Also known as:deoxyribonucleic acid · genetic evidence · DNA profiling
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An identification technique based on analysis of an individual's unique genetic material. The resulting profile permits comparison of biological samples to determine the source with a high degree of statistical certainty when properly generated and interpreted by a qualified expert.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Expert Comparison of DNA Profiles
After a sexual assault, police obtain a vaginal swab from the victim and a blood sample from suspect Diego Duarte. State analyst Dr. Lopez generates a profile from Duarte's sample and compares it to a profile produced by a private lab from the swab. At trial Dr. Lopez testifies that the profiles match and offers her own opinion on the comparison. The court admits the testimony because the private-lab profile serves only as underlying data for the expert's independent conclusion.
DNA Reliability Hearing
Plaintiff Deborah Dunn alleges that a prescription drug caused her child's birth defect. Defendant Dover Bank moves to exclude the plaintiff's expert who relies on DNA linkage studies to show causation. The court conducts a pretrial hearing to assess whether the DNA methodology is scientifically valid and whether the expert's application of it is reliable before deciding admissibility.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993)
Two minors brought suit against Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, claiming they suffered limb reduction birth defects because their mothers had taken Bendectin, a drug prescribed for morning sickness to about 17.5 million pregnant women in the United States between 1957 and 1982.
Limb reduction defects occur in fewer than one birth out of every 1000. Scientists do not know the mechanism by which any teratogen causes such defects. The plaintiffs offered testimony from three groups of experts. One group proposed to testify to a statistical link between Bendectin ingestion during pregnancy and limb reduction defects based on reanalyses of published studies that had reported no such association. A second group proposed to testify that Bendectin causes limb reduction defects in humans because it causes such defects in laboratory animals. A third group proposed to testify based on the similarity of Bendectin's chemical structure to other drugs suspected of causing birth defects.
The district court granted summary judgment to Merrell Dow after excluding the plaintiffs' expert testimony. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed, and remanded for consideration under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
On remand, the Ninth Circuit examined the affidavits and prior trial testimony of the plaintiffs' experts. None of the experts had studied the effect of Bendectin on limb reduction defects before being hired to testify in this or related cases. None had published his work on Bendectin in a scientific journal. The only review their work had received was by judges and juries.
Plaintiffs' epidemiological experts made vague assertions of a statistically significant relationship between Bendectin and birth defects but did not state that the relative risk exceeded two. With the exception of Dr. Palmer, the remaining experts were willing to testify only that Bendectin is capable of causing birth defects. Dr. Palmer alone was willing to testify that Bendectin did cause the limb defects in each of the children, based on his review of the plaintiffs' medical records and his conclusion that Bendectin is a teratogen.
Defendant Damian Decker is convicted of robbery. After conviction he seeks post-conviction DNA testing of semen evidence that the state destroyed. Decker claims the destruction violated due process. The court denies relief, holding that a convicted offender has no freestanding federal right to post-conviction DNA testing where state procedures are not fundamentally unfair.
DNA-Based Paternity Order
Immigration authorities seek to deport Tuan Ahn Nguyen. His father obtains a state-court parentage order based on DNA testing that establishes biological paternity. Nguyen argues the order satisfies statutory requirements for derivative citizenship. The court examines whether the DNA evidence and resulting order meet the criteria for establishing the parent-child relationship under immigration law.
Tuan Ahn Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service533 U.S. 53, 74 (2001)
Tuan Anh Nguyen was born on September 11, 1969, in Saigon, Vietnam, to a Vietnamese mother and Joseph Boulais, a United States citizen employed by a corporation in Vietnam.
Boulais and Nguyen's mother were not married. After their relationship ended, Nguyen lived for a time with the family of Boulais's new Vietnamese girlfriend.
In June 1975, when Nguyen was almost six years old, he came to the United States with his father. He became a lawful permanent resident and was raised in Texas by Boulais.
In 1992, at age 22, Nguyen pleaded guilty in a Texas state court to two counts of sexual assault on a child and was sentenced to eight years in prison on each count. Three years later, the Immigration and Naturalization Service initiated deportation proceedings against him as an alien convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude and an aggravated felony.
At his deportation hearing Nguyen testified that he was a citizen of Vietnam. The Immigration Judge found him deportable. Nguyen appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. In 1998, while the appeal was pending, Boulais obtained an order of parentage from a Texas court based on DNA testing that showed a 99.98 percent probability of paternity; Nguyen was then 28 years old. The Board dismissed the appeal because Nguyen had failed to establish compliance with 8 U.S.C. §1409(a). Nguyen and Boulais appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which rejected their constitutional challenge to §1409(a). The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Police arrest Doris Duffy for a serious felony and transport her to the station. As part of routine booking they swab the inside of her cheek for DNA and enter the profile into a database. Duffy later moves to suppress the resulting match to an unsolved crime. The court upholds the swab as a reasonable booking search incident to lawful detention.
DNA Evidence in Capital Case
Defendant Dwight Dorsey is convicted of raping and murdering a child. The prosecution introduces DNA evidence linking Dorsey to the crime scene. On appeal Dorsey argues that the death penalty for this offense violates the Eighth Amendment. The court considers whether the presence of DNA proof affects the constitutionality of capital punishment for the crime.
Kennedy v. Louisiana554 U.S. 407, 128 S.Ct. 2641, 171 L.Ed.2d 525 (2008)
On March 2, 1998, Patrick Kennedy called 911 at 9:18 a.m. to report that his eight-year-old stepdaughter L.H. had been raped in the side yard by two neighborhood boys who fled on a blue bicycle.
Police arrived between 9:20 and 9:30 a.m. and found L.H. on her bed wrapped in a bloody blanket. She was bleeding profusely from severe vaginal injuries that included a laceration separating her cervix from the vagina and a torn perineum requiring emergency surgery at Children's Hospital.
Kennedy initially told investigators that L.H. had been dragged from the garage to the yard. Both L.H. and Kennedy maintained this account in early interviews, including a three-hour videotaped session with a psychologist days after the assault.
Physical evidence soon contradicted the yard account. The grass showed little disturbance except for coagulated blood. A bicycle found nearby had flat tires and spider webs. Blood was discovered on the underside of L.H.'s mattress inside the home.
Kennedy had also made telephone calls before 7:37 a.m. inquiring how to remove blood from carpet. He had called a cleaning service. He did not contact 911 until roughly 9:18 a.m.
Eight days after the crime, Kennedy was arrested.
About a month later L.H. was removed from her mother's custody. On June 22, 1998, she first told her mother that Kennedy had raped her. In December 1999 she recorded a videotaped accusation at the Child Advocacy Center.
The State charged Kennedy with aggravated rape of a child under twelve under La. Stat. Ann. § 14:42 and sought the death penalty.
The trial began in August 2003 when L.H. was thirteen. She testified that Kennedy had been on top of her, had given her orange juice with chopped pills afterward, and had instructed her to blame neighborhood boys.
The jury convicted Kennedy of aggravated rape. After hearing testimony from another child about prior sexual abuse by Kennedy, the jury unanimously sentenced him to death.
The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence in 2007. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in 2008.
When may an expert testify about a DNA profile generated by a non-testifying laboratory?
An expert may testify about such a profile when the profile is used only as the basis for the expert's own independent opinion and is not offered for its truth. The expert must be subject to cross-examination about the methods, assumptions, and reliability of the comparison.
Supporting sources
Is collection of a cheek swab for DNA analysis during booking a reasonable search?
Yes. When officers arrest a suspect for a serious offense and bring the person to the station for detention, taking and analyzing a cheek swab as part of routine booking constitutes a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.
Supporting sources
How is DNA evidence used to prove parentage in intestate succession?
DNA analysis may establish biological paternity or maternity. Once the genetic link is shown, the claimant must still satisfy any additional statutory requirements for recognition as a surviving descendant entitled to take by representation.
Supporting sources
509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993)
…might be, id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2797. : There are, of course, exceptions. Fingerprint analysis, voice recognition, DNA fingerprinting and a variety of other scientific endeavors closely tied to law enforcement may indeed have the courtroom as a principal theatre of operations. See, e.g., United States v.…