This module originally occurred on June 19, 2019
Duration: 4 hours
Module 6: Probabilistic Genotyping in Court
Biological modeling, statistical theory, and the computer processing of probabilistic genotyping systems are based on long- standing principles, yet their usage in U.S. courts has been limited to the past few years. This module of the Probabilistic Genotyping of Evidentiary DNA Typing Results workshop series addresses topics relevant to the admissibility of probabilistic genotyping results and the presentation of results in criminal proceedings. Various decisions related to probabilistic genotyping will be summarized from a legal perspective. Three expert witnesses will review their approach to presenting DNA evidence in criminal proceedings.
These experts will discuss whether probabilistic genotyping meets necessary legal standards and will detail how they have assisted the court in assessing whether testimony is based on scientifically valid reasoning.
Detailed Learning Objectives
- Identify resources related to the methodology and software used in probabilistic genotyping to demonstrate that they have been validated and subjected to peer review and publication
- Describe how probabilistic genotyping software technologies and their underlying scientific and statistical principles are founded and generally accepted in the relevant communities
- Relay other information to address admissibility standards
- Assimilate information provided throughout this series to enhance your ability to testify to DNA evidence that is based on probabilistic genotyping
- John Buckleton | Institute of Environmental Science and Research, Auckland, New Zealand
- Jerrilyn Conway | Federal Bureau of Investigation, Quantico, Virginia
- Dawn Herkenham | Leidos, Alexandria, Virginia
- Mark Perlin | Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Funding for this Forensic Technology Center of Excellence webinar has been provided by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this webinar are those of the presenter(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Justice.