Advertisement

Subjective interpretation, laboratory error and the value of forensic DNA evidence: three case studies

  • William C. Thompson
Part of the Contemporary Issues in Genetics and Evolution book series (CIGE, volume 4)

Abstract

This article discusses two factors that may profoundly affect the value of DNA evidence for proving that two samples have a common source: uncertainty about the interpretation of test results and the possibility of laboratory error. Three case studies are presented to illustrate the importance of the analyst’s subjective judgments in interpreting some RFLP-based forensic DNA tests. In each case, the likelihood ratio describing the value of DNA evidence is shown to be dramatically reduced by uncertainty about the scoring of bands and the possibility of laboratory error. The article concludes that statistical estimates of the frequency of matching genotypes can be a misleading index of the value of DNA evidence, and that more adequate indices are needed. It also argues that forensic laboratories should comply with the National Research Council’s recommendation that forensic test results be scored in a blind or objective manner.

Key words

forensic DNA evidence error subjective 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Devlin, B., N. Risch & K. Roeder, 1994. Comments on the statistical aspects of the NRC’s report on DNA typing. J. Forensic Sci. 39: 28 - 40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Graves, M.H. & M. Kuo, 1989. DNA: A blind trial study of three commercial testing laboratories. Presented at the meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Las Vegas.Google Scholar
  3. Hagerman, P.J., 1990. DNA typing in the forensic arena. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 47: 876–877.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Hart, S.D., C. Webster & R. Menzies, 1993. A note on portraying the accuracy of violence predictions. Law & Hum. Behay. 17: 695–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kaye, D.H., 1994. DNA evidence: Probability, population genetics and the courts. Harvard J. Law & Technology 7: 101–172.Google Scholar
  6. Koehler, J.J., 1993a. DNA matches and statistics: Important questions, surprising answers. Judicature 76: 222–229.Google Scholar
  7. Koehler, J.J., 1993b. Error and exaggeration in the presentation of DNA evidence at trial. Jurimetrics 34: 21 - 35.Google Scholar
  8. Lander, E., 1989. DNA fingerprinting on trial. Nature 339: 501–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lempert, R., 1991. Some caveats concerning DNA as criminal identification evidence: With thanks to the reverend Bayes. Cardozo L. Rev. 13: 303–341.Google Scholar
  10. Moenssens, A.A., 1990. DNA evidence and its critics-How valid are the challenges? Jurimetrics 31: 87 - 108.Google Scholar
  11. National Research Council, 1992. DNA Technology in Forensic Science. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  12. Nisbett, R.E. & L. Ross, 1980. Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  13. People v. Castro, 545 N.Y.S.2d 985 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1989 ).Google Scholar
  14. People v. Keene, 591 N.Y.S.2d 733 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1992 ).Google Scholar
  15. Shields, W.M., 1992. Forensic DNA typing as evidence in criminal proceedings: Some problems and potential solutions, pp. 1–50 in Proceedings from the Third International Symposium on Human Identification. Promega Corp., Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  16. State v. Futch, 860 p.2d 264 (Ore. 1993 ).Google Scholar
  17. State v. Jobe, 486 N.W.2d 407 (Minn. 1992 ).Google Scholar
  18. Technical Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (TWIGDAM), 1990. Statement of the Working Group on Statistical Standards for DNA Analysis. Crime Lab. Dig. 17(3): 53–58Google Scholar
  19. Thompson, W.C. & S. Ford, 1989. DNA typing: Acceptance and weight of the new genetic identification tests. Virginia L. Rev. 75: 45–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thompson, W.C. & S. Ford, 1991.. The meaning of a match: Sources of ambiguity in the interpretation of DNA prints, pp. 93–152 in Forensic DNA Technology, edited by M. Farley & J. Harrington, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.Google Scholar
  21. Thompson, W.C., 1993. Evaluating the admissibility of new genetic identification tests: Lessons from the “DNA War”. J. Crim. Law & Criminology, 84: 701–781.Google Scholar
  22. Weir, B.S., 1992. Population genetics in the forensic DNA debate. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 89: 11654–11659.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • William C. Thompson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Criminology, Law & SocietyUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations