Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation

Science and Justice

Volumn 51, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 204-208

  Dror, Itiel E ^a,b   Hampikian, Greg ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b Cognitive Consultants International ^*  (United Kingdom)

^c BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Contextual influences; DNA interpretation; Forensic decision making; Human cognition

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CRIME; DECISION MAKING; DNA DETERMINATION; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; HUMAN; LABORATORY TEST; MEDICAL EXPERT; OFFENDER;

ADULT; DECISION MAKING; DNA FINGERPRINTING; FEMALE; FORENSIC GENETICS; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE;

EID: 82655181844     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: 18764452     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Nickerson R.S. Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 1998, 2(2):175-220.
2. Risinger D.M., Saks M.J., Thompson W.C., Rosenthal R. The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Review 2002, 90(1):1-56.
3. Dror I.E., Péron A., Hind S., Charlton D. When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2005, 19(6):799-809.
4. NAS Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward 2009, National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C.
5. Dror I.E., Charlton D. Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification 2006, 56(4):600-616.
6. Dror I.E., Charlton D., Péron A.E. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to make erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International 2006, 156(1):74-78.
7. Dror I.E., Rosenthal R. Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of fingerprint experts' decision making. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2008, 53(4):900-903.
8. Dror I.E., Cole S. The vision in 'blind' justice: expert perception, judgment and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2010, 17(2):161-167.
9. Lynch M. God's signature: DNA profiling, the new gold standard in forensic science. Endeavour 2003, 27(2):93-97.
10. Thompson W.C. Subjective interpretation, laboratory error and the value of DNA evidence: three case studies. Genetica 1995, 96:153-168.
11. Thompson W.C. Painting the target around the matching profile: the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in forensic DNA interpretation. Law, Probability and Risk 2009, 8(3):257-276.
12. Dolan M., Felch J. The peril of DNA: it's not perfect: DNA: genes as evidence. LA Times, December 2008, 26:2008.
13. Budowle B., Onorato A.J., Callaghan T.F., Manna A.D., Gross A.M., Guerrieri R.A., Luttman J.C., McClure D.L. Mixture interpretation: defining the relevant features for guidelines for the assessment of mixed dNA profiles in forensic casework. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2009, 54(4):810-821.
14. Schneider P.M., Fimmers R., Keil W., Molsberger G., Patzelt D., Pflug W., Rothamel T., Schmitter H., Schneider H., Brinkmann B. The German Stain Commission: recommendations for the interpretation of mixed stains. International Journal of Legal Medicine 2009, 123(1):1-5.
15. Buckleton J.S., Curran J.M. A discussion of the merits of random man not excluded and likelihood ratios. Forensic Science International: Genetics 2008, 2:343-348.
16. Gill P., Brenner C.H., Buckleton J.S., Carracedo A., Krawczak M., Mayr W.R., Morling N., Prinz M., Schneider P.M., Weir B.S. DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures. Forensic Science International 2006, 160:90-101.
17. Evett I.W., Gill P., Lambert J.A. Taking account of peak areas when interpreting mixed DNA profiles. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1998, 43(1):62-69.
18. Clayton T.M., Whitaker J.P., Sparkes R., Gill P. Analysis and interpretation of mixed forensic stains using DNA STR profiling. Forensic Science International 1998, 91(1):55-70.
19. Gill P., Sparkes R., Pinchin R., Clayton T., Whitaker J., Buckleton J. Interpreting simple STR mixtures using allele peak areas. Forensic Science International 1998, 91:41-53.
20. Weir B.S., Triggs C.M., Starling L., Stowell K.A.J., Buckleton J. Interpreting DNA mixtures. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1997, 42:213-222.
21. Evett I.W., Buffery C., Willot G., Stoney D.A. A guide to interpreting single locus profiles of DNA mixtures in forensic cases. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1991, 31:41-47.
22. Cowell R.G., Lauritzen S.L., Mortera J. Probabilistic expert systems for handling artifacts in complex DNA mixtures. Forensic Science International: Genetics 2011, 5(3):202-209.
23. Perlin, M.W, Legler, M.M., Spencer, C.E., Smith, J.L. Allan, W.P., Belrose, J.L., & Duceman, B. W. (in press). Validating TrueAllele® DNA mixture interpretation. Journal of Forensic Sciences. (Also presented at the 2010 American Academy for Forensic Science 62nd Annual Scientific Meeting "Casework validation of Genetic Calculator mixture interpretation").
24. Krane D.E., Ford S., Gilder J., Inman K., Jamieson A., Koppl R., Kornfield I., Risinger D.M., Rudin N., Taylor M.S., Thompson W.C. Sequential unmasking: a means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2008, 53(4):1006-1007.
25. Saks M.J., Koehler J.J. Identification science the coming paradigm shift in forensic. Science 2005, 309:892-895.
26. Butler J.M. Forensic DNA Typing 2005, 2005 Elsevier Academic Press. 2nd Edition.
27. Gilbert N. DNA's identity crisis. Nature 2010, 464:347-348.
28. SWGDAM 4.1 Interpretation guidelines for autosomal STR typing by forensic DNA testing laboratories (available at. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/codis/swgdam-interpretation-guidelines.
29. Butler J. American Academy of Forensic Sciences annual meeting (available at. http://www.cstl.nist.gov/strbase/pub_pres/AAFS2006_mixtures.pdf.
30. I. E. Dror, Cognitive bias in forensic science, in McGraw-Hill 2012 Yearbook of Science & Technology, McGraw-Hill publishing, in press.