DNA profiling (also called
DNA testing, or DNA
typing) is the process of determining an individual's DNA
characteristics, called a
DNA profile, that is very likely to be
different in unrelated individuals, thereby being as unique to
individuals as are fingerprints (hence the alternative name for the
DNA profiling with the aim of identifying not an
individual but a species is called
DNA profiling is most commonly used as a forensic technique in
criminal investigations to identify an unidentified person or whose
identity needs to be confirmed, or to place a person at a crime scene
or to eliminate a person from consideration.
DNA profiling has also
been used to help clarify paternity, in immigration disputes, in
parentage testing and in genealogical research or medical research.
DNA fingerprinting has also been used in the study of animal and
floral populations and in the fields of zoology, botany, and
DNA profiling process
Polymerase chain reaction
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis
2.3 STR analysis
DNA family relationship analysis
2.6 Y-chromosome analysis
2.7 Mitochondrial analysis
4 Considerations when evaluating
4.1 Evidence of genetic relationship
DNA evidence as evidence in criminal trials
6.2 Partial matches
6.4 England and Wales
6.4.1 Presentation and evaluation of evidence of partial or incomplete
DNA testing in the United States
6.6 Development of artificial DNA
DNA evidence as evidence to prove rights of succession to British
8 See also
10 Further reading
11 External links
The modern process of
DNA profiling was developed in 1984 by Sir
Alec Jeffreys while working in the Department of Genetics
at the University of Leicester.
Although 99.9% of human
DNA sequences are the same in every person,
enough of the
DNA is different that it is possible to distinguish one
individual from another, unless they are monozygotic ("identical")
DNA profiling uses repetitive ("repeat") sequences that are
highly variable, called variable number tandem repeats (VNTRs), in
particular short tandem repeats (STRs), also known as microsatellites,
VNTR loci are very similar between closely related
individuals, but are so variable that unrelated individuals are
extremely unlikely to have the same VNTRs.
DNA profiling process
VNTR allele lengths in 6 individuals.
Alec Jeffreys, the pioneer of
Developed by Professor of Genetics Sir Alec Jeffreys, the process
begins with a sample of an individual's
DNA (typically called a
"reference sample"). A common method of collecting a reference sample
is the use of a buccal swab, which is easy, non-invasive and cheap.
When this is not available (e.g. because a court order is needed but
not obtainable) other methods may need to be used to collect a sample
of blood, saliva, semen, vaginal lubrication, or other appropriate
fluid or tissue from personal items (e.g. a toothbrush, razor) or from
stored samples (e.g. banked sperm or biopsy tissue). Samples obtained
from blood relatives (related by birth, not marriage) can provide an
indication of an individual's profile, as could human remains that had
been previously profiled.
A reference sample is then analyzed to create the individual's DNA
profile using one of a number of techniques, discussed below. The DNA
profile is then compared against another sample to determine whether
there is a genetic match.
Main article: Restriction fragment length polymorphism
The first methods for finding out genetics used for
DNA is collected from cells, such as a blood
sample, and cut into small pieces using a restriction enzyme (a
restriction digest). This generates thousands of
DNA fragments of
differing sizes as a consequence of variations between
of different individuals. The fragments are then separated on the
basis of size using gel electrophoresis.
The separated fragments are then transferred to a nitrocellulose or
nylon filter; this procedure is called a Southern blot. The DNA
fragments within the blot are permanently fixed to the filter, and the
DNA strands are denatured.
Radiolabeled probe molecules are then added
that are complementary to sequences in the genome that contain repeat
sequences. These repeat sequences tend to vary in length among
different individuals and are called variable number tandem repeat
sequences or VNTRs. The probe molecules hybridize to
containing the repeat sequences and excess probe molecules are washed
away. The blot is then exposed to an X-ray film. Fragments of
have bound to the probe molecules appear as fluoresent bands on the
Southern blot technique is laborious, and requires large amounts
of undegraded sample DNA. Also, Karl Brown's original technique looked
at many minisatellite loci at the same time, increasing the observed
variability, but making it hard to discern individual alleles (and
thereby precluding paternity testing). These early techniques have
been supplanted by PCR-based assays.
Polymerase chain reaction
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis
Main article: Polymerase chain reaction
Kary Mullis in 1983, a process was reported by which
specific portions of the sample
DNA can be amplified almost
indefinitely (Saiki et al. 1985, 1988). This has revolutionized the
whole field of
DNA study. The process, polymerase chain reaction
(PCR), mimics the biological process of
DNA replication, but confines
it to specific
DNA sequences of interest. With the invention of the
DNA profiling took huge strides forward in both
discriminating power and the ability to recover information from very
small (or degraded) starting samples.
PCR greatly amplifies the amounts of a specific region of DNA. In the
PCR process, the
DNA sample is denatured into the separate individual
polynucleotide strands through heating. Two oligonucleotide DNA
primers are used to hybridize to two corresponding nearby sites on
DNA strands in such a fashion that the normal enzymatic
extension of the active terminal of each primer (that is, the 3’
end) leads toward the other primer.
PCR uses replication enzymes that
are tolerant of high temperatures, such as the thermostable Taq
polymerase. In this fashion, two new copies of the sequence of
interest are generated. Repeated denaturation, hybridization, and
extension in this fashion produce an exponentially growing number of
copies of the
DNA of interest. Instruments that perform thermal
cycling are readily available from commercial sources. This process
can produce a million-fold or greater amplification of the desired
region in 2 hours or less.
Early assays such as the HLA-DQ alpha reverse dot blot strips grew to
be very popular due to their ease of use, and the speed with which a
result could be obtained. However, they were not as discriminating as
RFLP analysis. It was also difficult to determine a
DNA profile for
mixed samples, such as a vaginal swab from a sexual assault victim.
PCR method was readily adaptable for analyzing VNTR, in
particular STR loci. In recent years, research in human DNA
quantitation has focused on new "real-time" quantitative
PCR methods enable automated, precise, and
high-throughput measurements. Inter-laboratory studies have
demonstrated the importance of human
DNA quantitation on achieving
reliable interpretation of STR typing and obtaining consistent results
Main article: Short tandem repeats
The system of
DNA profiling used today is based on
PCR and uses simple
sequences or short tandem repeats (STR). This method uses highly
polymorphic regions that have short repeated sequences of
most common is 4 bases repeated, but there are other lengths in use,
including 3 and 5 bases). Because unrelated people almost certainly
have different numbers of repeat units, STRs can be used to
discriminate between unrelated individuals. These STR loci (locations
on a chromosome) are targeted with sequence-specific primers and
amplified using PCR. The
DNA fragments that result are then separated
and detected using electrophoresis. There are two common methods of
separation and detection, capillary electrophoresis (CE) and gel
Each STR is polymorphic, but the number of alleles is very small.
Typically each STR allele will be shared by around 5 - 20% of
individuals. The power of
STR analysis comes from looking at multiple
STR loci simultaneously. The pattern of alleles can identify an
individual quite accurately. Thus
STR analysis provides an excellent
identification tool. The more STR regions that are tested in an
individual the more discriminating the test becomes.
From country to country, different STR-based DNA-profiling systems are
in use. In North America, systems that amplify the
CODIS 20 core
loci are almost universal, whereas in the
United Kingdom the DNA-17 17
loci system (which is compatible with The National
DNA Database) is in
Australia uses 18 core markers. Whichever system is used,
many of the STR regions used are the same. These DNA-profiling systems
are based on multiplex reactions, whereby many STR regions will be
tested at the same time.
The true power of
STR analysis is in its statistical power of
discrimination. Because the 20 loci that are currently used for
CODIS are independently assorted (having a certain
number of repeats at one locus does not change the likelihood of
having any number of repeats at any other locus), the product rule for
probabilities can be applied. This means that, if someone has the DNA
type of ABC, where the three loci were independent, we can say that
the probability of having that
DNA type is the probability of having
type A times the probability of having type B times the probability of
having type C. This has resulted in the ability to generate match
probabilities of 1 in a quintillion (1x1018) or more. However, DNA
database searches showed much more frequent than expected false DNA
profile matches. Moreover, since there are about 12 million
monozygotic twins on Earth, the theoretical probability is not
In practice, the risk of contaminated-matching is much greater than
matching a distant relative, such as contamination of a sample from
nearby objects, or from left-over cells transferred from a prior test.
The risk is greater for matching the most common person in the
samples: Everything collected from, or in contact with, a victim is a
major source of contamination for any other samples brought into a
lab. For that reason, multiple control-samples are typically tested in
order to ensure that they stayed clean, when prepared during the same
period as the actual test samples. Unexpected matches (or variations)
in several control-samples indicates a high probability of
contamination for the actual test samples. In a relationship test, the
DNA profiles should differ (except for twins), to prove that a
person was not actually matched as being related to their own
Main article: Amplified fragment length polymorphism
Another technique, AmpFLP, or amplified fragment length polymorphism
was also put into practice during the early 1990s. This technique was
also faster than
RFLP analysis and used
PCR to amplify
DNA samples. It
relied on variable number tandem repeat (VNTR) polymorphisms to
distinguish various alleles, which were separated on a polyacrylamide
gel using an allelic ladder (as opposed to a molecular weight ladder).
Bands could be visualized by silver staining the gel. One popular
focus for fingerprinting was the D1S80 locus. As with all
methods, highly degraded
DNA or very small amounts of
DNA may cause
allelic dropout (causing a mistake in thinking a heterozygote is a
homozygote) or other stochastic effects. In addition, because the
analysis is done on a gel, very high number repeats may bunch together
at the top of the gel, making it difficult to resolve. AmpFLP analysis
can be highly automated, and allows for easy creation of phylogenetic
trees based on comparing individual samples of DNA. Due to its
relatively low cost and ease of set-up and operation, AmpFLP remains
popular in lower income countries.
DNA family relationship analysis
1: A cell sample is taken- usually a cheek swab or blood test 2: DNA
is extracted from sample 3: Cleavage of
DNA by restriction enzyme- the
DNA is broken into small fragments 4: Small fragments are amplified by
the polymerase chain reaction- results in many more fragments 5: DNA
fragments are separated by electrophoresis 6: The fragments are
transferred to an agar plate 7: On the agar plate specific DNA
fragments are bound to a radioactive
DNA probe 8: The agar plate is
washed free of excess probe 9: An x-ray film is used to detect a
radioactive pattern 10: The
DNA is compared to other
DNA analysis is widely applied to determine
genetic family relationships such as paternity, maternity, siblingship
and other kinships.
During conception, the father’s sperm cell and the mother’s egg
cell, each containing half the amount of
DNA found in other body
cells, meet and fuse to form a fertilized egg, called a zygote. The
zygote contains a complete set of
DNA molecules, a unique combination
DNA from both parents. This zygote divides and multiplies into an
embryo and later, a full human being.
At each stage of development, all the cells forming the body contain
the same DNA—half from the father and half from the mother. This
fact allows the relationship testing to use all types of all samples
including loose cells from the cheeks collected using buccal swabs,
blood or other types of samples.
There are predictable inheritance patterns at certain locations
(called loci) in the human genome, which have been found to be useful
in determining identity and biological relationships. These loci
DNA markers that scientists use to identify
individuals. In a routine
DNA paternity test, the markers used are
short tandem repeats (STRs), short pieces of
DNA that occur in highly
differential repeat patterns among individuals.
DNA contains two copies of these markers—one copy
inherited from the father and one from the mother. Within a
population, the markers at each person’s
DNA location could differ
in length and sometimes sequence, depending on the markers inherited
from the parents.
The combination of marker sizes found in each person makes up his/her
unique genetic profile. When determining the relationship between two
individuals, their genetic profiles are compared to see if they share
the same inheritance patterns at a statistically conclusive rate.
For example, the following sample report from this commercial DNA
paternity testing laboratory Universal Genetics signifies how
relatedness between parents and child is identified on those special
The partial results indicate that the child and the alleged father’s
DNA match among these five markers. The complete test results show
this correlation on 16 markers between the child and the tested man to
enable a conclusion to be drawn as to whether or not the man is the
Each marker is assigned with a Paternity Index (PI), which is a
statistical measure of how powerfully a match at a particular marker
indicates paternity. The PI of each marker is multiplied with each
other to generate the Combined Paternity Index (CPI), which indicates
the overall probability of an individual being the biological father
of the tested child relative to a randomly selected man from the
entire population of the same race. The CPI is then converted into a
Probability of Paternity showing the degree of relatedness between the
alleged father and child.
DNA test report in other family relationship tests, such as
grandparentage and siblingship tests, is similar to a paternity test
report. Instead of the Combined Paternity Index, a different value,
such as a Siblingship Index, is reported.
The report shows the genetic profiles of each tested person. If there
are markers shared among the tested individuals, the probability of
biological relationship is calculated to determine how likely the
tested individuals share the same markers due to a blood relationship.
Recent innovations have included the creation of primers targeting
polymorphic regions on the Y-chromosome (Y-STR), which allows
resolution of a mixed
DNA sample from a male and female or cases in
which a differential extraction is not possible. Y-chromosomes are
paternally inherited, so Y-
STR analysis can help in the identification
of paternally related males. Y-
STR analysis was performed in the Sally
Hemings controversy to determine if
Thomas Jefferson had sired a son
with one of his slaves. The analysis of the Y-chromosome yields weaker
results than autosomal chromosome analysis. The Y male sex-determining
chromosome, as it is inherited only by males from their fathers, is
almost identical along the patrilineal line. This leads to a less
precise analysis than if autosomal chromosomes were testing, because
of the random matching that occurs between pairs of chromosomes as
zygotes are being made.
Main article: Mitochondrial DNA
For highly degraded samples, it is sometimes impossible to get a
complete profile of the 13
CODIS STRs. In these situations,
DNA (mtDNA) is sometimes typed due to there being many
copies of mt
DNA in a cell, while there may only be 1-2 copies of the
nuclear DNA. Forensic scientists amplify the HV1 and HV2 regions of
the mtDNA, and then sequence each region and compare single-nucleotide
differences to a reference. Because mt
DNA is maternally inherited,
directly linked maternal relatives can be used as match references,
such as one's maternal grandmother's daughter's son. In general, a
difference of two or more nucleotides is considered to be an
Heteroplasmy and poly-C differences may throw off straight
sequence comparisons, so some expertise on the part of the analyst is
DNA is useful in determining clear identities, such as
those of missing people when a maternally linked relative can be
DNA testing was used in determining that
Anna Anderson was
not the Russian princess she had claimed to be, Anastasia Romanov.
DNA can be obtained from such material as hair shafts and old
bones/teeth. Control mechanism based on interaction point with data.
This can be determined by tooled placement in sample.
Main article: National
An early application of a
DNA database was the compilation of a
DNA Concordance, prepared by Kevin W. P. Miller and
John L. Dawson at the
University of Cambridge
University of Cambridge from 1996 to 1998
from data collected as part of Miller's PhD thesis. There are now
DNA databases in existence around the world. Some are private,
but most of the largest databases are government-controlled. The
United States maintains the largest
DNA database, with the Combined
DNA Index System (CODIS) holding over 9 million records as of
United Kingdom maintains the National
(NDNAD), which is of similar size, despite the UK's smaller
population. The size of this database, and its rate of growth, are
giving concern to civil liberties groups in the UK, where police have
wide-ranging powers to take samples and retain them even in the event
of acquittal. The Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition
partially addressed these concerns with part 1 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012, under which
DNA samples must be deleted if suspects
are acquitted or not charged, except in relation to certain (mostly
serious and/or sexual) offences.
The U.S. Patriot Act of the
United States provides a means for the
U.S. government to get
DNA samples from suspected terrorists. DNA
information from crimes is collected and deposited into the CODIS
database, which is maintained by the FBI.
CODIS enables law
enforcement officials to test
DNA samples from crimes for matches
within the database, providing a means of finding specific biological
profiles associated with collected
When a match is made from a national
DNA databank to link a crime
scene to an offender having provided a
DNA sample to a databank, that
link is often referred to as a cold hit. A cold hit is of value in
referring the police agency to a specific suspect but is of less
evidential value than a
DNA match made from outside the DNA
FBI agents cannot legally store
DNA of a person not convicted of a
DNA collected from a suspect not later convicted must be
disposed of and not entered into the database. In 1998, a man residing
in the UK was arrested on accusation of burglary. His
DNA was taken
and tested, and he was later released. Nine months later, this man's
DNA was accidentally and illegally entered in the
DNA database. New
DNA is automatically compared to the
DNA found at cold cases and, in
this case, this man was found to be a match to
DNA found at a rape and
assault case one year earlier. The government then prosecuted him for
these crimes. During the trial the
DNA match was requested to be
removed from the evidence because it had been illegally entered into
the database. The request was carried out.
DNA collected from victims of rape is often stored for years until
matched with the perpetrator's, usually when committing another crime.
In 2014, Congress extended a bill that helps states deal with "a
backlog" of unexamined evidence.
Considerations when evaluating
In the early days of the use of genetic fingerprinting as criminal
evidence, juries were often swayed by spurious statistical arguments
by defense lawyers along these lines: Given a match that had a 1 in 5
million probability of occurring by chance, the lawyer would argue
that this meant that in a country of say 60 million people there were
12 people who would also match the profile. This was then translated
to a 1 in 12 chance of the suspect's being the guilty one. This
argument is not sound unless the suspect was drawn at random from the
population of the country. In fact, a jury should consider how likely
it is that an individual matching the genetic profile would also have
been a suspect in the case for other reasons. Also, different DNA
analysis processes can reduce the amount of
DNA recovery if the
procedures are not properly done. Therefore, the number of times a
piece of evidence is sampled can diminish the
efficiency. Another spurious statistical argument is based on the
false assumption that a 1 in 5 million probability of a match
automatically translates into a 1 in 5 million probability of
innocence and is known as the prosecutor's fallacy.
When using RFLP, the theoretical risk of a coincidental match is 1 in
100 billion (100,000,000,000), although the practical risk is actually
1 in 1000 because monozygotic twins are 0.2% of the human
population. Moreover, the rate of laboratory error is
almost certainly higher than this, and often actual laboratory
procedures do not reflect the theory under which the coincidence
probabilities were computed. For example, the coincidence
probabilities may be calculated based on the probabilities that
markers in two samples have bands in precisely the same location, but
a laboratory worker may conclude that similar—but not precisely
identical—band patterns result from identical genetic samples with
some imperfection in the agarose gel. However, in this case, the
laboratory worker increases the coincidence risk by expanding the
criteria for declaring a match. Recent studies have quoted relatively
high error rates, which may be cause for concern. In the early
days of genetic fingerprinting, the necessary population data to
accurately compute a match probability was sometimes unavailable.
Between 1992 and 1996, arbitrary low ceilings were controversially put
on match probabilities used in
RFLP analysis rather than the higher
theoretically computed ones. Today,
RFLP has become widely disused
due to the advent of more discriminating, sensitive and easier
Since 1998, the
DNA profiling system supported by The National DNA
Database in the UK is the
DNA profiling system that includes 10
STR regions and a sex-indicating test. STRs do not suffer from such
subjectivity and provide similar power of discrimination (1 in 1013
for unrelated individuals if using a full
SGM+ profile). Figures of
this magnitude are not considered to be statistically supportable by
scientists in the UK; for unrelated individuals with full matching DNA
profiles a match probability of 1 in a billion is considered
statistically supportable. However, with any
DNA technique, the
cautious juror should not convict on genetic fingerprint evidence
alone if other factors raise doubt. Contamination with other evidence
(secondary transfer) is a key source of incorrect
DNA profiles and
raising doubts as to whether a sample has been adulterated is a
favorite defense technique. More rarely, chimerism is one such
instance where the lack of a genetic match may unfairly exclude a
Evidence of genetic relationship
It is possible to use
DNA profiling as evidence of genetic
relationship, although such evidence varies in strength from weak to
positive. Testing that shows no relationship is absolutely certain.
Further, while almost all individuals have a single and distinct set
of genes, ultra-rare individuals, known as "chimeras", have at least
two different sets of genes. There have been two cases of DNA
profiling that falsely suggested that a mother was unrelated to her
children. This happens when two eggs are fertilized at the same
time and fuse together to create one individual instead of twins.
In one case, a criminal planted fake
DNA evidence in his own body:
John Schneeberger raped one of his sedated patients in 1992 and left
semen on her underwear. Police drew what they believed to be
Schneeberger's blood and compared its
DNA against the crime scene
DNA on three occasions, never showing a match. It turned out
that he had surgically inserted a
Penrose drain into his arm and
filled it with foreign blood and anticoagulants.
The functional analysis of genes and their coding sequences (open
reading frames [ORFs]) typically requires that each ORF be expressed,
the encoded protein purified, antibodies produced, phenotypes
examined, intracellular localization determined, and interactions with
other proteins sought. In a study conducted by the life science
company Nucleix and published in the journal Forensic Science
International, scientists found that an in vitro synthesized sample of
DNA matching any desired genetic profile can be constructed using
standard molecular biology techniques without obtaining any actual
tissue from that person. Nucleix claims they can also prove the
difference between non-altered
DNA and any that was synthesized.
In the case of the Phantom of Heilbronn, police detectives found DNA
traces from the same woman on various crime scenes in Austria,
Germany, and France—among them murders, burglaries and robberies.
Only after the
DNA of the "woman" matched the
DNA sampled from the
burned body of a male asylum seeker in France did detectives begin to
have serious doubts about the
DNA evidence. It was eventually
DNA traces were already present on the cotton swabs
used to collect the samples at the crime scene, and the swabs had all
been produced at the same factory in Austria. The company's product
specification said that the swabs were guaranteed to be sterile, but
DNA evidence as evidence in criminal trials
Part of the common law series
Types of evidence
Burden of proof
Laying a foundation
Public policy exclusions
Chain of custody
Best evidence rule
Hague Evidence Convention
Dead Man's Statute
Hearsay and exceptions
in English law
United States law
Declaration against interest
Present sense impression
Other common law areas
Wills, trusts and estates
DNA searching (sometimes referred to as "familial DNA" or
DNA database searching") is the practice of creating new
investigative leads in cases where
DNA evidence found at the scene of
a crime (forensic profile) strongly resembles that of an existing DNA
profile (offender profile) in a state
DNA database but there is not an
exact match. After all other leads have been exhausted,
investigators may use specially developed software to compare the
forensic profile to all profiles taken from a state's
DNA database to
generate a list of those offenders already in the database who are
most likely to be a very close relative of the individual whose
in the forensic profile. To eliminate the majority of this list
when the forensic
DNA is a man's, crime lab technicians conduct Y-STR
analysis. Using standard investigative techniques, authorities are
then able to build a family tree. The family tree is populated from
information gathered from public records and criminal justice records.
Investigators rule out family members' involvement in the crime by
finding excluding factors such as sex, living out of state or being
incarcerated when the crime was committed. They may also use other
leads from the case, such as witness or victim statements, to identify
a suspect. Once a suspect has been identified, investigators seek to
legally obtain a
DNA sample from the suspect. This suspect
is then compared to the sample found at the crime scene to
definitively identify the suspect as the source of the crime scene
DNA database searching was first used in an investigation
leading to the conviction of Jeffrey Gafoor of the murder of Lynette
White in the
United Kingdom on 4 July 2003.
DNA evidence was matched
to Gafoor's nephew, who at 14 years old had not been born at the time
of the murder in 1988. It was used again in 2004 to find a man who
threw a brick from a motorway bridge and hit a lorry driver, killing
DNA found on the brick matched that found at the scene of a car
theft earlier in the day, but there were no good matches on the
DNA database. A wider search found a partial match to an
individual; on being questioned, this man revealed he had a brother,
Craig Harman, who lived very close to the original crime scene. Harman
voluntarily submitted a
DNA sample, and confessed when it matched the
sample from the brick. Currently, familial
DNA database searching
is not conducted on a national level in the United States, where
states determine how and when to conduct familial searches. The first
DNA search with a subsequent conviction in the United States
was conducted in Denver, Colorado, in 2008, using software developed
under the leadership of
Denver District Attorney
Mitch Morrissey and
Denver Police Department Crime Lab Director Gregg LaBerge.
California was the first state to implement a policy for familial
searching under then Attorney General, now Governor, Jerry Brown.
In his role as consultant to the Familial Search Working Group of the
California Department of Justice, former
Alameda County Prosecutor
Rock Harmon is widely considered to have been the catalyst in the
adoption of familial search technology in California. The technique
was used to catch the Los Angeles serial killer known as the "Grim
Sleeper" in 2010. It wasn't a witness or informant that tipped off
law enforcement to the identity of the "Grim Sleeper" serial killer,
who had eluded police for more than two decades, but
DNA from the
suspect's own son. The suspect's son had been arrested and convicted
in a felony weapons charge and swabbed for
DNA the year before. When
DNA was entered into the database of convicted felons, detectives
were alerted to a partial match to evidence found at the "Grim
Sleeper" crime scenes. David Franklin Jr., also known as the Grim
Sleeper, was charged with ten counts of murder and one count of
attempted murder. More recently, familial
DNA led to the arrest of
21-year-old Elvis Garcia on charges of sexual assault and false
imprisonment of a woman in Santa Cruz in 2008. In March 2011
Bob McDonnell announced that
Virginia would begin
DNA searches. Other states are expected to follow.
At a press conference in
Virginia on March 7, 2011, regarding the East
Coast Rapist, Prince William County prosecutor Paul Ebert and Fairfax
County Police Detective John Kelly said the case would have been
solved years ago if
Virginia had used familial
DNA searching. Aaron
Thomas, the suspected East Coast Rapist, was arrested in connection
with the rape of 17 women from
Virginia to Rhode Island, but familial
DNA was not used in the case.
Critics of familial
DNA database searches argue that the technique is
an invasion of an individual's 4th Amendment rights. Privacy
advocates are petitioning for
DNA database restrictions, arguing that
the only fair way to search for possible
DNA matches to relatives of
offenders or arrestees would be to have a population-wide DNA
database. Some scholars have pointed out that the privacy concerns
surrounding familial searching are similar in some respects to other
police search techniques, and most have concluded that the
practice is constitutional. The
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in
United States v. Pool (vacated as moot) suggested that this practice
is somewhat analogous to a witness looking at a photograph of one
person and stating that it looked like the perpetrator, which leads
law enforcement to show the witness photos of similar looking
individuals, one of whom is identified as the perpetrator.
Regardless of whether familial
DNA searching was the method used to
identify the suspect, authorities always conduct a normal
DNA test to
match the suspect's
DNA with that of the
DNA left at the crime scene.
Critics also claim that racial profiling could occur on account of
DNA testing. In the United States, the conviction rates of
racial minorities are much higher than that of the overall population.
It is unclear whether this is due to discrimination from police
officers and the courts, as opposed to a simple higher rate of offence
among minorities. Arrest-based databases, which are found in the
majority of the United States, lead to an even greater level of racial
discrimination. An arrest, as opposed to conviction, relies much more
heavily on police discretion.
For instance, investigators with Denver District Attorney's Office
successfully identified a suspect in a property theft case using a
DNA search. In this example, the suspect's blood left at the
scene of the crime strongly resembled that of a current Colorado
Department of Corrections prisoner. Using publicly available
records, the investigators created a family tree. They then eliminated
all the family members who were incarcerated at the time of the
offense, as well as all of the females (the crime scene
was that of a male). Investigators obtained a court order to collect
the suspect's DNA, but the suspect actually volunteered to come to a
police station and give a
DNA sample. After providing the sample, the
suspect walked free without further interrogation or detainment. Later
confronted with an exact match to the forensic profile, the suspect
pleaded guilty to criminal trespass at the first court date and was
sentenced to two years probation.
Italy a familiar
DNA search has been done to solve the case of the
murder of Yara Gambirasio whose body was found in the
bush[clarification needed] three months after her disappearance. A DNA
trace was found on the underwear of the murdered teenage near and a
DNA sample was requested from a person who lived near the municipality
Brembate di Sopra
Brembate di Sopra and a common male ancestor was found in the DNA
sample of a young man not involved in the murder. After a long
investigation the father of the supposed killer was identified as
Giuseppe Guerinoni, a deceased man, but his two sons born from his
wife were not related to the
DNA samples found on the body of Yara.
After three and a half years the
DNA found on the underwear of the
deceased girl was matched with Massimo Giuseppe Bosetti who was
arrested and accused of the murder of the 13-year-old girl.In the
summer of 2016 Bosetti was found guilty and sentenced to life by the
Corte d'assise of Bergamo.
DNA matches are not searches[clarification needed] themselves,
but are the result of moderate stringency
CODIS searches that produce
a potential match that shares at least one allele at every locus.
Partial matching does not involve the use of familial search software,
such as those used in the UK and United States, or additional Y-STR
analysis, and therefore often misses sibling relationships. Partial
matching has been used to identify suspects in several cases in the UK
and United States, and has also been used as a tool to exonerate
the falsely accused.
Darryl Hunt was wrongly convicted in connection
with the rape and murder of a young woman in 1984 in North
Carolina. Hunt was exonerated in 2004 when a
DNA database search
produced a remarkably close match between a convicted felon and the
forensic profile from the case. The partial match led investigators to
the felon’s brother, Willard E. Brown, who confessed to the crime
when confronted by police. A judge then signed an order to dismiss the
case against Hunt. In Italy, partial matching has been used in the
controversial murder of Yara Gambirasio, a child found dead about a
month after her presumed kidnapping. In this case, the partial match
has been used as the only incriminating element against the defendant,
Massimo Bossetti, who has been subsequently condemned for the murder
(waiting appeal by the Italian Supreme Court).
Police forces may collect
DNA samples without a suspect's knowledge,
and use it as evidence. The legality of the practice has been
questioned in Australia.
In the United States, it has been accepted, courts often ruling that
there is no expectation of privacy, citing California v. Greenwood
(1985), in which the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does
not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for
collection outside the curtilage of a home. Critics of this practice
underline that this analogy ignores that "most people have no idea
that they risk surrendering their genetic identity to the police by,
for instance, failing to destroy a used coffee cup. Moreover, even if
they do realize it, there is no way to avoid abandoning one's
United States Supreme Court ruled in
Maryland v. King
Maryland v. King (2013) that
DNA sampling of prisoners arrested for serious crimes is
In the UK, the
Human Tissue Act 2004
Human Tissue Act 2004 prohibits private individuals
from covertly collecting biological samples (hair, fingernails, etc.)
DNA analysis, but exempts medical and criminal investigations from
England and Wales
Evidence from an expert who has compared
DNA samples must be
accompanied by evidence as to the sources of the samples and the
procedures for obtaining the
DNA profiles. The judge must ensure
that the jury must understand the significance of
DNA matches and
mismatches in the profiles. The judge must also ensure that the jury
does not confuse the match probability (the probability that a person
that is chosen at random has a matching
DNA profile to the sample from
the scene) with the probability that a person with matching DNA
committed the crime. In 1996 R v. Doheny Phillips LJ gave this
example of a summing up, which should be carefully tailored to the
particular facts in each case:
Members of the Jury, if you accept the scientific evidence called by
the Crown, this indicates that there are probably only four or five
white males in the
United Kingdom from whom that semen stain could
have come. The Defendant is one of them. If that is the position, the
decision you have to reach, on all the evidence, is whether you are
sure that it was the Defendant who left that stain or whether it is
possible that it was one of that other small group of men who share
Juries should weigh up conflicting and corroborative evidence, using
their own common sense and not by using mathematical formulae, such as
Bayes' theorem, so as to avoid "confusion, misunderstanding and
Presentation and evaluation of evidence of partial or incomplete DNA
In R v Bates, Moore-Bick LJ said:
We can see no reason why partial profile
DNA evidence should not be
admissible provided that the jury are made aware of its inherent
limitations and are given a sufficient explanation to enable them to
evaluate it. There may be cases where the match probability in
relation to all the samples tested is so great that the judge would
consider its probative value to be minimal and decide to exclude the
evidence in the exercise of his discretion, but this gives rise to no
new question of principle and can be left for decision on a case by
case basis. However, the fact that there exists in the case of all
partial profile evidence the possibility that a "missing" allele might
exculpate the accused altogether does not provide sufficient grounds
for rejecting such evidence. In many there is a possibility (at least
in theory) that evidence that would assist the accused and perhaps
even exculpate him altogether exists, but that does not provide
grounds for excluding relevant evidence that is available and
otherwise admissible, though it does make it important to ensure that
the jury are given sufficient information to enable them to evaluate
that evidence properly.
DNA testing in the United States
CBP chemist reads a
DNA profile to determine the origin of a
There are state laws on
DNA profiling in all 50 states of the United
States. Detailed information on database laws in each state can be
found at the
National Conference of State Legislatures
National Conference of State Legislatures website.
Development of artificial DNA
In August 2009, scientists in
Israel raised serious doubts concerning
the use of
DNA by law enforcement as the ultimate method of
identification. In a paper published in the journal Forensic Science
International: Genetics, the Israeli researchers demonstrated that it
is possible to manufacture
DNA in a laboratory, thus falsifying DNA
evidence. The scientists fabricated saliva and blood samples, which
DNA from a person other than the supposed donor
of the blood and saliva.
The researchers also showed that, using a
DNA database, it is possible
to take information from a profile and manufacture
DNA to match it,
and that this can be done without access to any actual
DNA from the
DNA they are duplicating. The synthetic
required for the procedure are common in molecular laboratories.
The New York Times
The New York Times quoted the lead author, Daniel Frumkin, saying,
"You can just engineer a crime scene ... any biology undergraduate
could perform this". Frumkin perfected a test that can
DNA samples from fake ones. His test detects
epigenetic modifications, in particular,
DNA methylation. Seventy
percent of the
DNA in any human genome is methylated, meaning it
contains methyl group modifications within a
CpG dinucleotide context.
Methylation at the promoter region is associated with gene silencing.
DNA lacks this epigenetic modification, which allows the
test to distinguish manufactured
DNA from genuine DNA.
It is unknown how many police departments, if any, currently use the
test. No police lab has publicly announced that it is using the new
test to verify
In 1986, Richard Buckland was exonerated, despite having admitted to
the rape and murder of a teenager near Leicester, the city where DNA
profiling was first developed. This was the first use of DNA
fingerprinting in a criminal investigation, and the first to prove a
suspect's innocence. The following year
Colin Pitchfork was
identified as the perpetrator of the same murder, in addition to
another, using the same techniques that had cleared Buckland.
In 1987, genetic fingerprinting was used in criminal court for the
first time in the trial of a man accused of unlawful intercourse with
a mentally handicapped 14-year-old female who gave birth to a
Florida rapist Tommie Lee Andrews was the first person in the
United States to be convicted as a result of
DNA evidence, for raping
a woman during a burglary; he was convicted on November 6, 1987, and
sentenced to 22 years in prison.
Timothy Wilson Spencer was the first man in
Virginia to be
sentenced to death through
DNA testing, for several rape and murder
charges. He was dubbed "The South Side Strangler" because he killed
victims on the south side of Richmond, Virginia. He was later charged
with rape and first-degree murder and was sentenced to death. He was
executed on April 27, 1994. David Vasquez, initially convicted of one
of Spencer's crimes, became the first man in America exonerated based
Gary Dotson was the first person whose conviction
was overturned using
Allan Legere was the first Canadian to be convicted as a
DNA evidence, for four murders he had committed while an
escaped prisoner in 1989. During his trial, his defense argued that
the relatively shallow gene pool of the region could lead to false
DNA evidence was used to prove that Nazi doctor Josef Mengele
was buried in
Brazil under the name Wolfgang Gerhard.
DNA from a palo verde tree was used to convict Mark Alan
Bogan of murder.
DNA from seed pods of a tree at the crime scene was
found to match that of seed pods found in Bogan's truck. This is the
first instance of plant
DNA admitted in a criminal case.
Kirk Bloodsworth was the first person to have been convicted
of murder and sentenced to death, whose conviction was overturned
The 1993 rape and murder of Mia Zapata, lead singer for the Seattle
punk band The Gits, was unsolved nine years after the murder. A
database search in 2001 failed, but the killer's
DNA was collected
when he was arrested in
Florida for burglary and domestic abuse in
The science was made famous in the
United States in 1994 when
prosecutors heavily relied on
DNA evidence allegedly linking O. J.
Simpson to a double murder. The case also brought to light the
laboratory difficulties and handling procedure mishaps that can cause
such evidence to be significantly doubted.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) detectives successfully
tested hairs from a cat known as Snowball, and used the test to link a
man to the murder of his wife, thus marking for the first time in
forensic history the use of non-human animal
DNA to identify a
DNA was used in 1992, see above).
In 1994, the claim that
Anna Anderson was Grand Duchess Anastasia
Nikolaevna of Russia was tested after her death using samples of her
tissue that had been stored at a Charlottesville,
following a medical procedure. The tissue was tested using DNA
fingerprinting, and showed that she bore no relation to the
In 1994, Earl Washington, Jr., of
Virginia had his death sentence
commuted to life imprisonment a week before his scheduled execution
date based on
DNA evidence. He received a full pardon in 2000 based on
more advanced testing. His case is often cited by opponents of the
In 1995, the British
Forensic Science Service carried out its first
DNA screening in the investigation of the Naomi
Smith murder case.
Richard J. Schmidt was convicted of attempted second-degree
murder when it was shown that there was a link between the viral DNA
of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) he had been accused of
injecting in his girlfriend and viral
DNA from one of his patients
with AIDS. This was the first time viral
DNA fingerprinting had been
used as evidence in a criminal trial.
In 1999, Raymond Easton, a disabled man from Swindon, England, was
arrested and detained for seven hours in connection with a burglary.
He was released due to an inaccurate
DNA match. His
DNA had been
retained on file after an unrelated domestic incident some time
In 2000 Frank Lee Smith was proved innocent by
DNA profiling of the
murder of an eight-year-old girl after spending 14 years on death row
in Florida, USA. However he had died of cancer just before his
innocence was proven. In view of this the
Florida state governor
ordered that in future any death row inmate claiming innocence should
In May 2000 Gordon Graham murdered Paul Gault at his home in Lisburn,
Northern Ireland. Graham was convicted of the murder when his
found on a sports bag left in the house as part of an elaborate ploy
to suggest the murder occurred after a burglary had gone wrong. Graham
was having an affair with the victim's wife at the time of the murder.
It was the first time Low Copy Number
DNA was used in Northern
In 2001, Wayne Butler was convicted for the murder of Celia Douty. It
was the first murder in
Australia to be solved using DNA
In 2002, the body of James Hanratty, hanged in 1962 for the "A6
murder", was exhumed and
DNA samples from the body and members of his
family were analysed. The results convinced Court of Appeal judges
that Hanratty's guilt, which had been strenuously disputed by
campaigners, was proved "beyond doubt". Paul Foot and some other
campaigners continued to believe in Hanratty's innocence and argued
DNA evidence could have been contaminated, noting that the
DNA samples from items of clothing, kept in a police laboratory
for over 40 years "in conditions that do not satisfy modern evidential
standards", had had to be subjected to very new amplification
techniques in order to yield any genetic profile. However, no DNA
other than Hanratty's was found on the evidence tested, contrary to
what would have been expected had the evidence indeed been
DNA testing was used to exonerate Douglas Echols, a man who
was wrongfully convicted in a 1986 rape case. Echols was the 114th
person to be exonerated through post-conviction
In August 2002, Annalisa Vincenzi was shot dead in Tuscany. Bartender
Peter Hamkin, 23, was arrested, in
Merseyside in March 2003 on an
extradition warrant heard at
Bow Street Magistrates' Court
Bow Street Magistrates' Court in London
to establish whether he should be taken to
Italy to face a murder
DNA "proved" he shot her, but he was cleared on other
In 2003, Welshman Jeffrey Gafoor was convicted of the 1988 murder of
Lynette White, when crime scene evidence collected 12 years earlier
was re-examined using STR techniques, resulting in a match with his
nephew. This may be the first known example of the
DNA of an
innocent yet related individual being used to identify the actual
criminal, via "familial searching".
In March 2003, Josiah Sutton was released from prison after serving
four years of a twelve-year sentence for a sexual assault charge.
DNA samples taken from Sutton were retested in the wake
of the Houston Police Department's crime lab scandal of mishandling
In June 2003, because of new
DNA evidence, Dennis Halstead, John Kogut
and John Restivo won a re-trial on their murder conviction, their
convictions were struck down and they were released. The three men
had already served eighteen years of their thirty-plus-year sentences.
The trial of
Robert Pickton (convicted in December 2003) is notable in
DNA evidence is being used primarily to identify the victims, and
in many cases to prove their existence.
DNA testing shed new light into the mysterious 1912
disappearance of Bobby Dunbar, a four-year-old boy who vanished during
a fishing trip. He was allegedly found alive eight months later in the
custody of William Cantwell Walters, but another woman claimed that
the boy was her son, Bruce Anderson, whom she had entrusted in
Walters' custody. The courts disbelieved her claim and convicted
Walters for the kidnapping. The boy was raised and known as Bobby
Dunbar throughout the rest of his life. However,
DNA tests on Dunbar's
son and nephew revealed the two were not related, thus establishing
that the boy found in 1912 was not Bobby Dunbar, whose real fate
In 2005, Gary Leiterman was convicted of the 1969 murder of Jane
Mixer, a law student at the University of Michigan, after
DNA found on
Mixer's pantyhose was matched to Leiterman.
DNA in a drop of blood on
Mixer's hand was matched to John Ruelas, who was only four years old
in 1969 and was never successfully connected to the case in any other
way. Leiterman's defense unsuccessfully argued that the unexplained
match of the blood spot to Ruelas pointed to cross-contamination and
raised doubts about the reliability of the lab's identification of
In December 2005, Evan Simmons was proven innocent of a 1981 attack on
an Atlanta woman after serving twenty-four years in prison. Mr. Clark
is the 164th person in the
United States and the fifth in Georgia to
be freed using post-conviction
In November 2008,
Anthony Curcio was arrested for masterminding one of
the most elaborately planned armored car heists in history. DNA
evidence linked Curcio to the crime.
In March 2009, Sean Hodgson—convicted of 1979 killing of Teresa De
Simone, 22, in her car in Southampton—was released after tests
DNA from the scene was not his. It was later matched to DNA
retrieved from the exhumed body of David Lace. Lace had previously
confessed to the crime but was not believed by the detectives. He
served time in prison for other crimes committed at the same time as
the murder and then committed suicide in 1988.
DNA evidence as evidence to prove rights of succession to British
DNA testing is used to establish the right of succession to British
DNA paternity testing
Capillary electrophoresis (CE)
Full genome sequencing
Harvey v. Horan
Maryland v. King
Phantom of Heilbronn
Restriction fragment length polymorphism
Restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP)
Short tandem repeat
Short tandem repeat (STR)
International Society for Forensic Genetics
International Society of Genetic Genealogy
Criminal justice portal
^ Murphy, Erin (2017-10-13). "Forensic
DNA Typing". Annual Review of
DNA pioneer's 'eureka' moment BBC. Retrieved 14 October 2011
^ Petersen, K., J.. Handbook of Surveillance Technologies. 3rd ed.
Boca Raton ,FL. CRC Press, 2012. p815
^ Chambers, Geoffrey K.; Curtis, Caitlin; Millar, Craig D.; Huynen,
Leon; Lambert, David M. (2014-01-01). "
DNA fingerprinting in zoology:
past, present, future". Investigative Genetics. 5: 3.
doi:10.1186/2041-2223-5-3. ISSN 2041-2223. PMC 3909909 .
^ "Eureka moment that led to the discovery of
DNA fingerprinting". The
Observer. 24 May 2009.
^ Tautz D (1989). "Hypervariability of simple sequences as a general
source for polymorphic
DNA markers". Nucleic Acids Research. 17:
^ Patent Jäckle H & Tautz D (1989) "Process For Analyzing Length
DNA Regions" europäische Patent Nr. 0 438 512
^ Eureka moment that led to the discovery of
Science The Guardian
^ The man behind the
DNA fingerprints: an interview with Professor Sir
Alec Jeffreys Investigative Genetics Full Text
Alec Jeffreys and Genetic Fingerprinting — University of Leicester
^ a b "Use of
DNA in Identification". Accessexcellence.org. Archived
from the original on 2008-04-26. Retrieved 2010-04-03.
^ Newton, Giles (4 February 2004). "Discovering
Alec Jeffreys describes its development". Wellcome Trust. Archived
from the original on 15 November 2010. Retrieved 23 December
^ Tautz D. (1989). "Hyper-variability of simple sequences as a general
source for polymorphic
DNA markers". Nucleic Acids Research. 17:
DNA Index System (CODIS)". Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Retrieved 2017-04-20.
^ Curtis, Caitlin; Hereward, James (August 29, 2017). "From the crime
scene to the courtroom: the journey of a
DNA sample". The
Conversastion. Retrieved October 14, 2017.
^ Felch, Jason; et al. (July 20, 2008). "
FBI resists scrutiny of
'matches'". Los Angeles Times. pp. P8. Retrieved March 18,
^  "STR Analysis"
^ Miller, Kevin. "Mitochondrial
DNA Concordance". Archived from the
original on 2003-01-22.
^ Miller, K.W.P.; Dawson, J.L.; Hagelberg, E. (1996). "A concordance
of nucleotide substitutions in the first and second hypervariable
segments of the human mt
DNA control region". International Journal of
Legal Medicine. 109: 107–113. doi:10.1007/bf01369668.
^ "CODIS — National
DNA Index System". Fbi.gov. Archived from
the original on March 6, 2010. Retrieved 2010-04-03.
^ "Restrictions on use and destruction of fingerprints and samples".
Wikicrimeline.co.uk. 2009-09-01. Archived from the original on
2007-02-23. Retrieved 2010-04-03.
^ Price-Livingston, Susan (5 June 2003). "
DNA Testing Provisions in
Patriot Act". Connecticut General Assembly. Retrieved 18 January
^ Rose & Goos. DNA: A Practical Guide. Toronto: Carswell
Publications. CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter (link)
^ a b c  "Double Helix Jeopardy"
^ "Congress OKs bill to cut rape evidence backlog". Associated Press.
Archived from the original on 19 September 2014. Retrieved 18
^ Nick Paton Walsh False result fear over
DNA tests The Observer,
Sunday 27 January 2002.
^ The Evaluation of Forensic
DNA Evidence 1996.
^ "Two Women Don't Match Their Kids' DNA". Abcnews.go.com. 2006-08-15.
^ James L. Hartley; Gary F. Temple; Michael A. Brasch (2000). "DNA
Cloning Using In Vitro Site-Specific Recombination". Cold Spring
Harbor Laboratory Press.
^ A new test distinguishes between real and fake genetic
evidence-Published by MIT Technology Review 2009-08-17, article by
Emily Singer; Retrieved 2014-09-03
^ Diamond, Diane (April 12, 2011). "Searching the Family
DNA Tree to
Solve Crime". HuffPost Denver (Blog). The Huffington Post. Retrieved
April 17, 2011.
^ Bieber Frederick; et al. (2006). "Finding Criminals Through
Their Relatives". Science. 312 (5778): 1315–16.
doi:10.1126/science.1122655. PMID 16690817.
^ Staff. "Familial searches allows law enforcement to identify
criminals through their family members".
DNA Forensics. United Kingdom
– A Pioneer in Familial Searches. Archived from the original on
November 7, 2010. Retrieved December 7, 2015.
^ Bhattacharya, Shaoni (April 20, 2004). "Killer convicted thanks to
relative's DNA". Daily News. New Scientist. Retrieved April 17,
^ Greely, Henry T.; Riordan, Daniel P.; Garrison, Nanibaa' A.;
Mountain, Joanna L. (Summer 2006). "Family Ties: The Use of DNA
Offender Databases to Catch Offenders' Kin" (PDF). Symposium. Journal
of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Wiley for American Society of Law,
Medicine & Ethics. 34: 248–62.
doi:10.1111/j.1748-720x.2006.00031.x. ISSN 1748-720X.
^ Pankratz, Howard. "Denver Uses 'Familial
DNA Evidence' to Solve Car
Break-Ins." The Denver Post accessed April 17, 2011.
^ Steinhaur, Jennifer. "'Grim Sleeper' Arrest Fans Debate on
The New York Times
The New York Times accessed April 17, 2011.
^ Dolan, Maura. "A New Track in
DNA Search". LA Times accessed April
DNA Technique Led Police to 'Grim Sleeper' Serial Killer and
Will 'Change Policing in America'". ABC News.
^ Dolan, Maura. "Familial
DNA Search Used In
Grim Sleeper Case Leads
to Arrest of Santa Cruz Sex Offender". LA Times accessed April 17,
^ Helderman, Rosalind. "McDonnell Approves Familial
DNA for VA Crime
Fighting". The Washington Post accessed April 17, 2011.
^ Christoffersen, John and Barakat, Matthew. "Other victims of East
Coast Rapist suspect sought". Associated Press. Accessed May 25, 2011.
^ Murphy Erin Elizabeth (2009). "Relative Doubt: Familial Searches of
DNA Databases" (PDF). Michigan Law Review. 109: 291–348. Archived
from the original (PDF) on 2010-12-01.
^ Suter Sonia (2010). "All in The Family: Privacy and
Searching" (PDF). Harvard Journal of Law and Technology. 23: 328.
Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-06-07.
^ Kaye, David H., (2013). "The
Genealogy Detectives: A Constitutional
Analysis of Familial Searching" American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 51,
No. 1, 109-163, 2013.
^ "US v. Pool" Pool 621F .3d 1213.
^ Pankratz, Howard."Denver Uses 'Familial
DNA Evidence' to Solve Car
Break-Ins". The Denver Post, accessed April 17, 2011.
^ "Finding Criminals Through
DNA Testing of Their Relatives" Technical
Bulletin, Chromosomal Laboratories, Inc. accessed April 22, 2011.
Denver District Attorney
DNA Resources" Archived 2011-03-24 at the
Wayback Machine. accessed April 20, 2011.
^ "Darryl Hunt, The Innocence Project".
^ Amy Harmon, "Lawyers Fight
DNA Samples Gained on Sly", The New York
Times, April 3, 2008.
^ "U.S. Supreme Court allows
DNA sampling of prisoners". UPI.
Retrieved 3 June 2013.
^ "SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - Syllabus: MARYLAND v. KING,
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND" (PDF).
^ Samuels, J.E., E.H. Davies, and D.B. Pope. (2013). Collecting
Arrest: Policies, Practices, and Implications, Final Technical Report.
Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.
^ Human Tissue Act 2004, UK, available in PDF.
^ R v. Loveridge, EWCA Crim 734 (2001).
^ R v. Doheny  EWCA Crim 728,  1 Cr App R 369 (31 July
1996), Court of Appeal
^ R v. Adams  EWCA Crim 2474 (16 October 1997), Court of Appeal
^ R v Bates  EWCA Crim 1395 (7 July 2006), Court of Appeal
DNA profiling". Wikicrimeline.co.uk. Archived from
the original on 2010-10-22. Retrieved 2010-04-03.
^ "Genelex: The
DNA Paternity Testing Site". Healthanddna.com.
1996-01-06. Archived from the original on 2010-12-29. Retrieved
^ Donna Lyons — Posted by Glenda. "State Laws on
DNA Data Banks".
Ncsl.org. Retrieved 2010-04-03.
^ a b c d Pollack, Andrew (August 18, 2009). "
DNA Evidence Can Be
Fabricated, Scientists Show". The New York Times. Retrieved April 1,
^ "Elsevier". Fsigenetics.com. Retrieved 2010-04-03.
DNA pioneer's 'eureka' moment". BBC News. September 9, 2009.
Retrieved April 1, 2010.
^ Joseph Wambaugh, The Blooding (New York, New York: A Perigord Press
Book, 1989), 369.
^ Joseph Wambaugh, The Blooding (New York, New York: A Perigord Press
Book, 1989), 316.
^ "Gene Technology — Page 14". Txtwriter.com. 1987-11-06.
Archived from the original on 2002-11-27. Retrieved 2010-04-03.
^ "frontline: the case for innocence: the dna revolution: state and
federal dna database laws examined". Pbs.org. Retrieved
^ "Court of Appeals of Arizona: Denial of Bogan's motion to reverse
his conviction and sentence" (PDF). Denver DA: www.denverda.org.
2005-04-11. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-24. Retrieved
DNA Forensics: Angiosperm
Witness for the Prosecution". Human
Genome Project. Retrieved 2011-04-21.
^ "Crime Scene Botanicals". Botanical Society of America. Archived
from the original on 2008-12-22. Retrieved 2011-04-21.
^ Identification of the remains of the Romanov family by
by Peter Gill, Central Research and Support Establishment, Forensic
Science Service, Aldermaston, Reading, Berkshire, RG7 4PN, UK, Pavel
L. Ivanov, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Russian Academy
of Sciences, 117984, Moscow, Russia, Colin Kimpton, Romelle Piercy,
Nicola Benson, Gillian Tully, Ian Evett, Kevin Sullivan, Forensic
Science Service, Priory House, Gooch Street North, Birmingham B5 6QQ,
UK, Erika Hagelberg, University of Cambridge, Department of Biological
Downing Street, Cambridge
Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK - 
^ a b Murnaghan, Ian, (28 December 2012) Famous Trials and DNA
Testing; Earl Washington Jr. Explore DNA, Retrieved 13 November 2014
^ Jeffries, Stuart (2006-10-08). "Suspect Nation". London: The
Guardian. Retrieved April 1, 2010.
^ (June 2012) Frank Lee Smith The
University of Michigan
University of Michigan Law School,
National Registry of Exonerations, Retrieved 13 November 2014
^ Gordon, Stephen (2008-02-17). "Freedom in bag for killer Graham?".
Belfasttelegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2010-06-19.
^ Dutter, Barbie (2001-06-19). "18 years on, man is jailed for murder
of Briton in 'paradise'". London: The Telegraph. Retrieved
^ McCutcheon, Peter (2004-09-08). "
DNA evidence may not be infallible:
experts". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved
^ Joshua Rozenberg,"
DNA proves Hanratty guilt 'beyond doubt'", Daily
Telegraph, London, 11 May 2002.
^ John Steele, "Hanratty lawyers reject
DNA 'guilt'", Daily Telegraph,
London, 23 June 2001.
^ "Hanratty: The damning DNA". BBC News. 10 May 2002. Retrieved
^ "Mistaken identity claim over murder". BBC News. February 15, 2003.
Retrieved April 1, 2010.
^ Satish Sekar. "Lynette White Case: How Forensics Caught the
Cellophane Man". Lifeloom.com. Archived from the original on
2010-11-25. Retrieved 2010-04-03.
^ Dennis Halstead. The National Registry of Exonerations, University
of Michigan Law School, 18 April 2014. Retrieved 12 January 2015.
DNA clears man of 1914 kidnapping conviction", USA Today, (May 5,
2004), by Allen G. Breed, Associated Press.
^ CBS News story on the Jane Mixer murder case; March 24, 2007.
^ Another CBS News story on the Mixer case; July 17, 2007.
^ An advocacy site challenging Leiterman's conviction in the Mixer
^ Doughery, Phil. "D.B. Tuber". History Link.
^ Booth, Jenny. "Police name David Lace as true killer of Teresa De
Simone". The Times.
^ "JUDGMENT In the matter of the Baronetcy of Pringle of Stichill"
(PDF). 20 June 2016. Retrieved 26 October 2017.
Kaye, David H. (2010). The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674035881.
Koerner, Brendan I. (October 2015). "Family Ties: Your Relatives' DNA
Could Turn You Into a Suspect". Argument. Wired (paper)format=
requires url= (help). Condé Nast: 35–8. ISSN 1059-1028.
McKie, Robin McKie (24 May 2009). "Eureka moment that led to the
DNA fingerprinting". The Observer. London.
Forensic Science, Statistics, and the Law—Blog that tracks
scientific and legal developments pertinent to forensic
In silico simulation of Molecular Biology Techniques—A place to
learn typing techniques by simulating them
DNA Databases in the EU
The Innocence Record, Winston & Strawn LLP/The Innocence Project
Making Sense of
DNA Backlogs, 2012: Myths vs. Reality United States
Department of Justice
France Tries Mass
DNA Test in Hunt for School Rapist
Wikimedia Commons has media related