Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU Foundation Of Texas, Inc., the Cato Institute and the Rutherford Institute As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner.

“Surreptitious DNA sample” refers to the collection and analysis of DNA from a person without the person’s knowledge and without coercion. For example, the police may swab a suspect’s DNA from a discarded cigarette. Oded Oren outlines an argument for suppressing the DNA information extracted from the analysis of surreptitiously obtained DNA rather than suppression of the DNA itself or the physical object from which it was obtained.

Law enforcement has started to use genetic genealogy websites to try to identify suspects in cold cases. How does genetic genealogy work? What should defense attorneys look for if forensic genetic genealogy is used in their cases?

“Surreptitious DNA sample” refers to the collection and analysis of DNA from a person without the person’s knowledge and without coercion. For example, the police may swab a suspect’s DNA from a discarded cigarette. Oded Oren outlines an argument for suppressing the DNA information extracted from the analysis of surreptitiously obtained DNA rather than suppression of the DNA itself or the physical object from which it was obtained.

No Longer the Gold Standard: Probabilistic Genotyping is Changing the Nature of DNA Evidence in Criminal Trials, 24 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 110 (2019). By Bess Stiffelman. Academic journal article in Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law. Defense perspective on DNA and Probabilistic Genotyping. Argument that it is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence

This is a brief response to the critique of Bess Stiffelman's previous article, No Longer the Gold Standard: Probabilistic Genotyping is Changing the Nature of DNA Evidence in Criminal Trials, 24 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 110 (2019). The critique of her article was published earlier this year in this journal. I address both criticisms and misunderstandings of her arguments in an effort to frame the concerns of the criminal defense community about the impact of probabilistic genotyping on the deliberative process.

Defense attorneys should not become overwhelmed by DNA evidence and believe they have no way to challenge the allegations. Counsel can demonstrate to jurors that other plausible explanations exist.

This page contains materials and information related to probabilistic genotyping.

Presented by Carrie Wood, Assistant Public Defender, Appellate Division, Hamilton County Public Defender (OH); and Nathan Adams, Systems Engineer, Forensic Bioinformatics (OH)

Trial Advocacy: Forensic Sciences Training
Philadelphia, PA | 2018 | Grant-Funded Public Defense Training

President Lisa Wayne's written statement to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee regarding advancing the science and use of forensics in criminal cases and investigations.

President Gerald B. Lefcourt's written statement to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts regarding misconduct in FBI labs that interferes with criminal cases, revealed in a Department of Justice Inspector General's report.

North Carolina Wake County, In The General Court of Justice Superior Court Division: State of North Carolina v. Taylor

Evidentiary Hearing Volume IV to VI 

A case study on DNA genotyping within complex mixtures to assess the number of contributors in 3 to 4 person complex mixtures.   

A comprehensive set of guidelines by SWGDAM for validating probabilistic genotyping systems. 

Champion article on controversy regarding forensic DNA data and statistics in court cases.