Average probability that a "cold hit" in a DNA database search results in an erroneous attribution

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 22-27

  Song, Yun S ^a   Patil, Anand ^b   Murphy, Erin E ^a   Slatkin, Montgomery ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Database search; DNA fingerprinting; Forensic science; Population genetics

Indexed keywords

DNA;

ARTICLE; DATA BASE; DNA FINGERPRINTING; FORENSIC SCIENCE; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HUMAN; POPULATION GENETIC PARAMETERS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEXUAL CRIME; SHORT TANDEM REPEAT;

CRIME; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DNA; DNA FINGERPRINTING; GENE FREQUENCY; GENOTYPE; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROBABILITY;

EID: 58149197944     PISSN: 00221198     EISSN: 15564029     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00917.x     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Jeffreys AJ. Genetic fingerprinting. Nat Med 2005 11 : 1035 9.
2. http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/codis/clickmap.htm.
3. Butler J. Forensic DNA typing. Burlington, MA : Elsevier Academic Press, 2005.
4. NDIS Statistics, FBI, Measuring Success, 2005. Available at http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/codis/success.htm, accessed January 5, 2005.
5. NDIS Statistics, FBI, Measuring Success, 2007. Available at http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/codis/success.htm, accessed May 21, 2007.
6. Murphy E. The new forensics: criminal justice, false certainty, and the second generation of scientific evidence, 56 Cal. L. Rev. 721, 2007 : 742.
7. Justice for All Act of 2004, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 3797k et seq.
8. Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147, 152 (1954).
9. Roberson v. State, 16 S.W.3d 156, 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
10. People v. Johnson 139 Cal.App.4th 1135 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
11. Riggs v. State, 809 N.E.2d 322 (Ind. 2004).
12. State v. Davis, 698 N.W.2d 823 (Wisc. 2005).
13. State v. Toomes, 191 S.W.3d 122 (Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. 2005)
14. State v. Labarbera, 115 P.3d 1038 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
15. State v. Hunter, 861 N.E.2d 898 (Ohio App. Ct. 2006).
16. State v. Toomes, 191 S.W.3d 122, 131 & n.4 (Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. 2005).
17. Convicted Murderer Seeks Retrial, Kalamazoo Gazette, May 10, 2006 Sect. Local News.
18. United States v. Jenkins, 887 A.2d 1013 (D.C. 2005).
19. Cauvin HE. Jury deadlocks in case that relied on DNA. Washington Post, April 15, 2006 Sect. B:10.
20. Chakraborty R, Stivers DN, Su B, Zhong YX, Budowle B. The utility of short tandem repeat loci beyond human identification: implications for development of new DNA typing systems. Electrophoresis 1999 20 : 1682 96.
21. Budowle B, Chakraborty R, Carmody G, Monson KL. Source attribution of a forensic DNA profile. Forensic Sci Com 2000 3.
22. Balding DJ. When can a DNA profile be regarded as unique? Sci Justice 1999 39 : 257 60.
23. Evett IW, Weir BS. Interpreting DNA evidence. Sunderland, MA : Sinauer, 1998.
24. National Research Council Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science. The evaluation of forensic DNA evidence. Washington, DC : National Academy Press, 1996.
25. Stockmarr A. Likelihood ratios for evaluating DNA evidence when the suspect is found through a database search. Biometrics 1999 55 : 671 7.
26. Donnelly P, Friedman RD. DNA database searches and the legal consumption of scientific evidence. Michigan Law Rev 1999 97 : 931 84.
27. Balding DJ. The DNA database search controversy. Biometrics 2002 58 : 241 4.
28. Balding DJ, Donnelly P. Evaluating DNA profile evidence when the suspect is identified through a database search. J Forensic Sci 1996 41 : 603 7.
29. Balding DJ, Donnelly P. Inference in forensic identification. J R Stat Soc Series A 1995 158 : 21 53.
30. Holt CL, Stauffer C, Wallin JM, Lazaruk K, Nguyen T, Budowle B, et al. Practical applications of genotypic surveys for forensic STR testing. Forensic Sci Int 2000 112 : 91 109.
31. Weir BS. Matching and partial-matching DNA profiles. J Forensic Sci 2004 49 : 1009 14.
32. Curran JM, Buckleton JS, Triggs CM, Weir BS. Assessing uncertainty in DNA evidence caused by sampling effects. Sci Justice 2002 42 : 29 37.
33. Triggs CM, Buckleton JS. Logical implications of applying the principles of population genetics to the interpretation of DNA profiling evidence. Forensic Sci Int 2002 128 : 108 14.
34. Triggs CM, Curran JM. The sensitivity of the Bayesian HPD method to the choice of prior. Sci Justice 2006 46 : 169 78.
35. Budowle B, Shea B, Niezgoda S, Chakraborty R. CODIS STR loci data from 41 sample populations. J Forensic Sci 2001 46 : 453 89.
36. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1 generated by Anand Patil; using American Factfinder; http://www.factfinder.census.gov/, accessed March 11, 2007.
37. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3 generated by Anand Patil; using American Factfinder; http://www.factfinder.census.gov/, accessed March 11, 2007.
38. U.S. Census Bureau. We the People: American Indians and Alaska natives in the United States. Washington, DC : Census 2000 Special Reports, 2002.
39. U.S. Census Bureau. The Asian population: 2000. Washington, DC : Census Brief 9, 2002.
40. People v. Rush, 672 N.Y.S.2d 362, 363 (App. Div. 1998).