Trial By Probability

Bayes Theorem in Court

Presented By...

Dave Bucheger
Jill Thompson
Sally Danielson
Justin Koplitz
Eric Hartmann

Presentation Overview

Background of current DNA cases

Do jury members understand probabilities?
What actually is DNA?
Conditional Probability/Compounding
Evidence
O.J. Simpson Case
DNA analogy

DNA In The News

First case DNA conviction 1979.
DNA strands on dog hair match strands on
duffel bag
Serial killer linked to past murders
Australian police testing 600 men over the
age of 18
British propose DNA database

Illinois Cases
Governor suspended death
penalty
13 inmates cleared
12 put to death
64 criminal convictions
cleared nationally from
DNA testing

More DNA & Probabilistic Evidence in Court

Andrew Dean Retrial

Dean convicted of rape in 1990 with help of DNA
match probabilities.
1994 retrial questions presentation of the DNA
probabilities.
Forensic evidence = P( Match | Innocent).
Jurys question = P( Innocent | Match).
P(Match | Innocent) = P(Innocent | Match) ==>

PROSECUTORS FALLACY!

Prosecutors Fallacy Example:

Assume theres a poker game between several judges
and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
P(Archbishop dealing royal flush | honest) = 1/70,000.
P(Archbishop honest | dealt royal flush) > 1/70,000.
Prosecutors fallacy equates the two probabilities, but
P(dealing a flush | honest ) is not necessarily equal to
P( honest | dealing a flush ).

Using Bayes Theorem for Probabilistic

Evidence
We want to find the odds of the defendant being
innocent.
Ratio of the probability of the innocence to the
probability of guilt.
Prior odds = odds of innocence before jury hears
DNA evidence.
Posterior odds = odds of innocence after jury hears
DNA evidence.
Posterior odds = prior odds x DNA match probability.

Match Probability Confusion:

Pretend a crime is committed in Menomonie by a white
male.
Prior odds = 8,000 to 1 in favor innocence.
Probability of DNA match from crime scene & suspect is
1 in a million.
Posterior odds = 8,000 x 1 in a million, or 125 to 1 in
favor of innocence.
Posterior odds are not 1 in a million!

Results of Dean Case:

Idea of Prosecutors Fallacy is effective
enough to lift conviction and order a retrial.
Idea that DNA evidence should be presented
carefully in court to avoid the Prosecutors
Fallacy.

Do Jury Members Understand

Probabilistic Evidence?

To find out, studies involving hypothetical

crimes and mock juries were conducted:
Juries initially write down their probability of how
guilty they think the defendant is (labeled P0).
Probabilistic evidence is presented to the jury like
frequency of an incriminating trait occurring in the
random population (or F(T)), or the probability of
a suspect having the trait (or P(TD)).
Posterior probabilities are taken from the jury after
the evidence is presented (labeled P1).

Data from the juries is compared with Bayes

Theorem probabilities of guilt:
Odds of guilt or P (G):

P (G | TD ) P (TD | G) P (G )

P (G ' | TD ) P (TD | G ') P (G ' )

We can substitute 1/F (T) for the likelihood ratio, so the
probability of guilt is now:

1
P (G )
F (T ) * P (G ' )

Comparing Actual Jury Statistics to the

Bayes Probabilities
Trial

F (T)

Mean P0

Mean P1

Bayes P1

Goodman

.001

.29

.47

.997

Goodman

.10

.29

.34

.803

Faigmon,
Baglioni

.20

.61

.70

.876

Faigmon,
Baglioni

.40

.64

.71

.816

Results of Chart
The mean P1 and the Bayes P1 show the jury
underweighs probabilistic evidence.
Prosecutors Fallacy of P( TD | G ) = P ( G | TD )
does not arise.
Heres a case where probabilistic evidence was
severely underweighed:

O.J. Simpson Trial

Double murder case
Blood samples found
In driveway, foyer, bathroom
Simpsons Ford Bronco, sock, gloves

Defenses final claim - evidence planted

Simpson found not guilty

What is DNA?
Double Helix Form
Has 3 billion places
that tell traits
Much code identical
Unique places are
called DNA markers

T
Phosphate

G
Deoxyribose

DNA Fingerprinting
Compares DNA samples
DNA separated by
detergent
pressure

Sample gets segmented

Rendered to a single
strand

Conditional Probability
M = DNA match of
defendants blood and blood
at crime scene
I = event defendant is
innocent
I = event defendant is guilty

Conditional Probability
P(M | I) = match of two individuals blood sample, very
low chance, 10-8 or 10-10
P(I | M) = probability of innocence given the evidence
Bayes theorem gives

P( I )
P ( I=| P(M)
M)
P(M | I )
So P(I|M) P(M|I) unless P(I)
P( M )

Conditional Probability
P( I ) P( M | I )
P( I | M )
P( I ) P( M | I ) P( I ' ) P( M | I ' )
P( M | I ) P( I )

P( M | I ) P( I )

P( I ' ) P( M | I ' )
1
P( M | I ' ) P( I ' )
P( M | I ) P( I )
P( I ) P( M | I )

P( M | I ' ) P( I ' )
P( I ' )

Compounding Evidence
M1, M2, , Mk = all evidence introduced
k

P ( I | i 1 Mi ) = probability of innocence given

all the evidence
Upper bound can be found

Compounding Evidence
PI () P ( | I ) for a given event I
Conditionally Independent means
PI ( M 2 | M 1) PI ( M 2 | I )
Strongly Associated measured by the ratio

P ( M 2 | M 1)
P ( M 2)

Compounding Evidence
P ( M 2 | M 1)
P ( M 2)

If < 1, M2 less likely given M1

If > 1, M2 more likely given M1
If = 1, M2 and M1 are mutually independent

Application To Simpson Case

M1 = blood near victim is
consistent with defendant

P ( M 1 | I ) 5.88 x10 9
M2 = blood found on
defendants sock is
consistent with victims
P ( M 2 | I ) 1.47 x10 10

NOTE: (compliment of worlds population)

P( M 1 | I ' ) 1
P( M 2 | I ' ) 1

Application To Simpson Case

P ( I | M 1 M 2)

P( I ) P( M 1 | I ) P( M 2 | I )

P( I ' ) P( M 1 | I ' ) P( M 2 | I ' )

1
9 (5.88 x10 9 )(1.47 x10 10 )
10

10 9 (8.65 x10 10 )
(8.65 x10 10 )

...Translation
Probability of innocence

given the defendants blood

matched in the two separate
events

9 people in a billion!

Metaphorical Analogy
52! 8.07 x10 67 possible card permutations
DNA permutations much larger
Not all information can be determined
depending on degree
Analogous to a card if only number, suit, or
color could be determined

Metaphorical Analogy
Obtained from Crime Scene

Defendants Blood Sample

13 13 1
1
1
1 24

52 51 50 49 48 47 46

6.0154 x10

Conclusion

DNA involved in many court cases

Possible DNA permutations are monstrous
Evidence not presented correctly
O.J. guiltier than sin
Any questions?

Works Cited
Dale, Mike. Evidence: The True Witness.
[http://library.thinkquest.org/17049/]. 1998.
Saunders, Sam C. Compounding Evidence from Multiple
DNA-Tests. Mathematics Magazine. 72, NO1. Feb. 1999:
39-43.
Starr, Cecie. Biology Concepts and Applications. 4th Ed.
Brooks/Cole, 2000.

Special Thanks
Steve Deckelman - Models Professor
Steve Nold - Biology Professor, DNA Guru
Eric Larson - Down right smart guy