicitly makes some assertion, and is offered in court
for the purpose of showing the truth of that assertion. See *Subramaniam v
Public Prosecutor* [1956] 1 WLR 965.

Here, the statement is not being offered to show that some assertion made
by the policeman was true; rather, it is being offered to show that
Plaintiff was negligent because he disobeyed the direction of the
policeman. (Analogously, testimony could be offered that there was a sign
at the intersection saying "STOP" would not be hearsay.)

The student is then invited to either take the next question or to exit the
tutorial.

_Assessment_

QUEST represents a good attempt to improve the learning of the law through
microprocessor technology. QUEST has all the essential elements of a good
tutorial: it has intelligible and practical questions, well developed
answers (with cases supporting the answers), and a friendly format
providing an easy access for those students who are not very familiar with
computers.

ECHO is the simplest part of the tutorial. It does not deal with a "one-
case-situation" as in EPIC; instead, it provides different scenarios where
the student can test his/her knowledge on hearsay. However, the student can
benefit from this simplicity, as all his/her efforts will be concentrated
in that important area of Evidence law.

EPIC, on the other hand, can be regarded - at least in my personal opinion
- as the most elaborated and interesting part of the tutorial. All the
questions are related to a single case of personal injury and motor-vehicle
accident. Thus, it is easier to follow the track of the examining and
cross-examining by counsels. One can approach the questions of this part of
the tutorial in a holistic way, because one is already acquainted with the
details of the whole case.

Due to the simplicity of the programme, QUEST can be used in almost any IBM
compatible (provided, of course, that the computer has a high-density disk-
driver), and it can be regarded as a friendly-user programme. However, the
programme could be improved. The potential of a computer programme as a
learning tool is infinite. A computer tutorial may be able to stimulate the
senses of the user and, thus, make learning more fun. More graphics and
sounds would be a great improvement for QUEST, as the student would not
face the dryness of a screen full of questions and answers. Another
computer tutorial in law has done this with an amazing success. The 1993
edition of Lipton's Company Law in Australia included a computer tutorial
disk which makes a good use of graphics and sounds. Perhaps this could be
done in relation to QUEST. Finally, the fact that QUEST is a tutorial
without a text book makes it a bit difficult to completely relate to the
tutorial. Perhaps if QUEST was part of an "Evidence in a nutshell" booklet,
one could use the tutorial in a better way. Overall, I think QUEST has been
an excellent attempt to improve our learning in the law.