Why DNA Likelihood Ratios Should Account for Error (Even When A National Research Council Report Says They Should Not)

Jonathan J. Koehler

14 citations0/0 files storedDigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library)

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Legal processes and jurisprudence Criminal Law and Evidence Forensic and Genetic Research

Abstract

The possibility of error limits the strength of DNA evidence in the same way that it limits the strength of other kinds of legal evidence. However, a 1996 report by the National Research Council recommends against estimating an error rate derived from proficiency tests to help identify the probative value of DNA evidence. The Committee's arguments are identified and critiqued. It is argued that error rate data derived from broad reference classes such as all DNA laboratories provide a relevant starting point for estimating the risk of error in individual cases. Likelihood ratios that fail to incorporate this estimate may be misleading.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.