INTENTIONAL LANGUAGE IN FORENSIC DNA TESTIMONY & REPORTING

This live event will take place on Thursday, May 4, 11:00 AM-Noon CT.

Register now to reserve your seat! https://learn.forensicstats.org/product?catalog=WB230504

This webinar is a practical training tool for criminal justice training partners and DNA analysts who intend to provide clear and accurate descriptions of DNA results in forensic testimony and reports. This event will include real-life examples of good reporting practices and poor testimony practices from transcripts with immediate tips on how to avoid making common mistakes.

What Am I Looking At?

Rethinking the "Order" in Law and Order: Psychologists have developed tools to combat bias and error in forensic labs.

KEY POINTS

• People who consider the same information, but in a different order, often reach different opinions.

• In forensic labs, poor information sequencing can prejudice analysts and result in costly errors.

• New research-based tools can help forensic analysts sequence information effectively.

• These procedures stand to increase the reliability and transparency of forensic analysts' decisions.

Read more at Psychology Today

BJA Crime Scene to Court Room Training

Time: June 28, 2021

Location: Online Training

This blended learning program is designed to train prosecutors and defense attorneys on a wide variety of crime scene to courtroom forensic science topics and legal considerations. The goal is for attorneys to gain a greater understanding of scientific evidence and principles that arise most frequently in criminal court cases in order to mitigate the risk of error and wrongful convictions. In addition, attorneys will learn about the latest forensic science trends and challenges, as well as the role of expert witnesses in criminal court cases.

This blended program will require approximately 8 hours of online self-study and a 4 hour live Zoom training. Self-study will open on June 28, 2021. Attendees will have the option to attend a live session on either July 21st, August 3rd or August 5th from 12-4 p.m. EDT. Order of priority for live session attendance will be granted based upon completion of the prerequisite online self-study portion.

Please take a look at the topics we will cover in this interactive training:
• Current Trends and Challenges in:
 – Forensic Toxicology
 – DNA Mixtures
 – Forensic Genealogy
 – Pattern Evidence
• Using Forensic Science Resources: Case Law, Literature and Web-based Information
• Understanding How to Obtain Laboratory Services/Expert Services
• Cognitive Bias:
 – within Forensic Science Disciplines
 – in the Courtroom: Expert Testimony
• Evaluating Human Factors – Eyewitness Identifications and False Confessions
• Aggravation and Mitigation: Ethical Considerations
• Understanding Evidentiary Requirements

Additional information and online application.

Register here

NIST Scientific Foundation Review: DNA Mixture Interpretation

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has published DNA Mixture Interpretation: A Scientific Foundation Review. This draft report, which will be open for public comment for 60 days before being published in final form, reviews the methods that forensic laboratories use to interpret evidence containing a mixture of DNA from two or more people. 

NIST scientific foundation reviews document and evaluate the scientific basis for forensic methods. These reviews fill a need identified in a landmark 2009 study by the National Academy of Sciences, which found that many forensic disciplines lack a solid foundation in scientific research.

The NIST review states that currently “there is not enough publicly available data to enable an external and independent assessment of the degree of reliability of DNA mixture interpretation practices, including the use of probabilistic genotyping software (PGS) systems.” 

PGS systems are used to perform complex statistical calculations when interpreting DNA mixtures. The report reviewed those systems as well as the larger workflows in which they are used.

The review identified many peer-reviewed studies of PGS systems, but most did not include the type of detailed data that would allow for an independent assessment of system performance. Forensic laboratories conduct internal studies to test their own systems, but most do not make the resulting data publicly available, partly out of privacy concerns surrounding the genetic data used in those studies.

The report specifies the types of data that would enable an independent assessment and shows how statistical methods could be used to assess performance if that data were available. The report also recommends that researchers and forensic laboratories publish this data in a way that will allow results from different studies to be more easily compared.

DNA profiling generally produces very reliable results when the evidence contains sufficient DNA from a single individual. The NIST report only addresses DNA mixtures, which can present much greater challenges. 

Those challenges have increased in recent years with advancing technology. When DNA methods were first developed in the 1980s, labs needed the amount of DNA found in a dime-sized blood or semen stain to produce a genetic fingerprint. Today, they can get a genetic fingerprint from the “touch DNA” that a person leaves behind when handling doorknobs, firearms and other objects.    

This increased sensitivity makes DNA useful for investigating a greater variety of crimes. But highly sensitive techniques often pick up mixtures of DNA from multiple people, some of whom may have had nothing to do with the crime being investigated. 

“Estimating how many individuals contributed to a DNA mixture, distinguishing one person’s DNA from another and determining if the DNA is even relevant to the crime can be very challenging,” said NIST Fellow and lead author John Butler. “If not properly considered and communicated, these issues can lead to misunderstandings regarding the strength and relevance of the DNA evidence in a case.”

Review the draft document here.

DNAmix 2021—Request for Participation

Source: Kristy Kadash, PhD

CALLING ALL DNA ANALYSTS

QUESTION—If two labs are given the same mixture (as an electropherogram) and the same person of interest, how consistent are the statistical responses and categorical interpretations? And what factors explain any differences in responses?

DNAmix2021 is a large-scale independent study being conducted to evaluate the extent of consistency and variation among forensic laboratories in interpretations and statistical analyses of DNA mixtures and to assess the effects of various potential sources of variability.

Phases
The study will be composed of four phases: (1) Policies and Procedures (P&P) Questionnaire—Online questionnaire to assess laboratory policies and procedures relevant to DNA mixture interpretation (notably systems, types of statistics reported, and parameter settings used); (2) Scenario Questionnaire—Online questionnaire presenting a number of casework-derived scenarios (without DNA data) asking participants to assess how they would conduct analysis for each scenario; (3) Number of Contributors (NoC) Subtest—Assessment of suitability and number of contributors, given electropherogram data; and (4) Interpretation and Statistical Analysis (ISA) Subtest—Interpretations and statistical analyses, given electropherogram data provided with DNA profiles of potential contributors.

Laboratories are encouraged to participate in the early phases even if they cannot commit to the later phases. The phases will be conducted throughout 2021.

The samples will be selected to be representative of actual DNA mixture casework. All mixture samples and contributors provided in this study will be created using actual human DNA.

Participation
Participation is open to all forensic laboratories that conduct DNA mixture interpretation as part of their Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs); non-United States laboratories are welcome to participate if they report interpretations in English. Participation in this study requires the participants to agree to use the same diligence in performing these analyses as used in operational casework and to use their laboratory’s SOPs in performing these analyses.

Results will be confidential: anonymity of participants will be maintained and results will not be associated with specific participants; the results will not be aggregated in any way that compromises anonymity. A coding system will be used that will allow your laboratory to see its individual results after the study is published, if desired.

Benefits
The results, which will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, are intended to be used to assess the foundational validity of the analysis and interpretation of DNA mixtures and to demonstrate the effectiveness of different approaches to mixture interpretation and statistical analysis. The study will serve the DNA community by providing data in response to issues raised in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) MIX13 study and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) Report. The results will be of value in Daubert/Frye challenges and to laboratory managers in assessing policies, training, or quality assurance procedures.

The study is being conducted by Noblis and Bode Technology, under the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant # 2020-R2-CX-0049.

Interested? Please contact DNAmix@noblis.org

Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science 13th Edition

Buy Book Here

Emerging Issues in Forensic Genealogy

In Emerging Issues in Forensic Genealogy, Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) Consultant, Barbara Rae-Venter discussed the Golden State Killer (GSK) case and the methodology used to identify DeAngelo as a suspect. Also included, with permission, are some slides from Stephen Kramer of the Los Angeles field office of the FBI whom Barbara worked with on the GSK case. This case illustrates not only the power of IGG but the enormous cost savings and minimal intrusiveness, amongst other benefits, of IGG vs traditional law enforcement (LE) research.

In the second half of this webinar, Tiffany Roy, Forensic DNA Expert, covered emerging trends in forensic genetic genealogy (FGG). The presentation bridged the gap between science and law by explaining the differences in the scientific testing used for databases like GEDmatch, compared to traditional STR testing used by government labs today. The differences in information obtained through this new testing are discussed along with the legal issues presented by these differences. Finally, the Department of Justice interim guidelines on FGG were reviewed, along with database user agreements and potential legal issues that can arise in an investigation employing FGG.

Barbara Rae-Venter, J.D., Ph.D., is a retired intellectual property attorney who specialized in the patenting of biotechnology inventions. She earned a J.D. from the University of Texas at Austin Law School, a B.A. double major in Psychology and Biochemistry, and a Ph.D. in Biology from the University of California at San Diego.

Through the use of investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) techniques, Ms. Venter has been able to identify the abductor of Lisa Jenson, three victims of the Allenstown Four murders, and the Golden State Killer. IGG is now being used to solve many previously “unsolvable” cold cases.

Ms. Venter was recognized for her work by the journal Nature as one of “10 People Who Mattered in Science in 2018” and was named among the Time 100: Most Influential People of 2019.

Tiffany Roy, MSFS, JD is a Forensic DNA expert with over fourteen years of forensic biology experience in both public and private laboratories in the United States. Ms. Roy holds degrees from Syracuse University, Massachusetts School of Law and University of Florida in the areas of Biology, Law and Forensic Science. She instructs undergraduates at Palm Beach Atlantic University; University of Maryland; and Southern New Hampshire University.

Ms. Roy currently acts as a consultant for attorneys and the media in the area of forensic biology through her firm, ForensicAid, LLC and has provided expert witness testimony in more than 100 state, federal and international court cases. Aside from her teaching, writing and consulting, she also assists with international capacity building initiatives, providing subject matter expertise for trainings for criminal justice stakeholders in the Middle East and Africa.

Moderator José R. Almirall is a Professor in Chemistry and Biochemistry, Director Emeritus of the International Forensic Research Institute at Florida International University and Director of the NSF-funded Center for Advanced Research in Forensic Science (CARFS). He was a practicing forensic scientist at the Miami-Dade Police Department Laboratory for 12 years, where he testified in over 100 criminal cases in state and federal courts.

Professor Almirall has authored one book and over 150 peer-reviewed scientific publications in the field of analytical and forensic chemistry. He has served on several national forensic science boards including as chair of the Chemistry and Instrumental Analysis scientific area committee (SAC) of the OSAC and as a member of the DOJ-sponsored Forensic Laboratory Needs Technology Working Group (FLNTWG). Dr. Almirall was appointed as the Scientist in Residence at the National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law, Stetson University College of Law in May 2017.

Course materials:

• Outline

• Learning Objectives

• Emerging Issues in Forensic Genealogy: Science and Law, Tiffany Roy

• Solved, Barbara Rae-Venter

• View the webinar recording

This webinar is designed for both prosecutors and defense attorneys. Attendees who complete this webinar will be eligible for Continuing Legal Education credits. The Stetson Office of Professional Education will work with each individual participant for reporting specifics. CLE applications will be made to Florida and other states per individual requests. Please email ope@law.stetson.edu for further information and state specific requests.

This project was supported by Grant No. 2015-CP-BX-K006 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the SMART Office. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Register here

Forensic Science in Criminal Law II

A NEW 8-Episode / 20-Hour Web Series

FORENSIC WEB SERIES II SUMMARY:

Forensic sciences play a role in virtually every type of modern criminal case. Defense counsel must stay well-informed and have a basic understanding of different forensic specialty areas in order to effectively represent their clients at trial. In this NEW 8-episode web series, you will learn from some of the top speakers in their respective scientific fields, and seasoned defense lawyers who have used their knowledge in specific specialty areas and incorporated it into their trial advocacy skills.

Don’t miss this excellent opportunity to learn, all from the comfort of your home. This web series will help you stay connected while providing important education on topics of interest during these challenging times.

Watch a 15-minute preview before purchasing: [Watch now]

DATES: Available any time 
DURATION: Approx. 20 hours
CLE: These training videos may be eligible for self-study CLE credit, where authorized. The program is currently eligible for credit in the following states: Alabama (pending for 18.25), Alaska (18.25), Arizona (18.25), Arkansas (18.25), California (18.25), Connecticut (18.25), Georgia (18.5), Louisiana (pending for 18.25), Mississippi (pending for 18.25), Missouri (21.5), Montana (pending for 18.25), Nebraska (18.25), Nevada (18.25), New Hampshire (18.25), New Jersey (21.5), New Mexico (pending for 18.25), New York (21.5), North Carolina (pending for 18.25), North Dakota (18.25), Ohio (18.25), South Carolina (pending for 18.25), Vermont (18.25), Virgin Islands (21.5).

REGISTRANTS WILL HAVE ACCESS TO ALL 8 EPISODES FOR 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF PURCHASE

EPISODES INCLUDED:

1. Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: Interpretation of Blood | Prof. Peter Valentin, BFS MFS D-ABC CSCSA, President, Valentin Forensics, LLC (1.75 hours)

2. Crime Scene Investigation - Making Sure They Get It Right | George Schiro, MS, F-ABC, Lab Director, Scales Biological Laboratory, Inc. (3.00 hours)

3. Digital Evidence in Child Pornography Cases | Steven Alexander, Trace Digital Forensics, LLC (2.25 hours)

4. Basic Death Investigation: Know the Basics and Your Experts | Dr. Amy Hawes, Forensic Pathologist, Tennessee Deputy State Medical Examiner (3.50 hours)

5. Weighting DNA Inclusions - Limitations of the Combined Probability of Inclusion & Other Binary Calculations | DNA Expert Tiffany Roy, ForensicAid, LLC (2.25 hours)

6. Using & Abusing Your Investigator | Rich Robertson & Christina Dougherty, R3 Investigations (1.75 hours)

7. How to Use a Forensic Expert in Different Stages of Legal Proceedings: Motions Practice & Voir Dire | Jonathan Laurans, Law Office of Jonathan Laurans, Chris Angles, The Angles Law Firm,  and Paul D. Cramm, Esq., The Cramm Law Firm (3.00 hours)

8. The Similarities of DNA Transfer and COVID-19 Transfer | DNA Expert Tiffany Roy, ForensicAid, LLC (2.00 hours)

REGISTER HERE

FBI Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Labs 2020

THEY’RE LIVE. READ THEM HERE.

CLE Without Contact-Similarities Between Transfer of COVID-19 and DNA

EPISODE 1: THE SIMILARITES OF DNA TRANSFER & COVID-19 TRANSFER

Host: Laura Schile, Pocket Expert Forensic Consulting, LLC - Sun City, AZ
Guest: DNA Expert Tiffany Roy, ForensicAid, LLC - West Palm Beach, FL

In this inaugural episode, forensic scientist and consultant Laura Schile will discuss DNA transfer, and the similarities with COVID-19 transfer with her special guest, Tiffany Roy, the president of ForensicAid, LLC, a DNA expert and forensic and medicolegal consultant.

DATES: Airs Tuesday, April 7th. Remains active for 72 hours
DURATION: 110 Minutes
CLE: This training  may be eligible for self-study CLE credit, where authorized.

NOTE: The Web training link will be sent to you in a confirmation email after purchase. Registrants will have access for 72 hours. Episode will expire on Thursday, April 9 at midnight. 

PRICING

REGISTER ONLINE

MEMBERS OF NACDL ENJOY EXCLUSIVE REGISTRATION RATES FOR OUR SEMINARS AND EVENTS ALONG WITH ALL THE BENEFITS FROM JOINING.

Registration FeesAll NACDL Members $35All Public Defenders$25All Non-Members$45

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INTERIM POLICY FORENSIC GENETIC GENEALOGICAL DNA ANALYSIS AND SEARCHING

I. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this interim policy is to promote the reasoned exercise of investigative, scientific, and prosecutorial discretion in cases that involve forensic genetic genealogical DNA analysis and searching (‘FGGS’). It provides guidance to Department agencies when formulating a thoughtful and collaborative approach to important interdisciplinary decisions in cases that utilize this investigative technique. Collaboration between investigators, laboratory personnel, and prosecutors is important because the decision to pursue FGGS may affect privacy interests, the consumption of forensic samples, and law enforcement’s ability to solve violent crime. The Department must use FGGS in a manner consistent with the requirements and protections of the Constitution and other legal authorities. Moreover, the Department must handle information and data derived from FGGS in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, policies, and procedures. When using new technologies like FGGS, the Department is committed to developing practices that protect reasonable interests in privacy, while allowing law enforcement to make effective use of FGGS to help identify violent criminals, exonerate innocent suspects, and ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice to all Americans. The Department will continue to assess its investigative tools and techniques to ensure that its policies and practices properly reflect its law enforcement mission and its commitment to respect individual privacy and civil liberties. This interim policy establishes general principles for the use of FGGS by Department components during criminal investigations and in other circumstances that involve Department resources, interests, and equities. The scope of this interim policy is limited to the requirements set forth herein. It does not control investigative, scientific, or prosecutorial activities or decisions not specifically addressed. The Department’s individual law enforcement components may issue additional guidance that is consistent with the provisions of this interim policy.

https://www.justice.gov/olp/page/file/1204386/download

DNA Mixtures: A Forensic Science Explainer What are DNA Mixtures? And why are they sometimes so difficult to interpret?

Everyone’s DNA is slightly different. Thirty-five years ago, when scientists invented a way to distill those differences into a DNA profile, they revolutionized forensic science. That profile—a sort of genetic fingerprint—gave investigators a new and extremely reliable tool for solving crimes.

DNA profiling can be so powerful and has been used successfully in so many cases that some people think it is nearly infallible. But the reliability of DNA profiling varies, and other things being equal, it is most reliable when the evidence contains plenty of DNA from just one or two people. That’s why homicides and sexual assaults—crimes that tend to produce a lot of this type of DNA evidence—made up the bulk of DNA casework for many years.

Read more here

After MIX13, Labs Must Revisit DNA Mixtures Across Country, Critic Argues

The manual way of sorting out increasingly complex DNA mixtures can be overly simplistic—potentially leading to errors.

A federal study involving more than 100 crime laboratories came to that conclusion—six years ago. The “MIX13” study was published last year after some public criticism, and an April 2018 report by Forensic Magazine.

Now, the chief critic of the delay in publishing MIX13 says crime laboratories across the country should be undertaking wide-scale review of the questionable mixture cases using the latest computer software programs to get more accurate results.

Previous conclusions backing guilty verdicts may be confirmed, but there may also be potential innocence cases among the load, according to the paper in the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics.

“We must go back, detect and correct our mistakes,” writes Greg Hampikian, of Boise State University, the author. “This can all be done without any new wet lab work.”

Hampikian has been the most vocal critic of the persistence of the use of combined probability of inclusion, or CPI—a manual computational method to analyze complex mixtures.

Read more here

Felonious Florida Podcast →

Follow this link to Felonious Florida Podcast about the Kevin Pratt case.

Framed By Your Own Cells: How DNA Evidence Imprisons The Innocent

Modern technologies can now detect and analyze DNA from samples comprised of only 16 cells. But due to the touch-transfer properties of DNA, determining how those cells reached the surface on which they were found is impossible. Tiny amounts of touch-transferred DNA have placed people at locations they had never visited and implicated people for crimes they did not commit. 

Forensic technologies detecting and analyzing DNA evidence have been at the forefront of criminal investigations. Scientists have told us that the perpetrator of a crime will leave traces of his DNA at the crime scene, and if found in even in small amounts, the evidence can be used to identify the perpetrator. Finding a suspect's DNA at a crime scene, on a victim, or on a piece of evidence, is consistently used by law enforcement to place a suspect at the scene of the crime, with the victim, or in contact with the relevant piece of evidence. Prosecutors have been representing DNA evidence as superior to all other types of identification evidence. However, research conducted at the University of Indianapolis shows that the detection of DNA does not actually indicate presence or contact. In fact, it may not narrow the scope of the investigation at all.

Read more here

NIST Published Landmark MIX 05 and MIX 13 Studies

Five years after an interlaboratory study showed that more than a hundred forensic laboratories could not agree on a single forensic riddle—and that a majority of them implicated an innocent person in a hypothetical felony, in error—the federal agency who produced the findings has officially published them in a peer-reviewed journal.

“NIST Interlaboratory Studies Involving DNA Mixtures (MIX05 and MIX13): Variation Observed and Lessons Learned” was published open-access online by Forensic Science International: Genetics this week—potentially making the problems with DNA mixture interpretation easier to cite by defense experts, and even prosecutors.

Read more at Forensic Magazine

State Police DNA testing under scrutiny: Audit raised questions about methods that have come under fire

ALBANY — The New York State Police crime lab is analyzing DNA evidence using controversial techniques that have been characterized as junk science and led to shakeups at other labs around the country.

A Times Union examination of records documenting the practices of the State Police’s Forensic Investigations Center also found the lab may be manipulating DNA analysis to match samples to known suspects in crimes, and that a national accreditation organization removed details of that allegation from an audit that was released in February.

The issue centers on mixtures of human DNA recovered from evidence such as weapons or a victim’s clothing. Scientists at some labs, including the State Police’s Forensic Investigation Center, use controversial subjective analysis to pinpoint the DNA of individuals who may have left their genetic footprint behind.

Questions about the State Police crime lab’s application of the so-called Combined Probability of Inclusion (CPI) were raised in a recent Orange County murder case. Lab records obtained by the Times Union show a State Police scientist changed her initial written findings that concluded the suspect’s DNA was not on an ammunition magazine associated with one of the handguns used in the crime.

The records confirm that the scientist, Cheryl L. Strevell, issued a second report three weeks later, on Dec. 8, in which she discarded four of the unique genetic markers that had indicated the DNA belonged to someone other than the suspect, Omarrio H. Morrison.

The adjusted report, initially based on 16 genetic markers, or locations, was sent to the Newburgh City Police Department and used as evidence — along with Strevell’s testimony — to help convict Morrison of second-degree murder at his trial, which ended June 1 in Goshen.

After initially finding Morrison’s DNA was not included at all 16 genetic locations, Strevell's final report found that he was included using only 12 locations. Strevell reported the chance of a random person being in the mixture was one  in 14.33 million.

Her adjusted findings came after she had apparently looked at the suspect’s DNA profile, which multiple experts said is improper but may be common practice at the New York State Police crime lab.

“It’s like painting the target after you’ve already shot the arrow,” said Tiffany Roy, an attorney and DNA expert who exposed similar problems at the Broward County sheriff’s crime lab in Florida.

Read more at the Times Union

NIH Bioethicists: Use Genetic Genealogy in Crime Solving — But Focus on Informed Consent

Informed consent is the first, and most key, safeguard to forensic genealogy searches to solve long-unsolved crimes, according to three bioethicists from the National Institutes of Health.

The legal questions around the Fourth Amendment are simpler than the ethical concerns, according to the NIH scientists’ paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Criminal genealogy searching is a valuable tool but raises important ethical issues that should be examined before the practice is widely adopted,” they write. “Better informed consent would alleviate some of these concerns, particularly if genealogy services actively highlight the possibility of data use for forensic purposes—and the implications for the individual and his or her relatives.”

Read more at Forensic Magazine