Specialization 02 — Genetic genealogy expert witness
Forensic genetic genealogy expert witness
Christine Burke is the founder and lead instructor of Genetic Genealogy For Law Enforcement®, training local, state, federal, tribal and agency personnel on the use of forensic genetic genealogy to identify potential suspects and deceased individuals. As a genetic genealogy expert witness, she gives defense counsel a roadmap for challenging the State’s genealogical work — step by step.
The defense problem
A genealogical match is an investigative lead, not a verdict
Forensic genetic genealogy combines dense SNP profiling with traditional documentary genealogy to narrow a pool of possible contributors. Done carefully, it has resolved decades-old homicides and returned names to unidentified remains. Done carelessly, it produces confident-sounding conclusions resting on unexamined assumptions about relationship ranges, endogamy, database consent and the exclusion of alternate candidates.
Christine Burke reviews that work end to end — as an instructor who writes the curriculum and a former detective who understands how a lead is actually run to ground. When the State’s genealogical identification is the pillar of the case, the defense needs someone who can take that pillar apart.
Why defense counsel retains this review
- The same methodology that identifies a suspect can identify the wrong one. Alternate candidates are not always excluded on the record.
- Database uploads raise live consent and terms-of-service questions that can bear directly on admissibility.
- Methodology challenges under Frye and Daubert succeed when the limits of the science are made plain to the court.
Defense review
How the State’s work is reviewed
Every stage of the genealogical process is examined for the assumptions it rests on and the gaps the defense can exploit.
- 01
Evidence and sample suitability
Whether the biological evidence, its quantity, degradation and chain of custody support single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) testing rather than standard STR/CODIS comparison — and whether the State can actually tie the profile it used back to your client.
- 02
Laboratory workflow
Extraction, whole genome sequencing or SNP array processing, file formats, quality thresholds and how a usable profile was produced from casework evidence. Where the lab cut corners, the defense needs to know.
- 03
Database upload and consent
Which databases permit law enforcement matching, opt-in versus opt-out status, terms of service compliance, and the privacy and consent questions that follow. A upload into the wrong database can sink a lead.
- 04
Match analysis and tree building
Centimorgan totals, shared match clustering, endogamy, pedigree collapse, documentary research and the construction of candidate family trees. Confident-sounding conclusions often rest on unexamined assumptions here.
- 05
Lead development
How a genealogical hypothesis became an investigative lead — and why it is a lead, not an identification, until confirmatory direct comparison is completed. The gap between lead and ID is where defenses live.
- 06
Documentation and testimony
Whether the work was recorded reproducibly, whether alternate candidates were excluded, and how the methodology and its limits are explained to a jury — or exposed on cross-examination when they were not.
Issues addressed
Where this review changes a defense file
- Investigative genetic genealogy used to identify an unknown suspect
- Identification of unidentified human remains and long-term missing persons
- Interim DOJ policy compliance for forensic genetic genealogical DNA analysis
- Database terms of service, opt-in status and consent challenges
- Confirmatory reference sampling, abandoned DNA and warrant issues
- Suppression and Frye/Daubert-adjacent challenges to methodology
- Discovery gap analysis on the State’s genealogical work product
- Agency training, protocol drafting and vendor oversight
Training & continuing education
Training for agencies and defense teams
Christine Burke creates and instructs courses on forensic genetic genealogy for law enforcement and legal professionals, and leads a monthly task force on best practices. She is a National Certified Instructor through the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training.
Defense teams can engage that same instruction to understand the science before deposition or trial — so cross-examination lands where the methodology is weakest.
Engage the review or the training
Send the posture of the case, the jurisdiction and your deadlines. Conflict checks and availability are confirmed before any file is reviewed.
Inquire about review or testimony