Journal of Science Policy & Governance
Volume 25, Issue 01 | October 28, 2024

Technology Assessment: On Accountability: Genetic Tools for Justice and Injustice in Criminal Proceedings

Emily Greenwald1, Linda Phiri2
  1. Stanford University, Department of Genetics, Stanford, CA, USA
  2. Georgetown University Law, Center for Innovations in Community Safety, Washington, D.C., USA
​​
​Corresponding author:  [email protected]​
Keywords: accountability; CODIS; equity; forensics; genetics; oversight
https://doi.org/10.38126/JSPG250109 ​

Executive Summary

Analysis of DNA found at crime scenes has made headlines when used to solve serial killer cold cases. The DNA Identification Act of 1994 approved the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), a database that stores profiles of 20 genetic markers for forensic investigations. The CODIS markers were specifically chosen because they were thought to be unlinkable to personally identifiable individual traits. However, advances in genetics research have expanded the traits associated with CODIS markers and increased the tools and applications of forensic genetics, thus further increasing the information investigators could gain from a suspected person’s CODIS profile. This is also true regarding private companies, who may analyze genetic information beyond that included in a CODIS profile. These scientific developments may lead to infringements on genetic privacy rights. Additionally, in 2013, the US Supreme Court held in Maryland v King that people who have been arrested, even if they are acquitted or never indicted, can be added to CODIS databases. Due to racial biases in policing and arrests, this has led to inequity in who is represented in CODIS databases, specifically an over-representation of Black individuals’ genetic profiles. Therefore, the use of genetic tools in criminal proceedings, including but not only from CODIS databases, pose risks to privacy and also serve as a seemingly race-neutral tool that, in practice, promotes racial inequity. We suggest implementation of state-specific research and oversight boards with three charges focused on CODIS and investigations using genetic tools employed by private companies: (1) study uses of genetic tools in criminal investigations; (2) study the impact of genetic tools in criminal proceedings and interface with stakeholders and the general public; and (3) use knowledge from (1) and (2) to inform policy recommendations, for which we make several initial suggestions. These boards will provide accountability to increase accuracy, privacy, and equity when using genetic tools in criminal proceedings.

-Read the full article through download.-

Background header image courtesy of npr
Emily Greenwald, Ph.D. graduated in May 2024 from the Department of Genetics at Stanford University, and was a student fellow at the Stanford Law School Center for Law and Biosciences. She studies non-canonical activity of RNA polymerases, especially mitochondrial RNA polymerases, in the laboratories of Andrew Fire and Stephen Montgomery. Emily also helped found and served as an administrative leader of The Genetics Advocacy Committee, where she focused on antiracism and bioethics education at Stanford School of Medicine. Her policy and biosciences research has focused on fertility treatments, genetic engineering, and criminal justice applications of genetics.

Linda Phiri Ph.D, Senior Research Associate at Georgetown Law's Center for Innovations in Community Safety (CICS), specializes in mixed-methods research on police organizations, procedural justice, and race/ethnicity. Before Georgetown, she conducted research as a  scholar in the American Society of Evidence-Based Policing’s inaugural Applied Criminology and Data Management project for practitioner-researcher partnerships, and worked as a Criminal Justice Fellow at Arnold Ventures. She  earned her Ph.D. in 2023 in Justice, Law, and Criminology from American University. Dr. Phiri holds a Master’s in Community Development from the University of Cambridge and a Bachelor’s in International Relations & Business from Brandeis University. Committed to evidence-based policy change, her work focuses on initiatives such as alternative first responses and enhancing community safety.

Acknowledgements
We thank the Stanford Law School Center for Law and Biosciences Student Fellowship for supporting this research. We thank Shelly Simana, Hank Greely, and Kenneth King for critical review of the manuscript and mentorship with legal scholarship and writing. We thank Tanner Jensen and Matt McCoy for suggestions for assessing the false positive rate and for improving privacy, respectively. E.G. was funded by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program grant DGE-1656518; E.G. was also supported by the Stanford Biosciences Office for Graduate Education to present this work. We would like to thank Karen Artiles, Usman Enam, and Andrew Fire for critical review of the manuscripts. We thank members of Stephen Montgomery’s and Andrew Fire’s laboratories for general guidance and feedback on this work. We would like to acknowledge the Muwekma Ohlone community, the traditional stewards and caretakers of the land E.G. was on while performing this work, and the Nacotchtank and Piscataway communities, the traditional stewards and caretakers of the land L.P. was on while performing this work. Indigenous peoples are present and thriving despite the occupation of their ancestral lands and we affirm Indigenous sovereignty, history, and experiences, and accept our continued role in this story of colonization.

References

  1. ​103 P.L. 322. 1994. VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994, 1994 Enacted H.R. 3355, 103 Enacted H.R. 3355, 108 Stat. 1796. 
  2. 122 Stat. 881. 2008. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, 110 P.L. 233.
  3. 138 U.S. 2206. 2018. Carpenter v United States.
  4. 156. 1895. Coffin v. United States, U.S. 432.
  5. 386 U.S. 954. 1967. Katz v United States.
  6. 42. 1996. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
  7. 45. n.d. CFR Part 46, Subpart C. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/common-rule-subpart-c/index.html 
  8. Alang, Sirry, Donna McAlpine, and Malcolm McClain. 2021. “Police Encounters as Stressors: Associations with Depression and Anxiety across Race.” Socius 7 (March). https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023121998128/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_2378023121998128-FIG1.JPEG. 
  9. Alberts, Bruce. 2015. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 6th ed. New York, NY: Garland Science, Taylor and Francis Group.
  10. Alexander, Michelle. 2010. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press.
  11. Algee-Hewitt, Bridget F.B., Michael D. Edge, Jaehee Kim, Jun Z. Li, and Noah A. Rosenberg. 2016. “Individual Identifiability Predicts Population Identifiability in Forensic Microsatellite Markers.” Current Biology 26 (7): 935–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.01.065.
  12. Arnold, Carrie. 2020. “The controversial company using DNA to sketch the faces of criminals.” Nature News Feature. https://www-nature-com.stanford.idm.oclc.org/articles/d41586-020-02545-5 
  13. Bañuelos, Mayra M., Yuómi Jhony A. Zavaleta, Alennie Roldan, Rochelle Jan Reyes, Miguel Guardado, Berenice Chavez Rojas, Thet Nyein, et al. 2022. “Associations between Forensic Loci and Expression Levels of Neighboring Genes May Compromise Medical Privacy.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 119 (40): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2121024119. 
  14. Beckwith, Jon, and Jonathan King. 1974. “The XYY Syndrome: A Dangerous Myth.” New Science 64 (923): 474–76.
  15. Beckwith, Walter. 2021. “Scientists Say DNA Can Reunite Separated Migrant Families.” American Association for the Advancement of Science | News, no. May: 1–5. https://www.aaas.org/news/scientists-say-dna-can-reunite-separated-migrant-families. 
  16. Bernd Debusmann Jr. 2023. “Gilgo Beach Murders: Architect Charged in Long Island Serial Killer Case.” British Broadcasting Corporation, 2023. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66190844. 
  17. “BFS DNA Frequently Asked Questions.” n.d. Rob Bonta Attorney General, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. https://oag.ca.gov/bfs/prop69/faqs#familial. 
  18. Blindenbach, Jacob A., Karthik A. Jagadeesh, Gill Bejerano, and David J. Wu. 2021. “Avoiding Genetic Racial Profiling in Criminal DNA Profile Databases.” Nature Computational Science 1 (4): 272–79. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-021-00058-3. 
  19. Bloodsworth, Kirk. 2015. “Congress Should Support Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing.” The Hill. 2015. https://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/249727-congress-should-support-access-to-post-conviction-dna-testing/. 
  20. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2010. Racism without Racists. Color-Blind Racism & Racial Inequality in Contemporary America. 3rd ed. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
  21. Budowle, Bruce, Shea, Brendan, Niezgoda, Stephen, and Chakraborty, Ranajit. 2001. “CODIS STR Loci Data from 41 Sample Populations.” J Forensic Sci. 46 (3): 453-489. 
  22. Braden, V. E. (2024). In Pursuit of Innocence: A Study of Race and Ethnicity Differences in Time-to-Exoneration. The Wrongful Conviction Law Review, 5(1), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.29173/wclawr113
  23. California Department of Justice, Jan Bashinski DNA Laboratory, and CAL-DNA Data Bank Outreach Program. 2023. “Email Communication between E.G. and California Department of Justice, Jan Bashinski DNA Laboratory, CAL-DNA Data Bank Outreach Program.”
  24. California v Greenwood | 486 U.S. 35 1988
  25. Cobinna, Jennifer E. 2019. Hands Up, Don’t Shoot: Why the Protests in Ferguson and Baltimore Matter, and How They Changed America. NYU Press.
  26. Costello, Darcy. 2023. “Baltimore’s New Police Oversight System Launches, Reviewing 395 Internal Cases in Less than 5 Months.” The Baltimore Sun, 2023. https://www.baltimoresun.com/2023/11/03/baltimores-new-police-oversight-system-launches-reviewing-395-internal-cases-in-less-than-5-months/ 
  27. Court, Denise Syndercombe. 2021. “Protecting against Racial Bias in DNA Databasing.” Nature Computational Science 1: 249–50. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-021-00064-5. 
  28. Curtis, Caitlin, and Hereward, James. 2018. “How accurately can scientists reconstruct a person’s face from DNA?” Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/how-accurately-can-scientists-reconstruct-persons-face-from-dna-180968951/'
  29. Deng, Tianyu, Pengfei Zhang, Dorian Garrick, Huijiang Gao, Lixian Wang, and Fuping Zhao. 2022. “Comparison of Genotype Imputation for SNP Array and Low-Coverage Whole-Genome Sequencing Data.” Frontiers in Genetics 12 (January): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.704118.
  30. Edge, Michael D., Bridget F.B. Algee-Hewitt, Trevor J. Pemberton, Jun Z. Li, and Noah A. Rosenberg. 2017. “Linkage Disequilibrium Matches Forensic Genetic Records to Disjoint Genomic Marker Sets.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114 (22): 5671–76. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619944114. 
  31. Eiler, Ashley. 2011. “Arrested Development: Reforming the Federal All-Arrestee DNA Collection Statute to Comply with the Fourth Amendment.” George Washington Law Review 79 (4): 1201–36. https://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/79-4-Eiler.pdf 
  32. Elster, Naomi. 2017. “How Forensic DNA Evidence Can Lead to Wrongful Convictions.” JSTOR Daily: Science and Technology. Accessed Aug. 1, 2024. https://daily.jstor.org/forensic-dna-evidence-can-lead-wrongful-convictions/ 
  33. Fatumo, Segun, Tinashe Chikowore, Ananyo Choudhury, Muhammad Ayub, Alicia R. Martin, and Karoline Kuchenbaecker. 2022. “A Roadmap to Increase Diversity in Genomic Studies.” Nature Medicine 28 (2): 243–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01672-4. 
  34. Federal Bureau of Investigation. n.d. “CODIS and NDIS Fact Sheet — FBI.” FBI.Gov. Accessed April 8, 2022. https://www.fbi.gov/services/laboratory/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet. 
  35. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2021. “The FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) Hits Major Milestone — FBI.” FBI.Gov. 2021. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/the-fbis-combined-dna-index-system-codis-hits-major-milestone. 
  36. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2024. “CODIS - NDIS Statistics — FBI.” FBI.Gov. 2024. https://le.fbi.gov/science-and-lab/biometrics-and-fingerprints/codis/codis-ndis-statistics. 
  37. Fortier, Alyssa Lyn, Jaehee Kim, and Noah A. Rosenberg. 2020. “Human-Genetic Ancestry Inference and False Positives in Forensic Familial Searching.” G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics 10 (8): 2893–2902. https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.120.401473. 
  38. Gase, Lauren Nichol, Beth A. Glenn, Louis M. Gomez, Tony Kuo, Moira Inkelas, and Ninez A. Ponce. 2016. “Understanding Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Arrest: The Role of Individual, Home, School, and Community Characteristics.” Race and Social Problems 8 (4): 296–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-016-9183-8.
  39. Gelman, Andrew, Jeffrey Fagan, and Alex Kiss. 2010. "Black Frigidity: The Role of Race in the Stop-and-Frisk Practices of the New York City Police Department." The Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, 2010, pp. 333-360.
  40. Gelman, Andrew, Jeffrey Fagan, and Alex Kiss. (2012). An Analysis of the New York City Police Department’s “Stop-and-Frisk” Policy in the Context of Claims of Racial Bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102(479), 813–823. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214506000001040  
  41. Gross, Samuel R., Maurice Possley, Ken Otterbourg, Klara Stephens, Jessica Paredes, and Barbara O’Brien. 2022. “Race and Wrongful Convictions in the United States 2022.” U of Michigan Public Law Research Paper U of Michigan Law & Econ Research Paper National Registry of Exonerations 22–051 (September). https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.4245863. 
  42. Guerrini, Christi J., Ray A. Wickenheiser, Blaine Bettinger, Amy L. McGuire, and Stephanie M. Fullerton. 2021. “Four Misconceptions about Investigative Genetic Genealogy.” Journal of Law and the Biosciences 8 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab001. 
  43. Hares, Douglas R. 2012. “Expanding the CODIS Core Loci in the United States.” Forensic Science International: Genetics 6 (1): e52–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2011.04.012. 
  44. Hares, Douglas R. 2015. “Selection and Implementation of Expanded CODIS Core Loci in the United States.” Forensic Science International: Genetics 17: 33–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.03.006. 
  45. Jacobs, Patricia A., Muriel Brunton, and Marie M. Melville. 1965. “Aggressive Behavior, Mental Sub-Normality, and the XYY Male.” Nature 208 (5017): 1351–52. https://doi.org/10.1038/2081352a0. 
  46. Jagadeesh, Karthik A, David J Wu, Johannes A Birgmeier, and Dan Boneh. 2017. “Revealing Patient Genomes.” Science 695 (August): 692–95. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9710
  47. Kenny-Pessia, Emma. 2023. “Ditching ‘DNA on Demand’: A Harms-Centered Approach to Safeguarding Privacy Interests Against DNA Collection and Use by Law Enforcement.” Washington University Law Review, 101(2): 627-660. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4705769 
  48. Kim, Jaehee, Michael D. Edge, Bridget F.B. Algee-Hewitt, Jun Z. Li, and Noah A. Rosenberg. 2018. “Statistical Detection of Relatives Typed with Disjoint Forensic and Biomedical Loci.” Cell 175 (3): 848-858.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.09.008. 
  49. “Kirk Bloodsworth Urges Congress to Fund DNA Testing and Innocence Efforts.” 2015. The Innocence Project Webpage. 2015. https://innocenceproject.org/kirk-bloodsworth-urges-congress-to-fund-dna-testing-and-innocence-efforts/. 
  50. LANDRY vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 429 Mass. 336. 1999.
  51. Lewontin, Richard C., and Ken-ichi. Kojima. 1960. “The Evolutionary Dynamics of Complex Polymorphisms.” Evolution 14: 458–72. https://doi.org/10.2307/2405995 
  52. Link, Vivian, Yuómi Jhony A. Zavaleta, Rochelle-Jane Reyes, Linda Ding, Judy Wang, Rori V. Rohlfs, and Michael D. Edge. 2023. “Microsatellites Used in Forensics Are Located in Regions Unusually Rich in Trait-Associated Variants.” Biorxiv, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.07.531629 
  53. Lofstrom, Magnus, Joseph Hayes, Brandon Martin, and Deepak Premkumar. 2021. “Racial Disparities in Law Enforcement Stops.” Public Policy Institute of California, 1–23. https://www.ppic.org/publication/racial-disparities-in-law-enforcement-stops/ 
  54. Madigan, Nick. 2003. “Houston’s Troubled DNA Crime Lab Faces Growing Scrutiny.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/us/houston-s-troubled-dna-crime-lab-faces-growing-scrutiny.html 
  55. Maryland Code Public Safety § 2-506. n.d.
  56. Maryland v King | 133 S.Ct. 1958. 2013.
  57. Mednick, Sarnoff A., William F. Gabrielli, and Barry Hutchings. 1984. “Genetic Influences in Criminal Convictions: Evidence from an Adoption Cohort.” Science 224 (4651): 891–94. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6719119 
  58. Miller, Greg. 2010. “Familial DNA Testing Scores a Win in Serial Killer Case.” Science 329 (5989): 262. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.329.5989.262. 
  59. Montana HB 602. 2021. https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billhtml/HB0602.htm#:~:text=(2) A government entity may,a finding of probable cause. 
  60. Murphy, Erin, and Jun H Tong. 2020. “The Racial Composition of Forensic DNA Databases - California Law Review.” California Law Review 108 (6): 1847–1911. https://www.californialawreview.org/print/racial-composition-forensic-dna-databases/#clr-toc-heading-2. 
  61. Nass, Sylvan, and Margit M.K. Nass. 1963. “Intramitochondrial Fibers with DNA Characteristics: II. Enzymatic and Other Hydrolytic Treatments.” Journal of Cell Biology 19 (3): 613–29. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.19.3.613 
  62. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2015. “FBI Core STR Loci.” STRBase. 2015. https://strbase-archive.nist.gov/fbicore.htm. 
  63. Office of the Inspector General. 2006. Combined DNA Index System Operational and Laboratory Vulnerabilities: Audit Report 06-32. https://oig.justice.gov/reports/FBI/a0632/laws.htm#:~:text=The DNA Identification Act of,recovered from unidentified human remains.
  64. Oldt, Robert F., and Sreetharan Kanthaswamy. 2020. “Expanded CODIS STR Allele Frequencies – Evidence for the Irrelevance of Race-Based DNA Databases.” Legal Medicine 42 (October 2019): 101642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2019.101642.
  65. “Parabon Nanolabs Homepage.” 2024. 2024. https://snapshot.parabon-nanolabs.com/. 
  66. Payseur, Bret A., Michael Place, and James L. Weber. 2008. “Linkage Disequilibrium between STRPs and SNPs across the Human Genome.” American Journal of Human Genetics 82 (5): 1039–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2008.02.018.
  67. Peled, Shachar, and Prisco, Jacopo. 2017. “Artist unveils 3D portraits made from Chelsea Manning’s DNA”. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/style/article/chelsea-manning-dna-dewey-hagborg/index.html 
  68. Rainey, James. 2018. “Familial DNA puts elusive killers behind bars. But only 12 states use it.” NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/familial-dna-puts-elusive-killers-behind-bars-only-12-states-n869711 
  69. Ram, Natalie. 2015. “DNA by the Entirety.” Columbia Law Review 115 (4): 873–940. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2645986 
  70. Ram, Natalie. 2022a. “America’s Hidden National DNA Database.” Texas Law Review 100 (7): 1253–1325. https://texaslawreview.org/americas-hidden-national-dna-database/ 
  71. Ram, Natalie. 2022b. “Genetic Privacy After Carpenter.” Virginia Law Review 105 (1): 0–47. https://virginialawreview.org/articles/genetic-privacy-after-carpenter/ 
  72. Roberts, Dorothy E., and Oliver Rollins. 2020. “Why Sociology Matters to Race and Biosocial Science.” Annual Review of Sociology 46: 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054903. 
  73. Roberts, Dorothy E. 2012. Fatal Invention. The New Press.
  74. Rohlfs, Rori V., Erin Murphy, Yun S. Song, and Montgomery Slatkin. 2013. “The Influence of Relatives on the Efficiency and Error Rate of Familial Searching.” PLoS ONE 8 (8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070495. 
  75. Saini, Shubham, Ileena Mitra, Nima Mousavi, Stephanie Feupe Fotsing, and Melissa Gymrek. 2018. “A Reference Haplotype Panel for Genome-Wide Imputation of Short Tandem Repeats.” Nature Communications 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06694-0. 
  76. Scheet, Paul, and Matthew Stephens. 2006. “A Fast and Flexible Statistical Model for Large-Scale Population Genotype Data: Applications to Inferring Missing Genotypes and Haplotypic Phase.” American Journal of Human Genetics 78 (4): 629–44. https://doi.org/10.1086/502802. 
  77. Sero, Dzemila, Arslan Zaidi, Jiarui Li, Julie D White, Tomás B González Zarzar, Mary L Marazita, Seth M Weinberg, et al. 2019. “Facial Recognition from DNA Using Face-to-DNA Classifiers.” Nature Communications 10 (2557). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10617-y. 
  78. Slatkin, Montgomery. 2008. “Linkage Disequilibrium — Understanding the Evolutionary Past and Mapping the Medical Future.” Nature Reviews Genetics 9: 477–85. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2361.
  79. State of California Department of Justice. 2019. “DLE 244: STREAMLINED DNA EXPUNGEMENT APPLICATION FORM.”
  80. St. John, Paige. 2020a. “The Untold Story of How the Golden State Killer Was Found: A Covert Operation and Private DNA.” Los Angeles Times, 2020. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-08/man-in-the-window. 
  81. St. John, Paige. 2020b. “The Untold Story of How the Golden State Killer Was Found - Los Angeles Times.” LA Times, 1–17. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-08/man-in-the-window. 
  82. Strom, Samuel. 2023. “Familial DNA Searches.” FindLaw. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/familial-dna-searches.html 
  83. Sweat, Matthew. 2023. “A Square Double Helix in a Round Hole: Forensic Genetic Genealogy Searches and the Fourth Amendment.” Georgia State Law Review 39 (2): 605–43. https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol39/iss2/14 
  84. Synapse - The University of California, San Fransisco Student Newspaper. 1974. “Scientific or Repressive?: Modivation [Sic] For Violence Center at UCLA Debated,” 1974. https://synapse.library.ucsf.edu/?a=d&d=ucsf19740412-01.2.2&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN--------. 
  85. “U.S.C. Title 34 - CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.” n.d. Accessed April 9, 2022. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2017-title34/html/USCODE-2017-title34.htm. 
  86. Udogadi, Nwawuba Stanley, Mohammed Khadija Abdullahi, Adams Tajudeen Bukola, Omusi Precious Imose, and Ayevbuomwan Davidson Esewi. 2020. “Forensic Dna Profiling: Autosomal Short Tandem Repeat as a Prominent Marker in Crime Investigation.” Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences 27 (4): 22–35. https://doi.org/10.21315/mjms2020.27.4.3. 
  87. Van Cleve, Nicole Gonzalez, and Lauren Mayes. 2015. “Criminal Justice Through ‘Colorblind’ Lenses: A Call to Examine the Mutual Constitution of Race and Criminal Justice.” Law & Social Inquiry 40 (2): 406–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/LSI.12113. 
  88. Vitello, Corey J., and Eric W. Hickey. 2008. “The Myth of a Psychiatric Crime Wave. Public Perception, Juror Research, and Mental Illness.” Crime Media Culture 4 (1): 163–67.
  89. Watts, Julie. 2022. “California Stores DNA from Every Baby: Renewed DNA Privacy Concerns Following SFPD Rape-Kit Allegations.” CBS Sacramento. https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/california-biobank-dna-privacy-concerns/
  90. Willems, Thomas, Melissa Gymrek, Gareth Highnam, 1000 Genomes Project Consortium, David Mittelman, and Yaniv Erlich. 2014. “The Landscape of Human STR Variation.” Genome Research 24 (11): 1894–1904. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.177774.114 
  91. Wyner, Nicole, Mark Barash, and Dennis McNevin. 2020. “Forensic Autosomal Short Tandem Repeats and Their Potential Association With Phenotype.” Frontiers in Genetics 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2020.00884
DISCLAIMER: The findings and conclusions published herein are solely attributed to the author and not necessarily endorsed or adopted by the Journal of Science Policy and Governance. Articles are distributed in compliance with copyright and trademark agreements.

ISSN 2372-2193
© 2022 Journal of Science Policy & Governance, Inc. All rights reserved. The opinions, findings and conclusions from JSPG publications, additional article commentaries and related events do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal.