Highlights
- •A model for reporting forensic genetic results to the court is presented.
- •The model has been designed for common identity and kinship cases.
- •Consensus among a large number of experts has been reached.
- •Extension to more complex kinship situations is exemplified.
Abstract
Communicating and interpreting genetic evidence in the administration of justice is
currently a matter of great concern, due to the theoretical and technical complexity
of the evaluative reporting and large difference in expertise between forensic experts
and law professionals. A large number of initiatives have been taken trying to bridge
this gap, contributing to the education of both parties. Results however have not
been very encouraging, as most of these initiatives try to cope globally with the
problem, addressing simultaneously theoretical and technical approaches which are
in a quite heterogeneous state of development and validation. In consequence, the
extension and complexity of the resulting documents disheartens their study by professionals
(both jurists and geneticists) and makes a consensus very hard to reach even among
the genetic experts’ community. Here we propose a ‘back-to-basics’, example-driven
approach, in which a model report for the two most common situations faced by forensic
laboratories is presented. We do hope that this strategy will provide a solid basis
for a stepwise generalisation.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Forensic Science International: GeneticsAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Fundamentals of probability and statistical evidence in criminal proceedings.Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses, Practitioner Guide No. 1. Working Group on Statistics and the Law of the Royal Statistical Society, 2010
- A cautionary note on the evaluation of genetic evidence from uniparentally transmitted markers.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2008; 2: 376-378
- Opening the DNA black box: demythologizing forensic genetics.New Genet. Soc. 2012; 31: 259-270
- Kinship paper challenge at intercomparison program 2015: analysis of dna polymorphisms In bloodstains and other biological samples.in: Oral Presentation, XX GHEP-ISFG meeting, Krakow2015 (accessed 05.01.16)
- Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion.Sci. Justice. 2009; 49: 161-164
- No fallacies in the formulation of the paternity index.Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1986; 39: 528-536
- The interpretation of lineage markers in forensic DNA testing.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2011; 5: 78-83
- Probability and likelihood.in: Amorim A. Budowle B. Handbook of Forensic Genetics: Biodiversity and Heredity in Civil and Criminal Investigation. World Scientific United States, New Jersey2016
- GHEP-ISFG collaborative exercise on mixture profiles of autosomal STRs (GHEP-MIX01, GHEP-MIX02 and GHEP-MIX03): results and evaluation.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2014; 10: 64-72
- Understanding of forensic expert reports by judges, defense lawyers and forensic professionals.Psychol. Crime Law. 2012; 18: 191-207
- ISFG: recommendations on biostatistics in paternity testing.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2007; 1: 223-231
- Science in court: DNA’s identity crisis.Nature. 2010; 464: 347-348
- Genotyping and interpretation of STR-DNA: Low-template, mixtures and database matches – twenty years of research and development.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2015; 18: 100-117
- The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users: reports of DNA analysis.Forensic Sci. Int. 2014; 237: 7-18
- Case Assessment and Interpretation of Expert Evidence: Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses, Practitioner Guide No. 4.Working Group on Statistics and the Law of the Royal Statistical Society, 2014
- Perception problems of the verbal scale.Sci. Justice. 2014; 54: 154-158
- General derivation of the sets of pedigrees with the same kinship coefficients.Hum. Hered. 2010; 70: 194-204
- X-chromosome markers in kinship testing: a generalisation of the IBD approach identifying situations where their contribution is crucial.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2011; 5: 27-32
- 2006 GEP-ISFG collaborative exercise on mtDNA: reflections about interpretation, artefacts, and DNA mixtures.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2008; 2: 126-133
- GHEP-ISFG proficiency test 2011: paper challenge on evaluation of mitochondrial DNA results.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2013; 7: 10-15
- The impact of the statistical evaluation of the DNA test in judicial sentences in Spain.in: Oral Presentation, Krakow ISFG Meeting 20152015 (accessed 08.01.16)
- Assessing the probative value of DNA evidence.Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses, Practitioner Guide No. 2. Working Group on Statistics and the Law of the Royal Statistical Society, 2012
- Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.3rd edition. National Academic Press, Washington, DC2011
- The logic of forensic proof: inferential reasoning in criminal evidence and forensic science.Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses, Practitioner Guide No. 3. Working Group on Statistics the Law of the Royal Statistical Society, 2014
- Whose DNA is this? How relevant a question? (a note for forensic scientists).Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2013; 7: 467-470
- Using X-chromosomal markers in relationship testing: calculation of likelihood ratios taking both linkage and linkage disequilibrium into account.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2011; 5: 506-511
- Forensic trace DNA: a review.Investig. Genet. 2010; 1: 14
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 07, 2016
Accepted:
September 2,
2016
Received in revised form:
June 30,
2016
Received:
April 21,
2016
Identification
Copyright
© 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
