Please Scroll Down for a complete listing of information

Low Copy Number DNA Cases

 

 

The advent of DNA-STR technology has advanced nuclear DNA typing in forensics; however in some samples there is not enough cellular material for standard STR testing. Low Copy Number DNA profiling enables scientists to produce DNA profiles from samples containing very few cells. This technique allows investigators to target areas where it is believed an offender may have transferred DNA through touch. This page is dedicated to dissemination of legal decisions regarding the use of Low Copy Number DNA profiling in forensic science. If you have decisions regarding this technology please send them to us so they can be included here.

  1. R v. Bamber, The Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), Case No: 20011745 S1, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL, 12/12/02. Bamber.PDF
  2. The Queen v. Murdoch, The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia at Darwin, No. 20215807, 12/15/05 (Murdoch 05.PDF) upheld Murdoch v. The Queen, The Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory of Australia at Darwin No. CA 2/06 (20215807), 1/10/07. (Murdoch 07.PDF)
  3. The Queen v. Hoey, In The Crown Court Sitting in Northern Ireland, Bill No: 341/05, 12/20/07. Hoey.PDF
  4. R v. Reed, Reed and Garmson, High Court of Justice Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), Nos: 2007/04708/B3, 2007/04710/B3, 2007/04800/D4, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL, 12/21/09. Reed1.pdf
  5. R v. Lepper, Court of Appeal of New Zealand, CA334/04, 11/1/05 Lepper.pdf
  6. People v. Megnath, Supreme Court, State of New York, Criminal Term, TAPC, Queens County, Ind. No. 917/07, 2/8/10. Megnath.pdf
  7. Wallace v R, Court of Appeal of New Zealand, CA590/2007[2010] NZCA 46, 3/3/10, the proposition that LCN DNA analysis is generally unreliable is specifically rejected. LCN analysis has been accepted as evidence in trials in the US, UK, Australia and Sweden. Any future challenge to LCN DNA testing must be to reliability in the particular case. Wallace1.pdf
  8. US v. Morgan, US District Court Southern District of New York, United States District Judge Victor Marrero, 10/2/14. Morgan 10 02 14.pdf

For a description of LCN technology see:

  1. Omagh and Low Copy DNA - http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/Technology/DNA-Doubts-After-Omagh-Rejection/Video/200712314166864
  2. Low Copy Number DNA http://fcpei.denverda.org/Videos/Omagh_DNA_Yorkshire_Ripper.html
  3. Application of Low Copy Number DNA Profiling, Peter Gill, Forensic Science Service, Trident Court, Birmingham, UK, Croat Med J 2001;42:229-232. LCN DNA Article Gill.PDF
  4. Low Copy Number DNA: Reality vs. Jury Expectations, Paula Hoffman Wulff, NDAA DNA Forensic Program Manager/Senior Attorney, Silent Witness - Volume 10, Number 3, 2006. LCN DNA NDAA Silent Witness Article.PDF
  5. Low Copy Number DNA testing in the Criminal Justice System http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html
  6. Review of the use of Low Copy Number DNA analysis in current cases: CPS statement http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/101_08.html
  7. Low Copy Number DNA analysis (LCN) - Prosecutors' checklist of questions http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_checklist.html
  8. A Review of the Science of Low Template DNA Analysis and Executive Summary, Caddy, Taylor, Linacre, University of Strathclyde, Cancer Research UK 4/08. Review of the Science of Low Template DNA Analysis.PDF
  9. Press Release on Behalf of the Forensic Institute, Glasgow, Regarding the Caddy Review of Low Template DNA Analysis, 4/15/08. Forensic Institute, Glasgow Press release.PDF
  10. Response to Professor Brian Caddy’s Review of the Science of Low Template DNA Analysis, The Forensic Science Regulator 5/7/08. The Forensic Science Regulator.PDF
  11. Validity of Low Copy Number Typing and Applications to Forensic Science, Budowle et al, 3doi, 10.3325/cmj.2009.50.207. CMJ Budowle.pdf
  12. Validation of Testing and Interpretation Protocols for Low Template DNA Samples Using AmpF/STR® Identifiler®, Caragine et al, 10.3325/cmj.2009.50.250. CMJ Caragine.pdf