The Use of DNA Evidence in Criminal Cases

I wanted to flag a terrific new paper on SSRN that will be coming out in NYU Law Review next year.  It’s by Andrea Roth (currently a fellow at Stanford Law School) and entitled “Safety in Numbers?  When DNA Alone is Enough to Convict.”  The Abstract follows the jump:

Fueled by police reliance on offender databases and advances in crime scene recovery, a new type of prosecution has emerged in which the government’s case turns on a match statistic explaining the significance of a “cold hit” between the defendant’s DNA profile and the crime-scene evidence. Such cases are unique in that the strength of the match depends on evidence that is nearly entirely quantifiable. Despite the growing number of these cases, the critical jurisprudential questions they raise about the proper role of probabilistic evidence, and courts’ routine misapprehension of match statistics, no framework currently exists – including a workable standard of proof – for determining sufficiency of the evidence in such a case. This article is the first to interrogate the relationship between “reasonable doubt” and statistical certainty in the context of cold hit DNA matches. Examining the concepts of “actual belief” and “moral certainty” underlying the “reasonable doubt” test, I argue that astronomically high source probabilities, while fallible, are capable of meeting the standard for conviction. Nevertheless, the starkly numerical nature of “pure cold hit” evidence raises unique issues that require courts to apply a quantified threshold for sufficiency purposes. While any threshold will be arbitrary, I argue – citing recent juror studies and the need for uniformity and systemic legitimacy – that the threshold should be no less favorable to the defendant than a 1 in 1000 chance that the defendant is not the source of the evidence.

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. A.J. Sutter says:

    Isn’t there often a further issue about how that particular DNA came to be used? I.e., not only whether the DNA in question is close to the defendant’s, but also whether the DNA used for the match was planted there, or never at the crime scene at all? And as far as I could tell from Acrobat’s search function (searching on “fake” and “Frumkin”), the article doesn’t reference the recent revelations by Israeli scientists about how easy it is to fake DNA evidence.

  2. Sean M. says:

    I’ll just add that this is a very good article. My review tried to snag it, but it looks like NYU noticed it as well.