Inferences Using DNA Profiling in Forensic Identification and Paternity Cases

Forensic laboratories use lengths of fragments from several locations of human DNA to decide whether a sample of body fluid left at the scene of a crime came from a suspect or whether a sample recovered from a suspect's clothing is the victim's. Using an inferential approach called "match/binning," they first decide whether there is a match between the lengths of DNA fragments from the suspect and crime samples. If there is a match, they then calculate a "match proportion." This is the proportion of a data base of DNA fragment lengths that would similarly match, that is, occur in an interval or "bin" containing the fragment length of the crime sample. Match/binning is a reasonable inferential method in a scientific setting, and in other settings that allow for flexibility, but it has several characteristics that make it undesirable for use in courts. One is that it is based on a yes/no decision: there is an arbitrary cut-off point and some fragments deemed not to match can be arbitrarily close to others that do match. Another is that the same match proportion applies for suspects whose fragment lengths just barely match the lengths of the corresponding fragments in a crime sample as for suspects whose fragment lengths match perfectly. This article describes an alternative approach, one that is not based on a yes/no match criterion. The distribution of a laboratory's measure- ment errors is used to infer the form of the likelihood function. Then the likelihood ratio of guilt to innocence is calculated and Bayes' theorem is applied. The focus of this approach is the contribution of the DNA evidence to the probability that a suspect is guilty. An important step is estimating the population distribution of fragment lengths, attemp- ting to account for both laboratory measurement error and sampling variability. The two approaches are compared in an actual murder case (New York v. Castro). Applying a laboratory's match criterion literally re- sulted in an exclusion, but its scientists claimed a match and calculated a match proportion that was very small. Applying Bayes' theorem shows that the correct conclusion is far less clear. DNA profiling is also useful in inferring parentage, for example in cases of disputed paternity. Bayes' theorem allows for calculating the probability that an alleged father is the true father.

[1]  Ian W. Evett,et al.  Evaluation of the likelihood ratio for fibre transfer evidence in criminal cases , 1987 .

[2]  L. Kuo Computations of mixtures of dirichlet processes , 1986 .

[3]  Swee Lay Thein,et al.  Hypervariable ‘minisatellite’ regions in human DNA , 1985, Nature.

[4]  Albert Y. Lo,et al.  On a Class of Bayesian Nonparametric Estimates: I. Density Estimates , 1984 .

[5]  J. Berger Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis , 1988 .

[6]  R Lewin,et al.  DNA typing on the witness stand. , 1989, Science.

[7]  P Rubinstein,et al.  Allele frequency distribution of two highly polymorphic DNA sequences in three ethnic groups and its application to the determination of paternity. , 1986, American journal of human genetics.

[8]  M Clyne,et al.  Human population genetic studies of five hypervariable DNA loci. , 1989, American journal of human genetics.

[9]  P I Terasaki,et al.  Calculation of probability of paternity using DNA sequences. , 1988, American journal of human genetics.

[10]  T. Ferguson BAYESIAN DENSITY ESTIMATION BY MIXTURES OF NORMAL DISTRIBUTIONS , 1983 .

[11]  David Lindley,et al.  A problem in forensic science , 1977 .

[12]  A. Jeffreys,et al.  Individual-specific ‘fingerprints’ of human DNA , 1985, Nature.

[13]  Eric S. Lander,et al.  DNA fingerprinting on trial , 1989, Nature.

[14]  William B. Fairley Probabilistic Analysis of Identification Evidence , 1973 .

[15]  Ira Mark Ellman,et al.  Probabilities and Proof: Can HLA and Blood Group Testing Prove Paternity? , 1979 .

[16]  J. E. Cohen,et al.  DNA fingerprinting for forensic identification: potential effects on data interpretation of subpopulation heterogeneity and band number variability. , 1990, American journal of human genetics.

[17]  I. W. EVETT,et al.  DNA fingerprinting on trial , 1989, Nature.

[18]  M. Degroot Optimal Statistical Decisions , 1970 .