How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 48, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 47-54

  Thompson, William C ^d   Taroni, Franco ^a,b   Aitken, Colin G G ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^d NONE

Author keywords

Bayes theorem; Database; DNA dragnet; DNA typing; Error rate; False positive; Forensic science; Likelihood ratio; Proficiency testing; Prosecutor's fallacy; Statistics

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; COMPETENCE; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DNA DETERMINATION; DNA FINGERPRINTING; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HUMAN; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; LEGAL ASPECT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUALITY CONTROL; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL;

EID: 0037227664     PISSN: 00221198     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1520/jfs2001171     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. National Research Council. DNA technology in forensic science. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1992.
2. Thompson WC, Ford S. The meaning of a match: sources of ambiguity in the interpretation of DNA prints. In: Farley M, Harrington J, editors. Forensic DNA technology. New York: CRC Press, Inc, 1991;93-152.
3. Thompson WC. Subjective interpretation, laboratory error and the value of forensic DNA evidence: three case studies. Genetica 1995;96:153-68.
4. Taroni F, Aitken CGG. Forensic science at trial. Jurimetrics 1997;37:327-37.
5. Kaye DH, Sensabaugh GF. Reference guide on DNA evidence. In: Cecil J, editor. Reference manual on scientific evidence. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center, 2000;2:485-576.
6. Thompson WC. Forensic DNA evidence. In: Black B, Lee P, editors. Expert evidence: a practitioner's guide to law, science and the FJC manual. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1997;195-266.
7. Jerome Smith v. State. Southern Reporter, Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, 1995;677:1240-48.
8. Koehler JJ. Error and exaggeration in the presentation of DNA evidence. Jurimetrics 1993;34:21-39.
9. Kaye D. DNA evidence: probability, population genetics, and the courts. Harv J Law Technol 1993;7:101-72.
10. Jonakait RN. Stories, forensic science and improved verdicts. Cardozo L Rev 1991;13:343-52.
11. Koehler JJ. DNA matches and statistics: important questions, surprising answers. Judicature 1993;76:222-9.
12. Thompson WC. Comment. In Roeder K, DNA fingerprinting: a review of the controversy. Stat Sci 1994;9:263-6.
13. Koehler JJ. The random match probability in DNA evidence: irrelevant and prejudicial? Jurimetrics 1995;35:201-19.
14. Thompson WC. Accepting lower standards: The National Research Council's second report on forensic DNA evidence. Jurimetrics 1997;37(4):405-24.
15. Mueller L. The use of DNA typing in forensic science. Acct in Res 1993;3:1-13.
16. Roeder K. DNA fingerprinting: a review of the controversy. Stat Sci 1994;9:222-47.
17. check B, Neufeld P, Dwyer F. Actual innocence. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
18. Brenner L, Pfleeger B. Investigation of the sexual assault of Danah H. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Police Department DNA Identification Laboratory; 1999 Sept. 24; Lab No.: 97-70826.
19. Brenner L, Pfleeger B. Amended report: investigation of the sexual assault of Danah H. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Police Department DNA Identification Laboratory; 2000 Feb. 7; Lab No.: 97-70826.
20. Cotton RW, Word C. Amended report of laboratory examination. Germantown, MD: Cellmark Diagnostics; 1995 Nov 20; Case No.: F951078.
21. Schneider PM, Fimmers R, Woodroffe S, Werrett DJ, Bär W, Brinkmann B, et al. Report of a European collaborative exercise comparing DNA typing results using a single locus VNTR probe. Forensic Sci Intl 1991;49:1-15.
22. Gill P, Woodroffe S, Bar W, Brinkmann B, Carracedo A, Eriksen B, et al. A report of an international collaborative experiment to demonstrate the uniformity obtainable using DNA profiling techniques. Forensic Sci Intl 1992;53:29-43.
23. Gill P, Kimpton C, D'Aloja E, Anderson JF, Bar W, Brinkmann B, et al. Report of the European profiling group (EDNAP): Towards standardisation of short tandem repeat (STR) loci. Forensic Sci Intl 1994;65:51-9.
24. Kimpton C, Gill P, D'Aloja E, Anderson JF, Bar W, Holgersson S, et al. Report on the second collaborative STR exercise. Forensic Sci Intl 1995;71:137-52.
25. Wiegand P, Amgach E, Augustin C, Bratzke H, Cremer U, Edelman J, et al. GEDNAP IV and V. The 4th and 5th stain blind trials using DNA technology. Intl J Legal Med 1995;108:79-84.
26. Anderson JF, Martin P, Carracedo A, Dobosz M, Eriksen B, Johnsson V, et al. Report on the third EDNAP collaborative STR exercise. Forensic Sci Int 1996;78:83-93.
27. Technical Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (TWGDAM). Established guidelines for a quality assurance program for DNA testing laboratories; including RFLP and PCR technologies. Crime Lab Dig 1995;18:44-75.
28. National Research Council. The evaluation of forensic DNA evidence. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996.
29. Balding DJ. Errors and misunderstandings in the second NRC report. Jurimetrics 1997;37:469-76.
30. Thompson WC. DNA evidence in the O.J. Simpson trial. U Colorado L Rev 1996;67(4):827-57.
31. People v. Venegas: California Reporter, California Supreme Court, 1998;18:47-88.
32. Aitken CGG. Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists. Chichester: J. Wiley & Sons, 1995.
33. Schum DA. Evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994.
34. Robertson B, Vignaux GA. Interpreting evidence. Evaluating forensic science in the courtroom. Chichester: J. Wiley & Sons, 1995.
35. Lempert RO. Modeling relevance. Michigan L Rev 1975;75:1021-101.
36. Friedman RD. Answering the bayesioskeptical challenge. Intl J Evid Proof 1997;1:276-8.
37. Ceci SJ, Friedman RD. The suggestibility of children: scientific research and legal implications. Cornell L Rev 2000; 86(1):33-108.
38. Schlup v. Delo: United States Reports, U.S. Supreme Court, 1995; 513:298-322.
39. Thompson WC, Schumann EL. Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: the prosecutor's fallacy and the defense attorney's fallacy. Law Hum Behav 1987;11:167-87.
40. Donnelly P, Friedman RD. DNA database searches and the legal consumption of scientific evidence. Michigan L Rev 1999;97:931-84.
41. Balding DJ, Donnelly P. Evaluating DNA profile evidence when the suspect is identified through a database search. J Forensic Sci 1996; 41(4):603-7.
42. Koehler JJ. Why DNA likelihood ratios should account for error (even when a national research council report says they should not). Jurimetrics 1997;37:425-37.
43. Peterson JL, Gaensslen RE. Developing criteria for model external DNA proficiency testing: final report. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago; 2001 May.
44. Schum DA, DuCharme WM. Comments on the relationship between the impact and the reliability of evidence. Org Behav Human Perf 1971;6:111-31.