Forensic DNA Typing

Literature Cited

1. Aronson JD. 2007. Genetic Witness: Science, Law and Controversy in the Making of DNA Profiling Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
2. Augenstein S. 2017. Parabon's DNA phenotyping had crucial role in North Carolina double-murder arrest, conviction. Forensic MagJan. 5 https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/01/parabons-dna-phenotyping-had-crucial-role-north-carolina-double-murder-arrest-conviction [Google Scholar]
3. Banks G. 2016. Texas leading massive review of criminal cases based on change in DNA calculations. Houston Chron Jan. 30, http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Texas-leading-massive-review-of-criminal-cases-6796205.php [Google Scholar]
4. Bieber FR, Buckleton JS, Budowle B, Butler JM, Coble MD. 2016. Evaluation of forensic DNA mixture evidence: protocol for evaluation, interpretation, and statistical calculations using the combined probability of inclusion. BMC Genet 17:1125 [Google Scholar]
5. Boeri D. 2017. Standard DNA testing can't differentiate between identical twins. A new test challenges that. WBURMar. 7 http://www.wbur.org/news/2017/03/07/twin-dna-crime-tech [Google Scholar]
6. Butler JM. 2010. Fundamentals of Forensic DNA Typing San Diego, CA: Academic [Google Scholar]
7. Butler JM. 2012. Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Methodology San Diego, CA: Academic [Google Scholar]
8. Butler JM. 2015. Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Interpretation San Diego, CA: Academic [Google Scholar]
9. Curran J, Buckleton J. 2010. Inclusion probabilities and dropout. J. Forensic Sci. 55:1171–73 [Google Scholar]
10. DiMaio VJM. 2015. Letter to the Members of the Texas Criminal Justice Community, Aug. 21, Texas Forensic Science Commission, Austin, TX. http://www.fsc.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Unintended%20Effects%20of%20FBI%20Database%20Corrections%20on%20Assessment%20of%20DNA%20Mixture%20Interpretation%20in%20Texas%20NOTICE.pdf
11. Doleac J. 2017. The effects of DNA databases on crime. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 9:1165–201 [Google Scholar]
12. Doleac J. 2016. How do state crime policies affect other states? The externalities of state DNA database laws. Work. Pap., Batten Sch. Public Policy, Univ. Va http://jenniferdoleac.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Doleac_DNA_externalities.pdf
13. Dror IE, Hampikian G. 2011. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci. Justice 51:4204–8 [Google Scholar]
14. ENFSI DNA Work. Group. 2016. DNA Database Management: Review and Recommendations Wiesbaden, Germ.: Eur. Netw. Forensic Sci. Inst http://enfsi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/final_version_enfsi_2016_document_on_dna-database_management_0.pdf [Google Scholar]
15. Faigman DL, Cheng EK, Mnookin J, Murphy EE, Sanders J, Slobogin C. 2016–17. Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony Eagan, MN: Thomson Reuters [Google Scholar]
16. Fed. Bur. Investig. 2017a. CODIS–NDIS Statistics (FBI-NDIS Statistics) Washington, DC: FBI [Google Scholar]
17. Fed. Bur. Investig. 2017b. Frequently Asked Questions on CODIS and NDIS (FBI-CODIS FAQ) Washington, DC: FBI https://www.fbi.gov/services/laboratory/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet [Google Scholar]
18. Fed. Bur. Investig. 2017c. Frequently Asked Questions on Rapid DNA Analysis (FBI-RDIS FAQ) Washington, DC: FBI [Google Scholar]
19. Garrett B. 2011. Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
20. Gill P, Brenner CH, Buckleton JS, Carracedo A, Krawczak M. et al. 2006. DNA Commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures. Forensic Sci. Int. 160:90–101 [Google Scholar]
21. Goulka J, Matthies C, Disley E, Steinberg P. 2010. Toward a Comparison of DNA Profiling and Databases in the United States and England Santa Monica, CA: RAND [Google Scholar]
22. Hindmarsh R, Prainsak B. 2010. Genetic Suspects: Global Governance of Forensic DNA Profiling and Databasing Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
23. Joh EE. 2006. Reclaiming “abandoned” DNA: the Fourth Amendment and genetic privacy. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 100:857–84 [Google Scholar]
24. Joh EE. 2011. Theft: recognizing the crime of nonconsensual genetic collection and testing. Boston Univ. Law Rev. 91:665–700 [Google Scholar]
25. Kassin SM, Dror IE, Kukucka J. 2013. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2:142–52 [Google Scholar]
26. Kaye D. 2010. The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
27. Kofman A. 2016. The troubling rise of rapid DNA testing. New Republic Feb. 24, https://newrepublic.com/article/130443/troubling-rise-rapid-dna-testing [Google Scholar]
28. Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301 (2012)
29. Mnookin JL, Cole SA, Dror IE, Fisher BAJ, Houck MM. et al. 2011. The need for a research culture in the forensic sciences. UCLA Law Rev 58:725–79 [Google Scholar]
30. Murphy EE. 2015. Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA New York, NY: Nation Books [Google Scholar]
31. Murphy EE. 2013. License, registration, cheek swab: DNA testing and the divided court. Harvard Law Rev 127:161–96 [Google Scholar]
32. Natl. Res. Counc. (NRC). 2009. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
33. People v. Murray, 54 Misc.3d 825 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. 2016)
34. People v. Oral Nicholas Hillary, Decision & Order, Ind. #2015–15 St. Lawrence Cty New York:Aug. 26 2016.
35. Pres. Counc. Advis. Sci. Technol. (PCAST). 2016. Forensic Science in the Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods Washington, DC: Executive Off. Pres. [Google Scholar]
36. Raynor v. State, 99 A.3d 753 (Md. 2014)
37. Roth A. 2016. Trial by machine. Georget. Law J. 104:1245–1305 [Google Scholar]
38. Santos F, Machado H, Silva S. 2013. Forensic DNA databases in European countries: Is size linked to performance. ? Life Sci. Soc. Policy 9:112 [Google Scholar]
39. Scherr AE. 2013. Genetic privacy and the Fourth Amendment: unregulated surreptitious DNA harvesting. Georgia Law Rev 47:445–526 [Google Scholar]
40. Sims G. 2008. DNA partial match (crime scene DNA profile to offender) policy 2008-BJS-01 Calif. Dep. Justice, Bur. Forensic Serv. [Google Scholar]
41. Tex. Forensic Sci. Comm. 2016. Clarification regarding the term “current and proper mixture interpretation protocols.”. Austin, TX: Tex. Forensic Sci. Comm http://www.fsc.texas.gov/sites/default/files/Clarification%20on%20current%20and%20proper%20mixture%20interpetation%20protocols.pdf
42. Toom V. 2012. Forensic DNA databases in England and the Netherlands: governance, structure and performance compared. New Genet. Soc. 31:311–22 [Google Scholar]
43. Varriale v. State, 119 A.3d 824 (Md. 2015)
44. Watters KB, Coyle HM. 2016. Forensic statistical tool (FST): a probabilistic genotyping software for human identification. Jurimetr. J. 56:183–95 [Google Scholar]
45. Yang Y, Xie B, Yan J. 2014. Application of next-generation sequencing technology in forensic science. Genom. Proteom. Bioinform. 12:5190–97 [Google Scholar]