CBS News reported Tuesday that police in Milledgeville, GA have requested DNA samples from Ben Roethlisberger in connection with assault allegations. Sexual assault cases use DNA testing extremely often to determine if the assailant and victim had contact.

It will be interesting to see whether Roethlisberger admits or denies sexual contact with the 20-year old college student. According to the CBS article, the woman went to police immediately following the incident. That gives police the highest possible probability of obtaining DNA evidence linking Roethlisberger.

The police department is analyzing security videos and using eye-witness testimony to get to the truth, but DNA evidence could be a deciding factor. DNA testing turns assault cases from a he said/she said into a case of facts.

Stay tuned to find out if forensic DNA is used as the basis for charges being filed against Big Ben.

The AP reported today that scientists in Rome are attempting to gain clearance into Leonardo Da Vinci’s alleged burial site. The purpose is to perform carbon and DNA testing to determine two things:

1. If the body is that of Da Vinci

2. If the Mona Lisa is a self portrait

Wow.

I don’t think exhuming a body that has been buried for almost 500 years will provide any evidence to support either of their goals. The likelihood of obtaining DNA is EXTREMELY rare. The best place to check would be a molar or femur. The DNA is likely degraded by now. Even if they do get a DNA sample, what will they compare it to? Without a known Da Vinci reference sample there’s nothing they can do to identify him using DNA.

On to goal number 2. These scientists think they can reconstruct Da Vinci’s bone structure using the remains, and figure out if the Mona Lisa is actually a self portrait.

My suggestion: Look at some actual portraits of Da Vinci.

Leave the guy alone.

Evidence is coming out that DNA testing is sometimes wrong. What is considered by most people in the general public to be foolproof, DNA test results are assisting in the wrongful convictions of innocent citizens and contributing to child support payments for men who are not biological fathers. There are two reasons for bad DNA testing results; poor testing methods and poor interpretation.

60 minutes reported on a man who was wrongly convicted of rape and sentenced to 25 years in prison. The Houston crime lab said his DNA profile matched that of an evidence sample found at the crime scene. It turns out the profiles didn’t match at all. The test results were interpreted wrong.

DNA testing results show a series of peaks, which need to be interpreted manually by a  trained scientist. The machines that produce the data do not produce the final results. When you get a scientist who is undertrained or under the watchful eye of biased parties, it’s easy to get wrong results.

Cross contamination can occur during evidence collection or DNA testing. This is another leading cause of poor results. Evidence samples mix with reference samples or other evidence samples. It ruins the whole test.

Laboratories have been knows to mix standard paternity testing samples in child support cases, leading to false exclusions. Again, data can be interpreted wrong and produce a false inclusion.

In any regard, it’s of utmost importance to check the qualifications and methods of any DNA testing laboratory you choose to use for testing. There are plenty of reputable labs out there. There are also plenty of labs like Houston.

A CBS News Blog on Friday reported that the University of Akron will require all employees, staff, and contractors to submit DNA samples to university officials. Background checks and drug screens are common place employment practices, but never before has an employer required employees to give a DNA sample. There’s been some kickback from some staff members.

The theory behind DNA sample submissions makes sense. If there is ever a crime committed, the school can use the samples on file to eliminate potential suspects. It seems easier to collect samples before anything goes wrong, than to ask someone for a sample after a crime is committed. DNA sample submissions also act as a crime deterrent. If you knew your employer had your DNA on file, would you still commit a crime? I can see why the University wants this to happen.

However, after reading the school’s policy on the issue, it looks like they are only using the DNA samples to compare them to the federal CODIS database as part of the criminal background check. This would require the university to process each of the samples in a laboratory, instead of just keeping the swabs in a filing cabinet in case of emergency.

So, should this policy be allowed? Is it too invasive? Does it violate a person’s right to privacy? These questions are all up for debate.

School officials claim the policy violates a federal law which goes into effect on November 21st called the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).

A university spokesperson stated that the DNA sample submission is not required. Employees are free to seek employment elsewhere.

A new Texas law, which took effect in 2001, allows defendants who were convicted with DNA evidence to petition for DNA retesting. Now Harris County has about 200 pending requests, and they receive an additional 12-15 each month. Court officials have assigned three attorneys to determine which cases have legitimate chances of finding exculpatory evidence.

Chron.com reported the attorneys assigned to go through cases are veteran defense attorney Bob Wicoff, defense attorney Thomas Martin, and former prosecutor Kelly Smith. Columnist, James Pinkerton, interviewed the three attorneys, who had some interesting feedback on what to expect from the case reviews.

Wicoff stated that crime labs and law enforcement have become incestuous, making results unreliable. This statement seems obvious, but many folks seem to turn their heads thinking law enforcement would never manipulate testing results to get what they needed.

Although the attorneys make no real guesses as to how many exonerations will come out of these 200 cases, Wicoff said, “Maybe none, maybe 30.” It sure will be interesting to follow the review of these cases.

The only true way of getting fair and unbiased DNA test results is to hire an independent forensic DNA laboratory to complete the testing. Instead, we have prosecutors spending millions in tax dollars to get evidence to convict defendants. Then the state has to spend millions more to give the defendant a fair second opinion. It doesn’t make much sense to me.

On July 9, 2009, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder spoke at

the Vera Institute of Justice’s Third Annual Justice Address. His comments focused on a review of sentencing guidelines, mandatory sentencing, racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing plus resources for public defender programs. The Department will also consider alternatives to incarceration and new legislation that will reform the structure of federal sentencing.

The Administration is concerned with indigent defense, which attorney General Holder describes as being in a state of crisis. Holder made the following statement:

“Resources for public defender programs lag far behind other justice system programs, constituting only about 3 percent of all criminal justice expenditures in our nation’s largest counties. We know that defenders in many jurisdictions carry huge caseloads that make it difficult for them to fulfill their legal and ethical responsibilities to their clients.”

Desiree Washington of Popdecay reports that the Department will also look at the usage of forensic DNA evidence and its increasing role of importance in criminal prosecution.

“Our goal is to ensure that forensic science is practiced at the highest level possible, and always in the pursuit of truth,” Holder stated.

He also indicated support for defendants having access to DNA evidence, and he hopes that states will follow Federal law allowing access. DNA has an unparalleled ability to exonerate the wrongfully convicted as well as identify the guilty.

The Innocence Project tally of Exonerations of wrongfully accused citizens now stands at 240. Mr. Holder’s initiatives seem to be tempered by two recent Supreme Court decisions regarding DNA evidence and the extensive National Academy of Science report, released in February 2009, critical of many forensic science disciplines and structure.

This question comes up every week: “Can you do a DNA test on a hair sample?” Our customer service reps are always tell clients, “Yes, most of the time.” There is one primary factor that determines whether a DNA lab can perform a paternity test on hair.

The hair must be from the root.

Clients contact us and want to prove paternity without other individuals knowing. Usually, collecting a hair sample is the easiest way, but the hair must be plucked, or otherwise from the root.

We’ve had good success obtaining DNA from a hairbrush. We ask our clients to send us the entire brush, so our forensic analysts can collect an appropriate sample. This involves placing the hair under a microscope, and selecting the strands that contain a root. One thing to consider: The brush should have only one user; many people share their brush

with family members who have similar colored hair. It will be very difficult to determine which strand belongs who which person.

There is no nuclear DNA in a strand of hair that does not contain the root. Paternity testing cannot be completed without the root. However, we can complete maternity testing, because the hair contains mitochondrial DNA, which is passed on through female generations.

If you have a hairbrush that you want tested, I recommend sending the entire brush to a DNA lab, rather than pulling hair out yourself and sending it in. Forensic analysts are trained to collect and extract DNA from difficult samples.

Next time you’re unable to collect a cheek swab, consider a discreet paternity test using a hair sample.

The vast majority of people believe that DNA testing is the end all and the be all of proof of relationships. Two major uses for DNA testing today are paternity testing and forensic DNA testing. Paternity testing tells us if a man is the biological father of a child, while forensic DNA testing tells us if a suspect has committed a crime. Both forms of testing are fool-proof, infallable, watertight, and flawless......aren't they?

Unfortunately, there are a number of factors which could lead to false or inaccurate results for each of the two types of DNA tests mentioned.

The number one reason for wrong DNA test results for paternity testing involves chain of custody. Chain of custody is documentation showing proof of the participants. When individuals purchase home kits, they may not collect DNA from the person they say they collected it from. They might intentionally or accidentally switch DNA samples, which lead to incorrect results. It’s crucial that chain of custody stays intact when collecting and processing DNA samples for paternity testing.

There are more opportunities for incorrect results with forensic DNA testing. Chain of custody is another huge factor in forensics, since you are handling evidence and working within a crime scene. Contamination of evidence can be a major reason for wrong DNA results. If a detective touches evidence without taking appropriate precautions, then her DNA may contaminate the evidence sample.

There are a number of other possibilities for wrong DNA test results. Before you decide that the results you receive are accurate and correct, make sure there is a legitimate and thorough chain of custody accompanying those results.

Michigan, in particular, is a state which has made it law to collect DNA from suspected criminals along with convicted felons. This has led to 6,000 DNA samples that need to be collected and added to the national CODIS database.

Unfortunately, Michigan doesn't have the $1 million needed to fund additional DNA equipment and staff. According to an online Michigan newspaper article, not only did the funding not come through, the state is considering closing one of seven existing crime labs.

Michigan has a dilemma. They understand that DNA testing is a very effective way of solving and preventing crime, but they think they don't have enough money to perform the testing. I have a solution.

Outsource the testing to an independent forensic DNA laboratory. I guarantee any forensic lab in the United States will process 6,000 samples for far less than $1 million. Independent DNA laboratories have existing equipment and staff needed to complete high volume DNA sample extractions.

When you think of it, wouldn't it make more sense for all criminal DNA testing to be done by an independent lab? State crime labs are working directly with the prosecution. They can't be trusted with completely unbiased testing and reporting.

Using an independent and accredited forensic DNA laboratory would save states millions in tax dollars, as well as provide fair DNA test results for all.

According to the Innocence Project fact sheet, there have been 240 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States. As you may imagine, a large number of these exonerations are due to improper forensic science techniques. Many State Crime labs are coming under scrutiny for using poor DNA testing methods. Others forensic scientists and expert witnesses have engaged in misconduct which has led to wrongful convictions.

The most recent DNA forensic laboratory under scrutiny is the Houston, Texas crime lab. I read a Houston Chronicle article which discusses the potential misconduct of crime lab analyst, Joseph Chu, during the muder trial of Charles D. Raby. Chu testified on forensic DNA test results of nail scrapings of the victim, saying they were inconclusive. Multiple experts have stated that Chu's testimony is inconsistent with the forensic DNA analysis.

In the case of Charles D. Raby, it appears that this man's conviction was based largely on the expert testimony of Joseph Chu. This is one man's opinion, albeit expert. The defense should have had the forensic dna analyzed by their own independent laboratory.

When insanity cases are argued in court, the suspect gets psychoanalyzed by two phsycologists. One of then represents the prosecution, and one testifies for the defense. They both describe their findings, and the jury decides who's story is more credible. Why is it that the jury accepts the prosecution's expert witness testimony as fact without considering that an independent forensic dna testing laboratory may report different findings?