Forensic DNA testing has rapidly become an invaluable tool for identifying suspects and proving guilt in criminal cases. But as DNA technologies evolve and databases grow, a broad range of issues concerning the science, statistics, and social policy of forensic DNA testing have surfaced. This article reviews some of the emerging challenges in the field.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Aronson JD. 2007. Genetic Witness: Science, Law and Controversy in the Making of DNA Profiling Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  2. Augenstein S. 2017. Parabon's DNA phenotyping had crucial role in North Carolina double-murder arrest, conviction. Forensic MagJan. 5 https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/01/parabons-dna-phenotyping-had-crucial-role-north-carolina-double-murder-arrest-conviction
  3. Banks G. 2016. Texas leading massive review of criminal cases based on change in DNA calculations. Houston Chron Jan. 30, http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Texas-leading-massive-review-of-criminal-cases-6796205.php
  4. Bieber FR, Buckleton JS, Budowle B, Butler JM, Coble MD. 2016. Evaluation of forensic DNA mixture evidence: protocol for evaluation, interpretation, and statistical calculations using the combined probability of inclusion. BMC Genet 17:1125 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boeri D. 2017. Standard DNA testing can't differentiate between identical twins. A new test challenges that. WBURMar. 7 http://www.wbur.org/news/2017/03/07/twin-dna-crime-tech
  6. Butler JM. 2010. Fundamentals of Forensic DNA Typing San Diego, CA: Academic
  7. Butler JM. 2012. Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Methodology San Diego, CA: Academic
  8. Butler JM. 2015. Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Interpretation San Diego, CA: Academic
  9. Curran J, Buckleton J. 2010. Inclusion probabilities and dropout. J. Forensic Sci. 55:1171–73 [Google Scholar]
  10. DiMaio VJM. 2015. Letter to the Members of the Texas Criminal Justice Community, Aug. 21, Texas Forensic Science Commission, Austin, TX. http://www.fsc.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Unintended%20Effects%20of%20FBI%20Database%20Corrections%20on%20Assessment%20of%20DNA%20Mixture%20Interpretation%20in%20Texas%20NOTICE.pdf
  11. Doleac J. 2017. The effects of DNA databases on crime. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 9:1165–201 [Google Scholar]
  12. Doleac J. 2016. How do state crime policies affect other states? The externalities of state DNA database laws. Work. Pap., Batten Sch. Public Policy, Univ. Va http://jenniferdoleac.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Doleac_DNA_externalities.pdf
  13. Dror IE, Hampikian G. 2011. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci. Justice 51:4204–8 [Google Scholar]
  14. ENFSI DNA Work. Group. 2016. DNA Database Management: Review and Recommendations Wiesbaden, Germ.: Eur. Netw. Forensic Sci. Inst http://enfsi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/final_version_enfsi_2016_document_on_dna-database_management_0.pdf
  15. Faigman DL, Cheng EK, Mnookin J, Murphy EE, Sanders J, Slobogin C. 2016–17. Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony Eagan, MN: Thomson Reuters
  16. Fed. Bur. Investig. 2017a. CODIS–NDIS Statistics (FBI-NDIS Statistics) Washington, DC: FBI [Google Scholar]
  17. Fed. Bur. Investig. 2017b. Frequently Asked Questions on CODIS and NDIS (FBI-CODIS FAQ) Washington, DC: FBI https://www.fbi.gov/services/laboratory/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet [Google Scholar]
  18. Fed. Bur. Investig. 2017c. Frequently Asked Questions on Rapid DNA Analysis (FBI-RDIS FAQ) Washington, DC: FBI [Google Scholar]
  19. Garrett B. 2011. Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  20. Gill P, Brenner CH, Buckleton JS, Carracedo A, Krawczak M. et al. 2006. DNA Commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures. Forensic Sci. Int. 160:90–101 [Google Scholar]
  21. Goulka J, Matthies C, Disley E, Steinberg P. 2010. Toward a Comparison of DNA Profiling and Databases in the United States and England Santa Monica, CA: RAND
  22. Hindmarsh R, Prainsak B. 2010. Genetic Suspects: Global Governance of Forensic DNA Profiling and Databasing Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  23. Joh EE. 2006. Reclaiming “abandoned” DNA: the Fourth Amendment and genetic privacy. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 100:857–84 [Google Scholar]
  24. Joh EE. 2011. Theft: recognizing the crime of nonconsensual genetic collection and testing. Boston Univ. Law Rev. 91:665–700 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kassin SM, Dror IE, Kukucka J. 2013. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2:142–52 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kaye D. 2010. The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  27. Kofman A. 2016. The troubling rise of rapid DNA testing. New Republic Feb. 24, https://newrepublic.com/article/130443/troubling-rise-rapid-dna-testing
  28. Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301 (2012)
  29. Mnookin JL, Cole SA, Dror IE, Fisher BAJ, Houck MM. et al. 2011. The need for a research culture in the forensic sciences. UCLA Law Rev 58:725–79 [Google Scholar]
  30. Murphy EE. 2015. Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA New York, NY: Nation Books
  31. Murphy EE. 2013. License, registration, cheek swab: DNA testing and the divided court. Harvard Law Rev 127:161–96 [Google Scholar]
  32. Natl. Res. Counc. (NRC). 2009. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  33. People v. Murray, 54 Misc.3d 825 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. 2016)
  34. People v. Oral Nicholas Hillary, Decision & Order, Ind. #2015–15 St. Lawrence Cty New York:Aug. 26 2016.
  35. Pres. Counc. Advis. Sci. Technol. (PCAST). 2016. Forensic Science in the Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods Washington, DC: Executive Off. Pres.
  36. Raynor v. State, 99 A.3d 753 (Md. 2014)
  37. Roth A. 2016. Trial by machine. Georget. Law J. 104:1245–1305 [Google Scholar]
  38. Santos F, Machado H, Silva S. 2013. Forensic DNA databases in European countries: Is size linked to performance. ? Life Sci. Soc. Policy 9:112 [Google Scholar]
  39. Scherr AE. 2013. Genetic privacy and the Fourth Amendment: unregulated surreptitious DNA harvesting. Georgia Law Rev 47:445–526 [Google Scholar]
  40. Sims G. 2008. DNA partial match (crime scene DNA profile to offender) policy 2008-BJS-01 Calif. Dep. Justice, Bur. Forensic Serv. [Google Scholar]
  41. Tex. Forensic Sci. Comm. 2016. Clarification regarding the term “current and proper mixture interpretation protocols.”. Austin, TX: Tex. Forensic Sci. Comm http://www.fsc.texas.gov/sites/default/files/Clarification%20on%20current%20and%20proper%20mixture%20interpetation%20protocols.pdf
  42. Toom V. 2012. Forensic DNA databases in England and the Netherlands: governance, structure and performance compared. New Genet. Soc. 31:311–22 [Google Scholar]
  43. Varriale v. State, 119 A.3d 824 (Md. 2015)
  44. Watters KB, Coyle HM. 2016. Forensic statistical tool (FST): a probabilistic genotyping software for human identification. Jurimetr. J. 56:183–95 [Google Scholar]
  45. Yang Y, Xie B, Yan J. 2014. Application of next-generation sequencing technology in forensic science. Genom. Proteom. Bioinform. 12:5190–97 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error