Global survey on evaluative reporting on DNA evidence with regard to activity‐level propositions

For many criminal cases, the source of who deposited the DNA is not what the prosecutor and the defense are trying to dispute. In court, the question may be how the DNA was deposited at the crime scene rather than who the DNA came from. Although laboratories in many countries have begun to evaluate...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of forensic sciences 2024-05, Vol.69 (3), p.798-813
Main Authors: Prinz, Mechthild, Pirtle, Devyn, Oldoni, Fabio
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
activity‐level evaluative reporting
activity‐level propositions
Crime
DNA evidence
expert testimony
forensic practitioners
Genetic testing
global survey
Laboratories
Questions
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:For many criminal cases, the source of who deposited the DNA is not what the prosecutor and the defense are trying to dispute. In court, the question may be how the DNA was deposited at the crime scene rather than who the DNA came from. Although laboratories in many countries have begun to evaluate DNA evidence given formal activity‐level propositions (ALPs), it is unknown how much other forensic practitioners know and what they think about activity‐level evaluative reporting (ALR). To collect this information, a survey with 21 questions was submitted to international forensic science organizations across Europe, Australia, South America, Canada, Asia, and Africa. The survey combined open‐ended and multiple‐choice questions and received 162 responses. Responses revealed a wide range of knowledge on the topic. Overall, most respondents were somewhat knowledgeable about ALR, ALP, and current practices in court and expressed their support of the concept. A majority of participants identified gaps and obstacles regarding ALR they would like to see addressed. Examples include (1) need for more education/training at all stakeholder levels, (2) need for more DNA evidence‐related data under realistic case scenarios, (3) need to internally implement and validate a formalized and objective approach for reporting, and (4) in some countries the need to achieve court admissibility. This global survey gathered the current concerns of forensic DNA practitioners and outlined several operational concerns. The information can be used to advance the implementation of ALR in laboratories and court testimony worldwide.
ISSN:0022-1198
1556-4029
DOI:10.1111/1556-4029.15488