Document Category: Likelihood Ratio
| Title | Content | Date Filed | Jurisdiction | Categories | Link | hf:doc_author | hf:doc_categories |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to Exclude DNA Testimony About Likelihood Ratios Obtained Using STRMix Probabilistic Genotyping Software | This motion relies on the Federal Rules of Evidence to argue for exclusion of expert DNA testimony about the likelihood ratio obtained using STRMix probabilistic genotyping software. Pages 5-8 describe the basic steps of DNA extraction and analysis. Pages 8-9 discuss the problems of trace DNA and the possibility of innocent transfer of DNA. Page 11 explains how DNA analysis is less reliable when there is a complex DNA mixture and pages 12-15 discuss the danger that jurors will misunderstand (and prosecutors will misrepresent) what a likelihood ratio actually means. | May 20, 2024 | National, Washington | 403, DNA, DNA Mixture, Evidence, Expert Testimony, Forensics, Improper Argument by Prosecutor, Juries, Juror Psychology, Likelihood Ratio, Secondary Transfer, Witnesses | national washington | 403 dna dna-mixture evidence expert-testimony forensics improper-argument-by-prosecutor juries juror-psychology likelihood-ratio secondary-transfer witnesses | |
| Motion to Exclude DNA “Likelihood Ratio” Testimony | Argues that “likelihood ratio” evidence — the statistical frequency of a suspect’s characteristic — has not been sufficiently validated and is misleading to the jury because the jury conflates it with probability of guilt. | February 23, 2018 | 6th Cir., Michigan | DNA, DNA Mixture, Evidence, Forensics, Juries, Juror Psychology, Likelihood Ratio | 6th-cir michigan | dna dna-mixture evidence forensics juries juror-psychology likelihood-ratio |