Opinion ID: 1160857
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Significant Developments Subsequent to Barney

Text: Although the Barney court was correct in its observation that substantial debate was ensuing at that time over the effects, if any, of population substructuring on probability calculations made using the unmodified product rule, it also appears that no empirical data then existed either supporting or disproving theories that postulated a substantial impact of substructuring upon DNA forensic analysis. (See Chakraborty & Kidd article, supra, 254 Science at p. 1735, cited in Armstead v. State (1996) 342 Md. 38, 673 A.2d 221, 237; see also Kaye, DNA Evidence, supra, 7 Harv. J. Law & Tech. at p. 168 [stating that [t]here is very little evidence, and certainly no scientific consensus, that the impact [of substructuring] is substantial in any known population.].) Several developments since the filing of Barney indicate the controversy over population substructuring and use of the unmodified product rule has dissipated. First, in 1993, the FBI conducted an extensive, worldwide study of VNTR frequency data. (See IA U.S. Dept. Justice, FBI Rep., VNTR Population Data: A Worldwide Study (1993).) The FBI study concluded that population frequency calculation using the unmodified product rule was reliable, valid and meaningful, and free of any forensically significant consequences resulting from population substructure as had been postulated by some scientists. ( Ibid.; see also Lindsey v. People (Colo.1995) 892 P.2d 281, 294 [citing FBI Rep.]; State v. Copeland (Wash.1996) 130 Wash.2d 244, 922 P.2d 1304, 1319.) Second, in 1994, Dr. Eric Lander, a former leading opponent of the unmodified product rule, co-authored an article in which he declared that the DNA fingerprinting wars are over. (See Lander and Budowle, DNA Fingerprinting Dispute Laid to Rest (Oct. 27, 1994) 371 Nature 735, 735 (Lander and Budowle article).) In the article, the authors state that the 1992 NRC Report failed to state clearly enough that the ceiling principle was intended as an ultra-conservative calculation, which did not bar experts from providing their own `best estimates' based on the product rule. (Lander & Budowle article, supra, at p. 737; see also State v. Copeland, supra, 922 P.2d at p. 1319.) Lander and Budowle further stated that the FBI's laboratory maintained a remarkable database, and opined that observed variation is modest for the loci used in forensic analysis and random matches are quite rare, supporting the notion that the FBI's implementation of the product rule is a reasonable best estimate. (Lander & Budowle article, supra, at p. 737; see also Lindsey v. People, supra, 892 P.2d at p. 293.) Finally, the authors emphasized the convergence of scientific opinion concerning human population genetics statistics, noting that Budowle was one of the principal creators of the FBI's DNA program, and Lander was an early critic asserting the lack of scientific standards in DNA typing and was on the NRC Committee. They suggest in the article it is fair to say that we represent the range of scientific debate. (Lander & Budowle article, supra, at p. 735.) Third, and of greatest significance, in 1996 the NRC reexamined the methodology issue and concluded that use of the ceiling principle for forensic purposes is unnecessary, not only because the principle from a scientific standpoint overstates the actual effect of population substructuring. but also because of the current abundance of data regarding different ethnic groups within the major races. (1996 NRC Rep., supra, at pp. 156-159.) The 1996 NRC Report reaffirms the conclusion of the 1992 NRC Reportthat properly conducted DNA tests produce highly reliable results, and that DNA analysis, including the application of statistical probabilities, is generally accepted in relevant scientific communities. (1996 NRC Rep., supra, at pp. 2-4.) The NCR Report explicitly approves use of the product rule in calculating match frequencies. ( Id. at p. 122 [Recommendation 4.1: In general, the calculation of a profile frequency should be made with the product rule.].) Subsequently, DNA NAS, NCR, DAB, RFLP, PCR, and More: An Introduction to the Symposium on the 1996 NCR Report on Forensic DNA Evidence, an introduction to the Symposium on the 1996 NRC Report comprised of six articles, was published in 37 Jurimetrics Journal 395 (Summer 1997). As pointed out in Professor Kaye's introduction ( ibid. ), the authors are prolific commentators on DNA evidence ( id. at p. 403), most of whom have served as expert witnesses for defendants ( id. at p. 403, fn. 52). Moreover, the articles were selected by a process that tended to give preference to criticism, rather than approval, of the 1996 NRC Report. (37 Jurimetrics J. at p. 400, fn. 38.) The authors emphasize different points, and they do not all reach the same conclusions ( id. at pp. 403-04), but it is noteworthy that none of the articles expresses disagreement with the 1996 NRC Report's general approval of the product rule, and two of the critical symposium contributors expressly concede the product rule/population substructure issue has indeed been laid to rest. (See Thompson, Accepting Lower Standards: The National Research Council's Second Report on Forensic DNA Evidence (1997) 37 Jurimetrics J. 405, 423 [population structure studies have tipped the balance of scientific opinion in favor of the product rule (or something close to it)]; Lempert, After the DNA Wars: Skirmishing With NRC II (1997) 37 Jurimetrics J. 439, 455 [Lack of Hardy-Weinberg and linkage equilibria seems hardly to matter. Empirical studies suggest that conservatism in estimating allele frequencies in the first instance can more than make up for any prejudice an accused suffers from the untenability of the assumptions.].) A majority of jurisdictions have acknowledged these developmentsincluding the 1993 FBI Report (a worldwide population study), the Lander and Budowle article, and most significant, the 1996 NRC Reportand have concluded that the controversy over population substructuring and use of the unmodified product rule has been sufficiently resolved. (See, e.g., Com. v. Blasioli (1998) 552 Pa. 149, 713 A.2d 1117 [Pennsylvania; Frye test]; State v. Freeman (1997) 253 Neb. 385, 571 N.W.2d 276 [Nebraska; Frye test]; Armstead v. State, supra, 673 A.2d 221 [Maryland; Frye test and statute authorizing admissibility of RFLP statistical evidence]; State v. Copeland, supra, 922 P.2d 1304 [Washington; Frye test]; People v. Miller (1996) 173 Ill.2d 167, 219 Ill.Dec. 43, 670 N.E.2d 721 [Illinois; Frye test]; State v. Marcus (1996) 294 N.J.Super. 267, 683 A.2d 221 [New Jersey; Frye test]; State v. Morel (R.I. 1996) 676 A.2d 1347 [Rhode Island; Daubert test]; Lindsey v. People, supra, 892 P.2d 281 [Colorado; Frye test]; State v. Dinkins (1995) 319 S.C. 415, 462 S.E.2d 59 [South Carolina; Daubert test]; State v. Weeks (1995) 270 Mont. 63, 891 P.2d 477 [Montana; Daubert test]; State v. Anderson (1994) 118 N.M. 284, 881 P.2d 29 [New Mexico; Daubert test]; State v. Futrell (1993) 112 N.C.App. 651, 436 S.E.2d 884 [North Carolina; Daubert test]; People v. Chandler (1995) 211 Mich.App. 604, 536 N.W.2d 799 [Michigan; Frye test]; Taylor v. State (Okla.Crim.App.1995) 889 P.2d 319 [Oklahoma; Daubert test].) Moreover, extensive literature in peer-reviewed journals has accumulated in support of the conclusion that population substructuring does not impact significantly upon DNA population frequency estimates and that use of the unmodified product rule is appropriate to estimate probabilities of a random match. [31] (See, e.g., Kaye, DNA Evidence, supra, 7 Harv. J. L. & Tech. at pp. 126, fn. 113, 129-130, 161 [citing scientific journals espousing the view tha statistical tests demonstrate the independence of VNTR alleles and arguing that suitably computed and presented match-binning frequencies and probabilities pass muster under conventional rules of evidence]; Com. v. Blasioli, supra, 713 A.2d at p. 1126 [citing scientific journal articles]; State v. Copeland, supra, 922 P.2d at p. 1319 [same]; Armstead v. State, supra, 673 A.2d at pp. 238-239 [same].) It is important to note that the relevant question in this case is not whether some population substructuring exists, but whether the deviations it induces have an appreciable effect upon the relative frequency of the particular highly variable alleles selected for DNA profiling. (See Com. v. Blasioli, supra, 713 A.2d at p. 1125, fn. 21; Kaye, DNA Evidence, supra, 7 Harv. J. Law & Tech. at p. 169.) None of the experts, so far as we are aware, believe that population substructuring has absolutely no effect on frequencies obtained under the unmodified product rule. They conclude instead that when, as in the present case, the probabilities of a random match are very rareone in the multimillions or billionssubstantial variations in such frequencies have no practical significance. (See, e.g., 1996 NRC Rep., supra, at pp. 34, 112, 150-151, 156.) We have no occasion in this case to consider whether substructuring could be a cause of material variation in much higher frequencies, e.g., one in several hundred. It is clear from the evidence in the record, the clear weight of judicial authority, and the published scientific commentary, that the unmodified product rule, as used in the DNA forensic analysis in this case, has gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community and therefore meets the Kelly standard for admissibility.