Introduction

Alarmingly, less than 1% of court cases involving DNA are reviewed by experts working on behalf of the defense. Genophiler® automates the presentation and review of forensic DNA analyses to help assure that defendants and their attorneys are made aware of any commonly encountered problems that have occurred during the typing or interpreting of the DNA evidence associated with their case. With Genophiler®, the equivalent of five to ten hours of expensive expert analysis can be accomplished with a minimal amount of setup time. Results, primarily in the form of easily opened files that illustrate the electropherograms that are used to support the conclusion of a DNA profile "match" and a spread sheet that summarizes the most important features of the observed DNA profiles, are routinely available in less than one business day.

DNA evidence is being increasingly used in court cases. The first DNA typing methodology used forensically required comparatively large amounts of starting material (i.e. a blood stain the size of a dime). Now, with the use of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify Short Tandem Repeat (STR) segments of DNA, laboratories are able to analyze DNA from samples as small as a single cell. The high levels of variability that exist at STR loci make them well-suited for use in human identification. There is a great deal that a defense lawyer can and must do in order to effectively represent a client who is incriminated by DNA evidence.

Promoters of forensic DNA testing have done a good job selling the public on the idea that DNA tests provide a unique and infallible identification. DNA evidence has sent thousands of people to prison and, in recent years, has played a vital role in exonerating men who were falsely convicted. Even former critics of DNA testing, like Barry Scheck, are widely quoted attesting to the reliability of the DNA evidence in their cases. So it is natural to assume that any past problems with DNA evidence have been worked out and that the tests are now not only powerful, but are unassailable.

One problem with this assumption is that it ignores case-to-case variations in the nature and quality of DNA evidence. Although DNA technology has indeed improved over the years, and the tests have the potential to produce powerful and convincing results, that potential is not realized in every case. Even when the reliability and admissibility of the underlying test is well established, there is no guarantee that a test will produce reliable results each time it is used. In our experience, there often are case-specific issues and problems that greatly affect the quality and relevance of DNA test results, rendering DNA evidence far less probative than it might initially appear. We believe the criminal justice system at present does a poor job of distinguishing unassailably powerful DNA evidence from weak, misleading DNA evidence

Cases involving DNA usually involve heinous crimes, including rape, assault, and murder. Alarmingly, fewer than 1% of these cases are reviewed by the defense, meaning that there is a high risk of undiscovered mistakes and ultimately, a wrongful conviction. Barriers to reviewing STR-DNA evidence are high (e.g. software needed to even open the files provided by crime laboratories in discovery costs over $18,000) and not enough experts are available to review every case. Experts are needed, but they simply do not have enough time to analyze as many cases as they would like. Running the DNA analysis software is an involved process that takes several hours. Only then can the expert interpret the evidence. The Genophiler® software developed by Forensic Bioinformatic Services offers a solution by automatically running the analysis software with very little setup time. Experts can evaluate more cases and have more and better opportunities to find serious problems such as unreported secondary contributors, failed controls and overstated interpretations of test results. Forensic DNA evidence is a new technology, yet it has accounted for over 100 people being exonerated after being convicted. How many others are currently in prison due to inadequate review of DNA test results is still an open question.

Last modified: 10/12/10