Subjective interpretation, laboratory error and the value of forensic DNA evidence: Three case studies
- 1 June 1995
- journal article
- Published by Springer Nature in Genetica
- Vol. 96 (1-2) , 153-168
- https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01441161
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 laboratoires should comply with the National Research Council's recommendation that forensic test results be scored in a blind or objective manner.Keywords
This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comments on the Statistical Aspects of the NRC's Report on DNA TypingJournal of Forensic Sciences, 1994
- A note on portraying the accuracy of violence predictions.Law and Human Behavior, 1993
- Population genetics in the forensic DNA debate.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1992
- Synthesis of Glycopeptides with LewisaAntigen Side Chain and HIV Peptide T Sequence Using the Trichloroethoxycarbonyl/Allyl Ester Protecting Group CombinationSynlett, 1992
- DNA fingerprinting on trialNature, 1989
- DNA Typing: Acceptance and Weight of the New Genetic Identification TestsVirginia Law Review, 1989
- Serious Rotator Cuff InjuriesClinics in Sports Medicine, 1983