U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Addressing uncertain assumptions in DNA evidence evaluation

NCJ Number
307503
Journal
Forensic Science International: Genetics Volume: 66 Dated: 2023
Author(s)
Maarten Kruijver; Hannah Kelly; Duncan Taylor; John Buckleton
Date Published
2023
Annotation

In this paper, the authors provide a mathematical framework for evaluating DNA evidence given complex propositions and discuss its implementation in the DBLR™ software, and make the following assertions: complex propositions address uncertainty about the need for conditioning; prior weights may be assigned to different scenarios; a software implementation enables analysts to compute likelihood ratios; sensitivity analyses elucidate when results are (in)sensitive to prior weights.

Abstract

Evidential value of DNA mixtures is typically expressed by a likelihood ratio. However, selecting appropriate propositions can be contentious, because assumptions may need to be made around, for example, the contribution of a complainant’s profile, or relatedness between contributors. A choice made one way or another disregards any uncertainty that may be present about such an assumption. To address this, a complex proposition that considers multiple sub-propositions with different assumptions may be more appropriate. While the use of complex propositions has been advocated in the literature, the uptake in casework has been limited. The authors provide a mathematical framework for evaluating DNA evidence given complex propositions and discuss its implementation in the DBLR™ software. The software simultaneously handles multiple mixed samples, reference profiles and relationships as described by a pedigree, which unlocks a variety of applications. They provide several examples to illustrate how complex propositions can efficiently evaluate DNA evidence. The addition of this feature to DBLR™ provides a tool to approach the long-accepted, but often impractical suggestion that propositions should be exhaustive within a case context. Publisher Abstract Provided