To what extent can DNA provide robust evidence?
Keywords:
DNA; forensic science; evidence; individualization; forensic identificationAbstract
The author introduces the concept of DNA analysis for criminal casework starting with the definition of Forensic Science as an applied science which collects and analyses material traces found on crime scenes with the aim to determine the relationship between the trace and the crime incident, as well as to interpret and present the evidence in court. The paper explains how the field of science merges with the fields of law, policing and the wider political, social and economic context in which they all operate. Forensic DNA analysis and its roots in classical genetics, biochemistry and molecular biology are addressed, including key current challenges concerning forensic DNA analysis for crime purposes, which aim to explain laboratory results in court to people who have very limited knowledge of forensics and its methods and techniques. The use of DNA analysis for criminal casework after its introduction in the late 1980s is explained, including analyses of the history and current scientific and legal issues concerning DNA analyses. The difficulties that expert witnesses encounter in courts due to different principles that exists in law and science in general are also highlighted. The paper also addresses ethical issues regarding DNA evidence and DNA databases and finishes with a couple of recommendations that could facilitate more robust application of DNA analyses. The author advocates for the introduction of clear procedural and technical standards regarding admissibility of DNA evidence that must be legally set in order to produce robust court evidence, including efforts at the international level aimed at regulating the use of DNA analysis for forensic purposes among different countries.
Downloads
References
Balding, D. 2005. Weight of Evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles. Chichester, West Sussex. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470867693.
Brenner, J. C. 2000. Forensic Science Glossary. Boca Raton.
Budowle, B., Onorato, A. J., Callaghan, T. F., Della Manna, A., Gross, A. M., Guerrieri, R. A., Luttma, J. C., and McClure, D. L. 2009. “Mixture Interpretation: Defining the Relevant Features for Guidelines for the Assessment of Mixed DNA Profiles in Forensic Casework.” Journal of Forensic Sciences 54(4): 810–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01046.x.
Butler, J. M. 2005. Forensic DNA Typing: Biology, Technology and Genetics of STR Markers. Second Edition. Elsevier, USA.
Carracedo, A., Rodriguez-Calvo, M. S., Pestoni, C., Lareu, M. V., Bellas, S., Salas, A., and Barros, F. 1997. “Forensic DNA Analysis in Europe: Current Situation and Standardization Efforts.” Forensic Science International 86: 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0379-0738(97)02115-4.
Cole, S. 1998. “Witnessing Identification: Latent Fingerprint Evidence and Expert Knowledge.” Social Studies of Science 28: 678–712. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631298028005002.
Cole, S. A. 2009. “Forensics without Uniqueness, Conclusions without Individualization: The New Epistemology of Forensic Identification.” Law, Probability and Risk 8(3): 233–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgp016.
Gill, P., Jeffreys, A. J., and Werrett, D. J. 1985. “Forensic Application of DNA ‘Fingerprints.’” Nature 318: 577. https://doi.org/10.1038/318577a0.
Gill, P., Sparkes, R., and Tully, G. 2001. “DNA Profiling in Forensic Science.” Wiley Online Library. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/npg.els.0001001/full (accessed April 10, 2013).
Hammond, H., Jin, L., Zhong, Y., Caskey, C. T., and Chakraborty, R. 1994. “Evaluation of 13 Short Tandem Repeat Loci for Use in Personal Identification Applications.” American Journal of Human Genetics 55: 175–89.
Inman, K., and Rudin, V. 1997. An Introduction to Forensic DNA Analysis. Kentucky.
Jasanoff, S. 2006. “Just Evidence: The Limits of Science in the Legal Process.” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34: 328–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00038.x.
Kaye, D. H. 2009. “Probability, Individualization, and Uniqueness in Forensic Science Evidence: Listening to the Academics.” Brooklyn Law Review 75(4): 1163–85.
Kirk, P. L. 1974. Crime Investigation. Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Koehler, J., and Saks, M. J. 2010. “Individualization Claims in Forensic Science: Still Unwarranted.” Northwestern University School of Law: Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series 11–18: 10.
Lee, H. C. 1993. “Forensic Science and the Law.” Connecticut Law Review 25(4): 1117–26.
Lynch, M., and Jasanoff, S. 1998. “Contested Identities: Science, Law, and Forensic Practice.” Social Studies of Science 28(5–6): 683. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631298028005001.
Roth, A. L. 2010. “Safety in Numbers? Deciding When DNA Alone Is Enough to Convict.” Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository. http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2629&context=facpubs (accessed April 5, 2013).
Saks, M., and Koehler, J. J. 2007. “The Individualization Fallacy in Forensic Science Evidence.” http://works.bepress.com/michael_saks/1 (accessed April 10, 2013).
Thornton, J. I., and Peterson, J. L. 1997. “The General Assumptions and Rationale of Forensic Identification.” In Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, 4.
Wilson, M. R., DiZinno, J. A., Polanskey, D., Replogle, J., and Budowle, B. 1995. “Validation of Mitochondrial DNA Sequencing for Forensic Casework Analysis.” International Journal of Legal Medicine 108(2): 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01369907.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2014 Jovana Sretenov
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, allowing others to share the work with proper attribution to the authors and acknowledgment of its original publication in this journal.
