DNA

Proceedings of a 2024 National Academies of Sciences Workshop can be downloaded from this website.

Report published by NIST in 2024

Legislative review and analysis of statutes associated with the collection, tracking, and testing of DNA samples from convicted offenders.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published a report, DNA Mixture Interpretation: A Scientific Foundation Review, which reviews the methods forensic laboratories use to interpret evidence containing a mixture of DNA from two or more people.

Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Evidence (OSAC) is developing documentary standards for each forensic discipline. Standards under consideration as well as approved standards are available in the OSAC Registry.

The AAFS Standards Board develops documentary standards for forensics through a consensus process, involving participation by all directly and materially affected persons. Standards are being developed for each forensic discipline.

NIST created this document to explain why DNA mixture interpretation can be so complex and to explain how likelihood ratios and probabilistic genotyping software can assist with interpreting complex mixtures.

Standards and best practices for the collection, preservation, and testing of DNA evidence and for its use at trial.

In Nov. 2017, the Royal Society published this primer to assist the UK judiciary when handling DNA and serology evidence in the courtroom. The primer provides a good introduction to forensic DNA analysis, including a description of different types of DNA mixture interpretation software.

This 2017 guide presents information about DNA forensics in a way that is accessible to both a general audience and legal professionals. It focuses on topics such as the context in which DNA evidence is discovered, DNA databases, statistics, and use of DNA to predict appearance or ancestry.

Starting Jan. 1, 2017, forensic labs that participate in the FBI’s National DNA Index System (NDIS) increased the number of genetic markers analyzed from 13 to 20. Analyzing an increased number of genetic markers will make the DNA profiles more compatible with international DNA searches and will decrease the likelihood of a random match of two individuals within the NDIS database.

Chicago Tribune article uses a case example to demonstrate the dangers of using DNA evidence that has very little probative value. New technology is allowing DNA analysis to be performed on very small amounts of DNA which may generate incomplete genetic profiles that may or may not be meaningful in a case.

This manual was written by a group of experienced defense attorneys and DNA experts. Its approach to basic and advanced topics is easy to understand. In addition to explaining the science and techniques of DNA analysis, the manual offers advice on topics such as opening and closing statements, jury selection, and cross examination.

by Linda Geddes, New Scientist, August 11, 2010 – gives an explanation of how subjectivity and bias affect DNA analysis. Discusses issues such as partial profiles, allelic drop-out and drop-in, mixtures, and thresholds for analysis.

by Roland AH van Oorschot etal. Investigative Genetics (2010). In a very accessible way, this article describes issues associated with what is often called “touch DNA.” Topics covered include evidence collection, DNA extraction, amplification, profiling and interpretation of trace DNA samples.

See pp. 128-133 for the National Research Counsel’s description of the forensic use of Deoxyribonucleic acid

by Samuel Lindsey etal. Jurimetrics 43 (2003). This article presents what DNA analyses can and cannot reveal and a way to improve judges’ and jurors’ understanding of evidence involving probabilities and statistics.

DNA evidence is an evolving tool in criminal investigations and prosecutions and it poses new challenges defenders and our clients. How can defenders effectively represent clients when faced with complex and evolving DNA technologies? How can you ensure that the DNA evidence is reliable, valid, and admissible in court? How can you protect your clients’ …

Researchers aiming to understand how long touch DNA remains detectable on different surfaces under various environmental conditions conducted a study funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).  The research highlights the challenges associated with low and variable quantities of touch DNA collected, making it difficult to accurately assess DNA degradation. However, the findings provide …

State v. Andre Dawson (2021) – Connecticut Supreme Court found that the state failed to present sufficient evidence of constructive possession where the defendant could not be excluded from a DNA mixture containing a partial profile found on a firearm.

State v. Phillips, COA19-372 (Dec. 2019) – NC Court of Appeals found that the admission of testimony about an inconclusive DNA mixture was expert testimony, was not based on sufficient facts or data nor is the product of is the product of reliable scientific principles and methods, and that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony which prejudiced the defendant.

Oct. 2019 – United States District Judge found that in a case involving interpretation of a complex DNA mixture where the relevant contributor contributed 7% of the DNA in the mixture, the STRmix software report did not meet the Daubert reliability standard for admissibility as evidence.

In 2010, Michael Ryan was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death for a 2007 homicide. While the case was on direct appeal and as a result of the Motion for Appropriate Relief hearing, an order issued by Judge W. Erwin Spainhour granted Michael Ryan a new trial in 2017. The State appealed …

Attorneys from several counties have received notice through discovery that their cases were potentially affected by a DNA testing issue at National Medical Services (NMS) Labs in Pennsylvania. DA's offices in various jurisdictions have sent samples to NMS Labs for DNA testing in recent years.

NC attorneys may be aware that software programs are being adopted by crime laboratories to assist with interpreting complex DNA mixtures. The NC State Crime Laboratory is working on validating a procedure for the use of STRmix probabilistic genotyping software, which will likely go online in the coming months.

In 2018, the NC General Assembly passed legislation (S.L. 2018-70) requiring the creation of the a statewide tracking system to track the testing of Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kits (SAECKs) from collection to completion of forensic testing. The tracking system is now available for all stakeholders in the criminal justice system.

Superior Court Judge Chris Bragg has overturned Mark Carver’s murder conviction and ordered a new trial. Mr. Carver had been convicted in 2011 of the murder of a UNC Charlotte student. Chris Mumma, executive director of the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence, represents Mr. Carver. She argued and the court ruled that Mr. Carver …

NIJ report on use of direct PCR which may eliminated the loss of DNA that traditionally occurs during DNA extraction and quantitation

Julie Valentine et al. in Journal of Forensic Nursing (2021)

June 2021 article by Marc Canellas. IEEE’s 1012 Standard for independent software and hardware verification and validation (IV&V) is under attack in U.S. federal criminal court. As software spreads through the criminal legal system, scientists, engineers, and IEEE have an essential role in ensuring courts understand and respect IEEE 1012 and IV&V. If not, courts will continue to allow unreliable scientific evidence to deprive people of their life and liberty.

This document responds to the DNA Mixture Interpretation: A NIST Scientific Foundation Review (draft) document from June 2021. STRmix prepared this document as guidance for STRmix users who may encounter the NIST review in the court setting.

By: John S. Buckleton, D.Sc.; Jo-Anne Bright, Ph.D.; Simone Gittelson, Ph.D.; Tamyra R. Moretti, Ph.D.; Anthony J. Onorato, M.C.I.M., M.S.F.S.; Frederick R. Bieber, Ph.D.; Bruce Budowle, Ph.D.; and Duncan A. Taylor, Ph.D.

A report of the Law Commission of Ontario which considers the role and impact of AI-driven probabilistic genotyping technology to generate evidence used in the criminal justice system. The report makes a number of recommendations based on concerns that PG DNA evidence may lead to wrongful convictions if not properly regulated.

Bruce Budowle provides an overview of challenges to STRMix and other PG software for The Prosecutor magazine.

Document outlining NIST's approach to conducted scientific foundation reviews (including data sources used, evaluation criteria, and expected outputs) of DNA mixture interpretation, bitemark analysis, digital evidence, and firearms examination.

Author: Bess Stiffelman Esq.

This 2013 document traces the development of forensic DNA analysis and its use by the NC State Crime Lab. It attempts to identify what technologies were available at what time. Information about the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory is not included.

Free webinar offered by CSFRE

Presented by Dr. Max Noureddine
No cost to attend, 2 hours of CLE credit anticipated, in person only

This program will take place in 3 locations in Western, Central, and Eastern North Carolina. The same information will be presented at each location, so you only need to attend one.

• Feb. 25, 2026 – Johnston County Courthouse, 12:30-2:30 p.m.
• Mar. 31, 2026 – Mecklenburg County Public Defender’s Office, 12:30-2:30 p.m.
• Apr. 24, 2026 – Brunswick County Courthouse, 12:30-2:30 p.m.

About:
This presentation will provide an overview on probabilistic genotyping (PG) software, now being used to interpret complex DNA mixtures at the State Crime Lab and the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department Lab.  Attendees will learn more about the functionality of the PG software (STRmix) and become familiar with report structure and conclusions. 

The objective of the presentation is to gain a better understanding of how the software is implemented and used to interpret complex DNA mixtures.  Attendees will become more informed about what to expect from the lab (reports, underlying result, software output files), the limitations of the software, and venues for challenging PG results in defense of their criminal clients.

Registration:
Attorneys, investigators, paralegals, legal assistants, and other members of criminal or parent defense teams can register for this webinar using this link. The program is free to attend.

Presenter:
Dr. Maher “Max” Noureddine, PhD. is molecular geneticist with extensive background in scientific research in human genetics and expertise in Forensic DNA evidence. He earned his Ph.D. in Molecular Genetics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  He then completed a postdoctoral fellowship at Duke University Medical Center (The Center for Human Genetics), where he published many articles on the genetics of Parkinson Disease and other human genetic disorders.  His expertise includes specialized training in complex genomics, DNA fingerprinting, mitochondrial genome analysis, Single Nucleotide Polymorphism studies, and state of the art methodologies in gene structure and function studies.

Since 2011, Dr. Noureddine has been providing expert witness services in forensic DNA and serology evidence throughout the United States.  He has served as an expert in over 1,200 criminal and civil cases and testified in both State and Federal courts.  He is a diplomat of the American Board of Criminalistics, and a member of the International Society of Forensic Genetics, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, the American Society of Human Genetics, and the International Association for Identification.  He is an adjunct teaching faculty in the Department of Forensic Science at Radford University, VA.

Free to attend live multi-day webinar offered by NIST

Recordings of the two-day program are available

Free-to-attend webinar presented by Dr. Max Noureddine and Attorney Elizabeth Vasquez, Sponsored by IDS

11-minute demonstration of how the STRmix software suite works. This video will provide attorneys with an introduction to the user interface and reports produced by STRmix software.

55-minute introduction to probabilistic genotyping by Dr. Dan E. Krane of Wright State University.

3-minute video explains the basics of DNA’s form and function. Though the focus of this animated film is not forensic DNA, it gives important introductory information that is useful as a building block for understanding forensic DNA analysis.

Lessons on interpretation of DNA Mixtures online. Includes many helpful examples of the complex phenomena discussed in the lessons.

Feb. 2015 Ted Talk video by Dr. Greg Hampikian covers forensic DNA errors including statistical and interpretation errors and contamination issues.

NIST scientist Becky Steffen answers questions regarding her preparation of a “Human DNA Standard” which helps forensic laboratories maintain accurate DNA test results.

Sample direct and cross-examinations of various forensic witnesses, including a firearm/toolmark expert, fingerprint expert, pathologist, DNA expert, and other forensic experts.

Free or low-cost software tools that may be of assistance in understanding forensic evidence disciplines of digital forensics, arson investigation, DNA, death investigation, and more.

The National Forensic Science Technology Center created this website to explain in simplified terms the principles of each type of forensic analysis and how the analysis is performed. Topics include DNA, digital evidence, fingerprints, firearms, trace evidence, blood stains, and more.

Forensic DNA analysis resources compiled by John Butler. Includes training materials, technical information, and a collection of data by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

A group of approximately 50 scientists representing federal, state, and local forensic DNA laboratories in the United States and Canada. SWGDAM periodically issues new Interpretation Guidelines that crime labs then implement. The 2017 guidelines that supersede the 2010 guidelines are available on the SWGDAM website. FAQ page contains helpful information.

• 2013 SWGDAM Interpretation Guidelines for Mitochondrial DNA Analysis by Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories
• 2015 SWGDAM Guidelines for Validation of Probabilistic Genotyping Systems
• 2025 SWGDAM Guidelines for the Use of Probabilistic Genotyping with Autosomal STR Typing Results

Minnesota trial court order from 2025 excluding testimony regarding interpretation of a complex DNA mixture for a claimed 5-person indistinguishable mixture on the ground that the lab’s interpretation of the profile exceeded the bounds of their validations. Another sample that was a 2-person mixture containing 180 pg of DNA was also excluded on the ground that the probative value substantially outweighed the potential for prejudice.

Defendant successfully appealed a murder conviction on a motion for appropriate relief by showing, with expert testimony, that SBI policies for interpreting mixture DNA evidence at the time were outdated and inaccurate based on current accepted practices. A new trial was awarded.

New trial ordered where State Crime Lab forensic scientist was required to testify about DNA sample despite her insistence that the testimony was not scientifically valid. Court of Appeals found that the testimony was expert opinion testimony and did not satisfy prongs 1 or 2 of Rule 702 where the expert was asked to testify regarding an inconclusive profile in a DNA mixture.

Successful Daubert challenge to the admissibility of STRMix genotyping software due to the complexity of the DNA mixture in the case at hand. Defendant’s Daubert motion and the ruling are linked in this article.

UNC School of Government blog post by Jeff Welty on the Supreme Court case Maryland v. King which allows the taking of DNA from arrestees.

Three reports were written about the same SBI DNA testing in this case: the first report in 5/09 said defendant excluded as source of DNA; the second report in 6/09 changed the conclusion and said the results were “inconclusive” (the internal SBI lab “reviewer” made the analyst change the report); and the third report in 8/11 said defendant was excluded. For more information about this case, click here.

• Motion for Sanctions for Brady Violations
• Lab Reports
• Transcript of Analyst Winningham’s testimony

Motion to exclude the SBI’s analysis of DNA evidence where analysis entirely consumed the sample and was performed in violation of a court order. Drafted by Lisa Dubs and Mark Rabil.

• Orders – Orders from the case above, including Order to Preserve Evidence and Notes, order to not test evidence without written consent of the state and the defense or upon a court order, order excluding evidence of SBI testing, and dismissal of charges.

Sample discovery motion regarding DNA evidence.

This checklist can help attorneys identify what DNA lab reports have been received in discovery and what additional items may need to be requested.