Published Online: 1 September 2003
Page Count: 1
I read with alarm the discussion by Thompson et al., of the significance of DNA evidence in forensic casework. I was struck by the authors' description of a 1995 case in the jurisdiction in which I practice law. The authors state: "In 1995, Cellmark Diagnostics admitted that a similar sample-switch error had caused it to report, incorrectly, that a rape defendant's DNA profile matched DNA found in vaginal aspirate from a rape victim."
Paper ID: JFS2003059