A Practical Guide for the Formulation of Propositions in the Bayesian Approach to DNA Evidence Interpretation in an Adversarial Environment

The interpretation of complex DNA profiles is facilitated by a Bayesian approach. This approach requires the development of a pair of propositions: one aligned to the prosecution case and one to the defense case. This note explores the issue of proposition setting in an adversarial environment by a series of examples. A set of guidelines generalize how to formulate propositions when there is a single person of interest and when there are multiple individuals of interest. Additional explanations cover how to handle multiple defense propositions, relatives, and the transition from subsource level to activity level propositions. The propositions depend on case information and the allegations of each of the parties. The prosecution proposition is usually known. The authors suggest that a sensible proposition is selected for the defense that is consistent with their stance, if available, and consistent with a realistic defense if their position is not known.

[1]  Swgdam Approved,et al.  SWGDAM Interpretation Guidelines for Autosomal STR Typing by Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories , 2010 .

[2]  I. Evett,et al.  More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. , 2000, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[3]  Julia Mortera,et al.  Analysis of DNA mixtures using Bayesian networks , 2003 .

[4]  W R Mayr,et al.  DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures. , 2006, Forensic science international.

[5]  Jonathan Whitaker,et al.  Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks. , 2002, Journal of forensic sciences.

[6]  C Champod,et al.  E-learning initiatives in forensic interpretation: report on experiences from current projects and outlook. , 2013, Forensic Science International.

[7]  Paolo Garbolino,et al.  Evaluation of scientific evidence using Bayesian networks. , 2002, Forensic science international.

[8]  Mariya Goray,et al.  DNA transfer during social interactions , 2013 .

[9]  Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion. , 2009, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[10]  Alex Biedermann,et al.  Modeling the forensic two-trace problem with Bayesian networks , 2012, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[11]  C M Triggs,et al.  An extended likelihood ratio framework for interpreting evidence. , 2006, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[12]  P Gill,et al.  DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the evaluation of STR typing results that may include drop-out and/or drop-in using probabilistic methods. , 2012, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[13]  F Taroni,et al.  Inference about the number of contributors to a DNA mixture: Comparative analyses of a Bayesian network approach and the maximum allele count method. , 2012, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[14]  D J Balding,et al.  DNA profile match probability calculation: how to allow for population stratification, relatedness, database selection and single bands. , 1994, Forensic science international.

[15]  R. Nichols,et al.  Interpreting DNA Evidence: Statistical Genetics for Forensic Scientists , 1999, Heredity.

[16]  Simone Gittelson,et al.  Bayesian Networks and the Value of the Evidence for the Forensic Two‐Trace Transfer Problem * , 2012, Journal of forensic sciences.

[17]  J. Buckleton,et al.  Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation , 2004 .

[18]  I. Evett,et al.  A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework , 1998 .

[19]  John Buckleton,et al.  Application of Random Match Probability Calculations to Mixed STR Profiles , 2013, Journal of forensic sciences.

[20]  I W Evett,et al.  Evaluating DNA profiles in a case where the defence is "it was my brother". , 1992, Journal - Forensic Science Society.

[21]  Colin Aitken,et al.  Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science , 2006 .

[22]  Duncan Taylor,et al.  Helping formulate propositions in forensic DNA analysis. , 2014, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[23]  W. Thompson,et al.  Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials , 1987 .