Statistical aspects of interpreting DNA profiling in legal cases

Statistica Neerlandica

Volumn 57, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 368-389

  Sjerps, M ^a   Kloosterman, A D ^b  

^a NETHERLANDS FORENSIC INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

^b NONE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

DNA database match; Ethnic inference; Forensic DNA Analysis; Likelihood ratio methods; LR; Match probability; Scientific evidence interpretation

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041355547     PISSN: 00390402     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9574.00236     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. AITKEN, C.G.G. (1995), Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists, Wiley, Chichester.
2. AITKEN, C.G.G. and D.A. STONEY (eds.) (1991), The use of statistics in forensic science, Ellis Horwood Limited, Chichester.
3. AYRES, K.L. (2000), A two-locus forensic match probability for subdivided populations, Genetica 108, 137-143.
4. BALDING, D.J. (1999), When can a DNA profile be regarded as unique?, Science & Justice 39, 257-260.
5. BALDING, D.J. (2002), The DNA database search controversy, Biometrics 58, 241-244.
6. BALDING, D.J. and P. DONNELLY (1995), Inference in forensic identification, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A 158, 21-53.
7. BALDING, D.J. and R.A. NICHOLS (1994), DNA profile match probability calculation: how to allow for population stratification, relatedness, database selection and single bands, Forensic Science International 64, 125-140.
8. BRENNER, C.H. (1996), Probable race of a stain donor, Seventh Promega Human Identification Symposium, Scottsdale, Arizona.
9. BUCKLETON, J.S., S. WALSH and S.A. HARBISON (2001), The fallacy of independence testing and the use of the product rule, Science & Justice 41, 81-84.
10. DAWID, A.P. (2001), Comment on Stockmarr's "Likelihood ratios for evaluating DNA evidence when the suspect is found through a database search", Biometrics 57, 976-978.
11. DAWID, A.P. and J. MORTERA (1996), Coherent analysis of forensic identification evidence, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 58, 425-443.
12. DNA Advisory Board, DAB (2000). Statistical and population genetics issues affecting the evaluation of the frequency of occurrence of DNA profiles calculated from pertinent population databases, Forensic Science Communications 2
13. ESSEN-MÖLLER, E. and C.E. QUENSEL (1939), Zur Theorie des Vaterschaftsnachweises auf Grund von Ähnlichkeitsbefunden, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Gesamte Gerichtliche Medizin 31, 70-96.
14. EVETT, I.W. (1983), What is the probability that this blood came from that person? A meaningful question?, Journal of the Forensic Science Society 23, 35-39.
15. EVETT, I.W. (1995), Avoiding the transposed conditional, Science & Justice 35, 127-131.
16. EVETT, I.W., L.A. FOREMAN and B.S. WEIR (2000), Letter to the Editor, Biometrics 56, 1274-1277.
17. EVETT, I.W. and B.S. WEIR (1998), Interpreting DNA evidence, statistical genetics for forensic scientists, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland MA, USA.
18. FOREMAN, L.A. and I.W. EVETT (2001), Statistical analyses to support forensic interpretation for a new ten-locus STR profiling system, International Journal Legal Medicin 114, 147-155.
19. FUNG, W.K. and Y.Q. Hu (2001), The evaluation of mixed stains from different ethnic origins: general result and common cases. International Journal Legal Medicin 115, 48-53.
20. GASTWIRTH, J.L. (ed.) (2000), Statistical science in the courtroom, Springer-Verlag, New York.
21. GEISSER, S. (2000), Statistics, litigation, and conduct unbecoming, in: J.L. GASTWIRTE (ed.) Statistical science in the courtroom. Springer-Verlag, New York, 71-85.
22. HENDERSON, J.P. (2002), The use of DNA statistics in criminal trials. Forensic Science International 128, 183-186.
23. JEFFREYS, A.J., V. WILSON and S.L. THEIN (1985a), Hypervariable 'minisatellite' regions in human DNA, Nature 314, 67-73.
24. JEFFREYS, A.J., V. WILSON and S.L. THEIN (1985b), Individual specific 'fingerprints' of human DNA, Nature 316, 76-79.
25. KLOOSTERMAN, A.D. (2001), Credibility of forensic DNA typing is driven by stringent quality standards, Accreditation Quality Assurance 6, 409-414.
26. KLOOSTERMAN, A.D. (2002), DNA-polymorphisms and their use in forensic typing in the Netherlands, chapter 13, Academic Thesis, University Santiago de Compostela.
27. LANDER, E.S. and B. BUDOWLE (1994), DNA fingerprinting dispute laid to rest, Nature 371, 735-738.
28. LEWONTIN, R.C. (1993), Which population? (Letter to the Editor), American Journal of Human Genetics 52, 205.
29. LEWONTIN, R.C. and D.L. HARTL (1991), Population genetics in forensic DNA typing. Science 254, 1745-1750.
30. LOWE, A.L., A. URQUHART, L.A. FOREMAN and I.W. EVETT (2001), Inferring ethnic origin by means of an STR profile, Forensic Science International 119, 17-22.
31. MARTIN, P.D., H. SCHMITTER and P.M. SCHNEIDER (2001), A brief history of the formation of DNA databases in forensic science within Europe, Forensic Science International 119. 225-231.
32. MEESTER, R. and M. SJERPS (2003). The evidential value in the DNA database search controversy and the two-stain problem, http://www.cs.vu.nl/̃rmeester/, preprints. To appear in Biometrics.
33. National Research Council (1992), DNA technology in forensic science, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
34. National Research Council (1996), The evaluation of forensic DNA evidence, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
35. PERLIN, M.W. and B. SZABADY (2001), Linear mixture analysis: a mathematical approach to resolving mixed DNA samples. Journal Forensic Science 46, 1372-1378.
36. ROBERTSON, B. and G.A. VIGNAUX (1995), Interpreting evidence, Wiley, Chichester.
37. ROEDER, K. (1994), DNA fingerprinting: a review of the controversy, Statistical Science 9, 222-278.
38. ROYALL, R. (1997) Statistical evidence - a likelihood paradigm. Chapman and Hall, London.
39. SJERPS, M. (2000), Pros and cons of Bayesian reasoning in forensic science, in: J.F. NIJBOER and WJ.J.M. SPRANGERS (eds.), Harmonisation in forensic expertise, Series Criminal Sciences, Thela Thesis, Amsterdam, 557-585.
40. STOCKMARR, A. (1999), Likelihood ratios for evaluating DNA evidence when the suspect is found through a database search, Biometrics 55, 671-677.
41. TARONI, F. and C.G. AITKEN (2000), DNA evidence, probabilistic evaluation and collaborative tests, Forensic Science International 14, 121-143.
42. THOMPSON, W.C. and E.L. SCHUMANN (1987), Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: the prosecutor's fallacy and the defense attorney's fallacy, Law and Human Behavior 11, 167-187.
43. TRIGGS, C.M. and J.S. BUCKLETON (2002), Logical implications of applying the principles of population genetics to the interpretation of DNA profiling evidence, Forensic Science International 128, 108-114.
44. WEIR, B.S. (2000), The consequences of defending DNA statistics, in: J.L. GASTWIRTH (ed.), Statistical science in the courtroom, Springer-Verlag, New York, 87-97.
45. WEIR, B.S., (2001), Forensics, in: D.J. BALDING, M. BISHOP, and C. CANNINGS (eds.), Handbook of statistical genetics, Wiley, Chichester, UK, 721-739.
46. WEIR, B.S. and I.W. EVETT (1992), Whose DNA?, (Letter to the Editor), American Journal of Human Genetics 50, 69.
47. WEIR, B.S. and I.W. EVETT (1993), Reply to Lewontin (Letter to the Editor), American Journal of Human Genetics 52, 206.