Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

1932
Annual Reviews logo
Skip to content
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Criminology
  4. Volume 1, 2018
  5. Article

Review Article

Free

Forensic DNA Typing

Abstract

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.

    Loading

    Article metrics loading...

    /content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092127
    2018-01-13
    2025-03-30
    Download as PowerPoint
    Loading full text...

    Full text loading...

    /deliver/fulltext/criminol/1/1/annurev-criminol-032317-092127.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092127&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

    Literature Cited

    1. AronsonJD.2007.Genetic Witness: Science,Law and Controversy in the Making of DNA Profiling Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press[Google Scholar]
    2. AugensteinS.2017. Parabon's DNA phenotyping had crucial role in North Carolina double-murder arrest, conviction.Forensic MagJan. 5https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/01/parabons-dna-phenotyping-had-crucial-role-north-carolina-double-murder-arrest-conviction[Google Scholar]
    3. BanksG.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[Google Scholar]
    4. BieberFR,BuckletonJS,BudowleB,ButlerJM,CobleMD.2016. Evaluation of forensic DNA mixture evidence: protocol for evaluation, interpretation, and statistical calculations using the combined probability of inclusion.BMC Genet17:1125[Google Scholar]
    5. BoeriD.2017. Standard DNA testing can't differentiate between identical twins. A new test challenges that.WBURMar. 7http://www.wbur.org/news/2017/03/07/twin-dna-crime-tech[Google Scholar]
    6. ButlerJM.2010.Fundamentals of Forensic DNA Typing San Diego, CA: Academic[Google Scholar]
    7. ButlerJM.2012.Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Methodology San Diego, CA: Academic[Google Scholar]
    8. ButlerJM.2015.Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Interpretation San Diego, CA: Academic[Google Scholar]
    9. CurranJ,BuckletonJ.2010. Inclusion probabilities and dropout.J. Forensic Sci.55:1171–73[Google Scholar]
    10. DiMaioVJM.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. DoleacJ.2017. The effects of DNA databases on crime.Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ.9:1165–201[Google Scholar]
    12. DoleacJ.2016. How do state crime policies affect other states? The externalities of state DNA database laws. Work. Pap., Batten Sch. Public Policy, Univ. Vahttp://jenniferdoleac.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Doleac_DNA_externalities.pdf
    13. DrorIE,HampikianG.2011. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation.Sci. Justice51:4204–8[Google Scholar]
    14. ENFSI DNA Work. Group.2016.DNA Database Management: Review and Recommendations Wiesbaden, Germ.: Eur. Netw. Forensic Sci. Insthttp://enfsi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/final_version_enfsi_2016_document_on_dna-database_management_0.pdf[Google Scholar]
    15. FaigmanDL,ChengEK,MnookinJ,MurphyEE,SandersJ,SloboginC.2016–17.Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony Eagan, MN: Thomson Reuters[Google Scholar]
    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: FBIhttps://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. GarrettB.2011.Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press[Google Scholar]
    20. GillP,BrennerCH,BuckletonJS,CarracedoA,KrawczakM. 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. GoulkaJ,MatthiesC,DisleyE,SteinbergP.2010.Toward a Comparison of DNA Profiling and Databases in the United States and England Santa Monica, CA: RAND[Google Scholar]
    22. HindmarshR,PrainsakB.2010.Genetic Suspects: Global Governance of Forensic DNA Profiling and Databasing Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press[Google Scholar]
    23. JohEE.2006. Reclaiming “abandoned” DNA: the Fourth Amendment and genetic privacy.Northwest. Univ. Law Rev.100:857–84[Google Scholar]
    24. JohEE.2011. Theft: recognizing the crime of nonconsensual genetic collection and testing.Boston Univ. Law Rev.91:665–700[Google Scholar]
    25. KassinSM,DrorIE,KukuckaJ.2013. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions.J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn.2:142–52[Google Scholar]
    26. KayeD.2010.The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press[Google Scholar]
    27. KofmanA.2016. The troubling rise of rapid DNA testing.New Republic Feb. 24,https://newrepublic.com/article/130443/troubling-rise-rapid-dna-testing[Google Scholar]
    28. Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301 (2012)
    29. MnookinJL,ColeSA,DrorIE,FisherBAJ,HouckMM. et al.2011. The need for a research culture in the forensic sciences.UCLA Law Rev58:725–79[Google Scholar]
    30. MurphyEE.2015.Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA New York, NY: Nation Books[Google Scholar]
    31. MurphyEE.2013. License, registration, cheek swab: DNA testing and the divided court.Harvard Law Rev127:161–96[Google Scholar]
    32. Natl. Res. Counc. (NRC).2009.Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press[Google Scholar]
    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. 262016.
    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.[Google Scholar]
    36. Raynor v. State, 99 A.3d 753 (Md. 2014)
    37. RothA.2016. Trial by machine.Georget. Law J.104:1245–1305[Google Scholar]
    38. SantosF,MachadoH,SilvaS.2013. Forensic DNA databases in European countries: Is size linked to performance.?Life Sci. Soc. Policy9:112[Google Scholar]
    39. ScherrAE.2013. Genetic privacy and the Fourth Amendment: unregulated surreptitious DNA harvesting.Georgia Law Rev47:445–526[Google Scholar]
    40. SimsG.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. Commhttp://www.fsc.texas.gov/sites/default/files/Clarification%20on%20current%20and%20proper%20mixture%20interpetation%20protocols.pdf
    42. ToomV.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. WattersKB,CoyleHM.2016. Forensic statistical tool (FST): a probabilistic genotyping software for human identification.Jurimetr. J.56:183–95[Google Scholar]
    45. YangY,XieB,YanJ.2014. Application of next-generation sequencing technology in forensic science.Genom. Proteom. Bioinform.12:5190–97[Google Scholar]
    /content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092127
    Loading
    • Article Type:Review Article

    Most Read This Month

    Article
    content/journals/criminol
    Journal
    5
    3
    false
    en
    Loading

    Related Articles from Annual Reviews

    /content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092127
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    4
    4

    Literature Cited

    1. AronsonJD.2007.Genetic Witness: Science,Law and Controversy in the Making of DNA Profiling Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press[Google Scholar]
    2. AugensteinS.2017. Parabon's DNA phenotyping had crucial role in North Carolina double-murder arrest, conviction.Forensic MagJan. 5https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/01/parabons-dna-phenotyping-had-crucial-role-north-carolina-double-murder-arrest-conviction[Google Scholar]
    3. BanksG.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[Google Scholar]
    4. BieberFR,BuckletonJS,BudowleB,ButlerJM,CobleMD.2016. Evaluation of forensic DNA mixture evidence: protocol for evaluation, interpretation, and statistical calculations using the combined probability of inclusion.BMC Genet17:1125[Google Scholar]
    5. BoeriD.2017. Standard DNA testing can't differentiate between identical twins. A new test challenges that.WBURMar. 7http://www.wbur.org/news/2017/03/07/twin-dna-crime-tech[Google Scholar]
    6. ButlerJM.2010.Fundamentals of Forensic DNA Typing San Diego, CA: Academic[Google Scholar]
    7. ButlerJM.2012.Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Methodology San Diego, CA: Academic[Google Scholar]
    8. ButlerJM.2015.Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Interpretation San Diego, CA: Academic[Google Scholar]
    9. CurranJ,BuckletonJ.2010. Inclusion probabilities and dropout.J. Forensic Sci.55:1171–73[Google Scholar]
    10. DiMaioVJM.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. DoleacJ.2017. The effects of DNA databases on crime.Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ.9:1165–201[Google Scholar]
    12. DoleacJ.2016. How do state crime policies affect other states? The externalities of state DNA database laws. Work. Pap., Batten Sch. Public Policy, Univ. Vahttp://jenniferdoleac.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Doleac_DNA_externalities.pdf
    13. DrorIE,HampikianG.2011. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation.Sci. Justice51:4204–8[Google Scholar]
    14. ENFSI DNA Work. Group.2016.DNA Database Management: Review and Recommendations Wiesbaden, Germ.: Eur. Netw. Forensic Sci. Insthttp://enfsi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/final_version_enfsi_2016_document_on_dna-database_management_0.pdf[Google Scholar]
    15. FaigmanDL,ChengEK,MnookinJ,MurphyEE,SandersJ,SloboginC.2016–17.Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony Eagan, MN: Thomson Reuters[Google Scholar]
    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: FBIhttps://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. GarrettB.2011.Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press[Google Scholar]
    20. GillP,BrennerCH,BuckletonJS,CarracedoA,KrawczakM. 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. GoulkaJ,MatthiesC,DisleyE,SteinbergP.2010.Toward a Comparison of DNA Profiling and Databases in the United States and England Santa Monica, CA: RAND[Google Scholar]
    22. HindmarshR,PrainsakB.2010.Genetic Suspects: Global Governance of Forensic DNA Profiling and Databasing Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press[Google Scholar]
    23. JohEE.2006. Reclaiming “abandoned” DNA: the Fourth Amendment and genetic privacy.Northwest. Univ. Law Rev.100:857–84[Google Scholar]
    24. JohEE.2011. Theft: recognizing the crime of nonconsensual genetic collection and testing.Boston Univ. Law Rev.91:665–700[Google Scholar]
    25. KassinSM,DrorIE,KukuckaJ.2013. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions.J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn.2:142–52[Google Scholar]
    26. KayeD.2010.The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press[Google Scholar]
    27. KofmanA.2016. The troubling rise of rapid DNA testing.New Republic Feb. 24,https://newrepublic.com/article/130443/troubling-rise-rapid-dna-testing[Google Scholar]
    28. Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301 (2012)
    29. MnookinJL,ColeSA,DrorIE,FisherBAJ,HouckMM. et al.2011. The need for a research culture in the forensic sciences.UCLA Law Rev58:725–79[Google Scholar]
    30. MurphyEE.2015.Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA New York, NY: Nation Books[Google Scholar]
    31. MurphyEE.2013. License, registration, cheek swab: DNA testing and the divided court.Harvard Law Rev127:161–96[Google Scholar]
    32. Natl. Res. Counc. (NRC).2009.Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press[Google Scholar]
    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. 262016.
    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.[Google Scholar]
    36. Raynor v. State, 99 A.3d 753 (Md. 2014)
    37. RothA.2016. Trial by machine.Georget. Law J.104:1245–1305[Google Scholar]
    38. SantosF,MachadoH,SilvaS.2013. Forensic DNA databases in European countries: Is size linked to performance.?Life Sci. Soc. Policy9:112[Google Scholar]
    39. ScherrAE.2013. Genetic privacy and the Fourth Amendment: unregulated surreptitious DNA harvesting.Georgia Law Rev47:445–526[Google Scholar]
    40. SimsG.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. Commhttp://www.fsc.texas.gov/sites/default/files/Clarification%20on%20current%20and%20proper%20mixture%20interpetation%20protocols.pdf
    42. ToomV.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. WattersKB,CoyleHM.2016. Forensic statistical tool (FST): a probabilistic genotyping software for human identification.Jurimetr. J.56:183–95[Google Scholar]
    45. YangY,XieB,YanJ.2014. Application of next-generation sequencing technology in forensic science.Genom. Proteom. Bioinform.12:5190–97[Google Scholar]

    Read the latest from
    Knowable Magazine

    knowable magazine from Annual Reviews

    Climate Resource Center, Article Collection from Annual Reviews


    Political Science Perspectives on Climate Change, Article Collection from Annual Reviews


    Journal News

    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
    Annual Reviews:
    http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092127
    10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092127
    SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM
    [8]ページ先頭
    ©2009-2025 Movatter.jp