DNA

Convicted offender DNA sample collection laws vary in each state in terms of what type of offense obligates an offender to provide a sample, whether a conviction should be the trigger for sample collection, and which agency is responsible for collecting the sample. Because of this interstate variability, the effectiveness of DNA sample collection laws may vary, and in some cases this can result in missed opportunities to identify and collect lawfully owed DNA samples. In those situations, modifying current legislative language could provide the needed clarification to improve policies and practices associated with collecting DNA samples from convicted offenders.

To provide examples of legislation that may offer an improved approach to addressing lawfully owed DNA samples, the FTCoE, in partnership with AEquitas, conducted a legislative review and analysis of statutes associated with the collection, tracking, and testing of DNA samples from convicted offenders. This report does not aim to recommend a specific legislative preference regarding DNA collection laws but rather to identify areas where questions and conflicts may arise and subsequently highlight jurisdictions that have drafted statutes that address and minimize those issues.

NC State Crime Lab

By: John M. Butler, Hari Iyer, Rich Press, Melissa K. Taylor, Peter M. Vallone, & Sheila Willis

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published a draft 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. The standards that have been published are available on the ASB website.

Author: Bess Stiffelman Esq.

The NC State Crime Laboratory has posted its DNA Section Audit Reports (1999-2018). If you would like a summary of these audits, with issues that may be relevant to casework highlighted, email Sarah Rackley Olson.

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.

by William C. Thompson, Laurence D. Mueller, and Dan E. Krane. The Champion, Dec. 2012. A must-read article for attorneys dealing with cases with DNA evidence. The authors show how subjectivity and bias may play a role in DNA analysis, particularly in cases involving very small amounts of DNA, partial profiles, or mixtures.

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 William C. Thompson, for the Council for Responsible Genetics (2008) – discusses how false incriminations can occur in forensic DNA testing, including coincidental DNA profile matches, accidental transfer of DNA, errors in labeling of samples, and misinterpretation of test results.

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.

Article by Peter Gill, Croatian Medical Journal (2001). Describes considerations that must be taken into account with Low Copy number (LCN) DNA, including allele dropout and the possibility of contamination. Low Copy number DNA analysis allows a DNA profile to be obtained from just a few cells.

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 …

NIST has created a primer on interpretation of DNA mixtures that explains what are DNA mixtures and why are they sometimes so difficult to interpret.

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.

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.

Prepared by the Wisconsin Public Defender’s Office

Information prepared by the Wisconsin Public Defender’s Office

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.

Sponsored by IDS, Duke Law CCJPR, and Wilson Center. In person only. $25 to attend.

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

Free to attend 3-day webinar offered by the Legal Aid Society of NY

Free multi-day webinar offered by the NY Legal Aid Society

A series of eight online modules aimed at increasing knowledge, understanding, and the reliable application of probabilistic genotyping to evidentiary DNA typing results.

Webinar reviewing existing scientific literature, describing lessons learned and best practices for conducting experiments with touch DNA, and describing the initial results of a study designed to evaluate the stability of touch DNA under different environmental conditions.

Webinar providing information on new/emerging standards and best practice recommendations applicable to forensic biology and DNA testing laboratories. This fourth webinar will describe the ANSI/ASB Standard 018, Validation Standard for Probabilistic Genotyping Systems, First Edition.

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.

Webinar focusing on: basics of DNA analysis, compare/contrast types of services available at public vs. private lab, what is probabilistic genotyping, questions attorneys should ask the experts, related case law, and preparing for testimony. The archived recording of the webinar is available online.

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.

DNA experts in OH with videos, articles, and a glossary of DNA testing terms available for free download on their website.

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

Law and Technology Resources for Legal Professionals compiled this list of books, articles, and other publications that treat different aspects of DNA evidence, including DNA databases, forensic interpretation of DNA evidence, 4th and 5th Amendment concerns, and more.

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.

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.

The prosecutor had a DNA analyst testify about an inconclusive mixture. Such testimony was not “based on sufficient facts or data” nor “the product of reliable principles and methods.” Erroneous admission of expert testimony regarding DNA evidence recovered from minor victim was prejudicial in statutory rape prosecution.

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.