디엔에이(DNA)증거의 해석의 오류가능성과 증거법적 대안
Evidential and Procedural Measures against Possible Errors in the interpretation of DNA Evidence
0
조회
0
다운로드
16
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article discusses evidential and procedural measures against DNA errors in criminal investigation and trials. It has been believed that a Random-match Probability(RMP) of DNA profile is so astronomical that a coincidental match in population is unlikely. RMP of DNA evidence, however, has been mistakenly considered as the probability of identifying criminals. In contrast, the RMP is merely frequency showing that two randomly selected persons might match in their DNA STRs, rather than a suspect likely being an offender. Therefore, with Bayes' Theorem, Posterior Odds = Likelihood Ratio(LR,1/RMP)× Prior Odds. Thus, if we don't know Prior Odds, we cannot calculate Posterior Odds. As a result, if there is only LR evidence against suspects, they should not be convicted solely based on DNA profile random-match rate. Prior Odds, however, can be estimated with the size of population, even without further evidence. For e×ample, if a suspect lives in a community of 40,000 population, we can assume that the likelihood of the suspect being a culprit is 1/40,000. Then we can multiply 1/40,000 with LR. In this case, Posterior Odds(the likelihood that the suspect is an offender) can be calculated. There are some caveats,however. Other issues that raise the error rate of DNA evidence must be dealt with, such as chain of custody and pre-trial discovery. Chain of custody of DNA evidence must be observed and proved from the stage of DNA evidence gathering to a DNA e×amination process and e×pert testimony at trial. In addition, defendants must be given access to all the case files and data made at a laboratory and given an opportunity to rebut the reliability of test results prior to trials. Furthermore, indigent defendants must be assisted by a DNA e×pert funded by a government.
Abstract
This article discusses evidential and procedural measures against DNA errors in criminal investigation and trials. It has been believed that a Random-match Probability(RMP) of DNA profile is so astronomical that a coincidental match in population is unlikely. RMP of DNA evidence, however, has been mistakenly considered as the probability of identifying criminals. In contrast, the RMP is merely frequency showing that two randomly selected persons might match in their DNA STRs, rather than a suspect likely being an offender. Therefore, with Bayes' Theorem, Posterior Odds = Likelihood Ratio(LR,1/RMP)× Prior Odds. Thus, if we don't know Prior Odds, we cannot calculate Posterior Odds. As a result, if there is only LR evidence against suspects, they should not be convicted solely based on DNA profile random-match rate. Prior Odds, however, can be estimated with the size of population, even without further evidence. For e×ample, if a suspect lives in a community of 40,000 population, we can assume that the likelihood of the suspect being a culprit is 1/40,000. Then we can multiply 1/40,000 with LR. In this case, Posterior Odds(the likelihood that the suspect is an offender) can be calculated. There are some caveats,however. Other issues that raise the error rate of DNA evidence must be dealt with, such as chain of custody and pre-trial discovery. Chain of custody of DNA evidence must be observed and proved from the stage of DNA evidence gathering to a DNA e×amination process and e×pert testimony at trial. In addition, defendants must be given access to all the case files and data made at a laboratory and given an opportunity to rebut the reliability of test results prior to trials. Furthermore, indigent defendants must be assisted by a DNA e×pert funded by a government.
참고문헌 (24)
- 이성기, "증거물 보관의 연속성(Chain of Custody) 원칙과 증거법적 함의", 경찰학연구, 11(3), pp.55~84 (2011), 경찰대학
- 이응혁, "형사재판상 과학적 증거의 기준과 국내 발전방향 -최근 미국에서의 과학적 증거의 개혁논의를 중심으로", 형사정책, 23(1), pp.301~336 (2011), 한국형사정책학회
- 한면수, "유전자감식을 위한 15 STR(Identifier)마커의 집단유전학적분석", 한국법과학회지, 6(4) (2005)
- Alex Stein, "Foundations of Evidence Law", 41 (2005)
- Andrea Roth, "Safety in Numbers? Deciding When DNA Alone is Enough to Convict", N. Y. U. L. Rev, 85, pp.1130~1175 (2010)
- Barbara J. Sharpiro, "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" and "Probable Cause": Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence", pp.41~42 (1991)
- Boaz, Sangero, "Why a Conviction Should not be Based on a Single Piece of Evidence: A Proposal for Reform", Jurimetrics J, 48, pp.43~ (2007)
- Charles Nesson, "Reasonable Doubt and Permissive Inferences: The Value of Comple×ity", Harv. L. Rev, 92, pp.1187~1193 (1979)
- Federal Bureau of Investigation, "FBI Handbook of Crime Scene Forensics 171-174", ~ (2008)
- Henry Lee, "Forensic Applications of DNA Typing: Part 2:Collection and Preservation of DNA Evidence", The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 19(1), pp.10~18 (1998)
- James Q. Whitman, "the Origins of Reasonable Doubt, 206-12", ~ (2008)
- John D. Jackson, "Analysing the New Evidence Scholarship: Towards a New Conception of the Law of Evidence", O×ford Journal of Legal Studies, 16(2), pp.309~313 (1996)
- Paul C. Giannelli, , Crim. Law. Bulletin, 44(6), pp.7~ (2008)
- Paul Roberts, "Criminal Evidence", 121~ (2006)
- Peter Donnelly, "Appealing Statistics", Significance (2005)
- Richard Lempert, "Some Caveats Concerning DNA as Criminal Identification Evidence: With Thanks to the Revered Bayes", Cardozo L. Rev, 13, pp.303~ (1991)
- Sheldon Krimsky, , 291~ (2010)
- Steve Sheppard, "The Metamorphses of Reasonable Doubt: How Changes in the Burden of Proof Have Weakened the Presumption of Innocence", Norte Dame L. Rev, 78, pp.1165~ (2003)
- "Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence"[URL]
- Wayne R. LaFave, "Criminal Procedure", pp.580~ (2004), Thompson
- William C. Thompson, "Evaluating Forensic DNA Evidence, Part 2, The Champion" (2003)
- "인터넷법률신문기사", ~ (2011)
- "ABA Standards on DNA Evidence, Part II. 2.1(b)"[URL]