The Los Angeles Times has an interesting article on DNA evidence as it’s presented in court. Not OJ’s bloody glove stuff, but an look at the analysis and statistics that creates the astronomical odds that are so overwhelmingly powerful to a jury. It’s a very interesting article.

From what I see there, my inclination is to agree with the government scientists that as the number of samples in the database expands, the number of coincidental near-matches will necessarily expand too. Even though that seems obvious, what scares me is how well the article documents the government’s resistance to have this theory independently verified. Outside research is bad, and any research that might make obtaining convictions more difficult must be illegal.

Which gets us to the charming passage near the end of the article:

After the defense filed a contempt-of-court motion, Michelle Groves, the [Maryland] state’s DNA administrator, argued in court and in an affidavit that, based on conversations with Callaghan at the FBI, she believed the request was burdensome and possibly illegal.

According to Groves, Callaghan had told her that complying with the court order could lead Maryland to be disconnected from CODIS — a result Groves’ lawyer said would be “catastrophic.”

Groves’ affidavit was edited by FBI officials and the technology contractor that designed CODIS, court records show. Before submitting the affidavit, Groves wrote the group an e-mail saying, “Let’s see if this will work,” court records show.

It didn’t. After the judge, Steven Platt, rejected her arguments, Groves returned to court, saying the search was too risky. FBI officials had now warned her that it could corrupt the entire state database, something they would not help fix, she told the court.

Platt reaffirmed his earlier order, decrying Callaghan’s “unilateral” decision to block the search.

“The court will not accept the notion that the extent of a person’s due process rights hinges solely on whether some employee of the FBI chooses to authorize the use of the [database] software,” Platt wrote.

I like judges.  I like the system when it encourages and allows a third party like a judge or a jury to see and hear all the facts of a case and reach an impartial decision.  I really hope we can get back to that type of system at the federal level sometime soon.