Hacker News Reader

Forensics is a total sham. http://lst.law.asu.edu/FS09/pdfs/Koehler4_3.pdf

The error rate of fingerprints is at least in the single digit %, but everything else is double-digits. Moreover, while DNA is theoretically extremely reliable, the error rate of DNa testing is dominated by lab error and is on the order of 1-2%. Yet, juries are generally not told this overall error rate, but rather just the theoretical probability of a false match (1 in trillions).

View on HN

Wouldn't it be the defense attorney's responsibility to remind the jury of the error rates time after time?

Attacking the reliability of DNA evidence can make you seem desperate. Of course they still need to do exactly that, but you are not just combating what the prosecution said (or failed to say) but what the jurors already "know". They "know" DNA is perfect magic evidence that gets the badguy every time on CSI.

In the UK some high profile cases indicated a lack of understanding of essential statistics on the part of many in the legal fraternity. Judges in summation often unwittingly misrepresented probabilities, or allowed tenuous statistical assertions to be left unchallenged in their instructions.

This was not unobserved by statisticians, and some effort had been made to redress this situation.

For example, see http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~cgga/Guide-2-WEB.pdf

Reply on news.ycombinator.com