In one of the latest intersections between technology and the courtroom, the Third Circuit has ruled that a particular brand of probabilistic genotyping DNA software (TrueAllele) is reliable enough to be used at trial. In a world of ever evolving technology, it is becoming morecommonplace for trial teams to embrace new technologies to collect better evidence, make more persuasive arguments, and overall bolster their abilities at trial. One of the most important factors when new technology is being considered for use during a trial is determining if it meets the standards of the jurisdiction for both reliability and methodology. This was the crux of the issue before the Third Circuit in USA v. Anderson.

While the Third Circuit found that the software may not be perfect, it stated that most science is not. The Court found that the program’s methodology has adequate scientific foundations and sufficient reliability to be used at trial, and that cross-examination is the most appropriate way to challenge these potential flaws.

In this case Anderson was on parole for state law violations when a gun was seized from a bag containing his identification and two magazines.

Police swabbed the DNA evidence from the gun and collected a DNA sample from the Defendant under a separate search warrant.  The state’s crime unit could not state “within a degree of scientific certainty” if there was a match.  So, the state turned to TrueAllele to see if it could find a match.  TrueAllele calculated a likelihood ratio of 11.5 trillion, meaning that it was 11.5 trillion times more likely to have been caused in the defendant contributed to the DNA mixture than if another Caucasian had done so.

The defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence under the Daubert standard of the software’s accuracy to verify that it could correctly determine that his DNA was a part of the mixture of DNA found on the gun. However, the three-judge panel of the Third Circuit disagreed.

Under the Daubert standard, the Court stated that the evidence may be admitted only if it is both relevant and reliable. The Third Circuit determined that there was enough evidence to establish general acceptance and to meet this standard. The Court found the program’s methodology had an adequate scientific foundation. This made it reliable enough, and this would allow for cross-examination at trial to address any alleged flaws in the methodology or results.

The Third Circuit first found that the software could be, and in fact had been, tested.  Five unaffiliated probabilistic genotyping programs produced a similar ratio as the one by this software.  It also found that error rates could be calculated when the program was used, and that the software had a false-positive rate of 0.005%, as compared to a review comparative DNA analysis by humans between 2-6%.  The State also showed that there had been 42 validation studies, including eight that were the subject of peer review.

Finally, the Court pointed to the past use of the program by criminal defense attorneys in cases, as well as the past admissibility of the program in cases throughout the United States.

The Defendant argued that it should have been entitled to TrueAllele’s source code so that it could independently test the software too.  However, the trial court and the Third Circuit rejected that argument, holding that the independent testing that had been conducted was sufficient.

For more information regarding this issue or similar issues regarding the use of new technologies in the courtroom, please reach out to our trial team. We are constantly preparing cases for trial and incorporating the most innovative technologies to assist us in obtaining the best outcomes. For more information regarding this case, see United States of America v. Hunter Ryan Anderson, case number 25-1223, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.