Document Category: Secondary Transfer
| 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 Dismiss for Failure to Preserve Relevant DNA Evidence | Explains the issue of secondary DNA transfer – footnotes on p. 7 specifically cite studies demonstrating a person’s DNA can be transferred to an object they never touched via an intermediate person or object. | October 31, 2022 | 9th Cir., Nevada | DNA, Evidence, Forensics, Secondary Transfer | 9th-cir nevada | dna evidence forensics secondary-transfer |