Forensic validation, error and reporting: a unified approach

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
DNA Identification: Mixture Weight & Inference
Advertisements

Overcoming DNA Stochastic Effects 2010 NEAFS & NEDIAI Meeting November, 2010 Manchester, VT Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics.
Sherlock Holmes and the DNA Likelihood Ratio American Academy of Forensic Sciences February, 2011 Chicago, IL Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics,
Forensic DNA Inference ICFIS 2008 Lausanne, Switzerland Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Joseph B Kadane, PhD Robin W Cotton, PhD Cybergenetics ©
DNA Mixture Interpretations and Statistics – To Include or Exclude Cybergenetics © Prescription for Criminal Justice Forensics ABA Criminal Justice.
Finding Truth in DNA Mixture Evidence Innocence Network Conference April, 2013 Charlotte, NC Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA.
How Inclusion Interpretation of DNA Mixture Evidence Reduces Identification Information American Academy of Forensic Sciences February, 2013 Washington,
Creating informative DNA libraries using computer reinterpretation of existing data Northeastern Association of Forensic Scientists November, 2011 Newport,
How TrueAllele ® Works (Part 3) Kinship, Paternity and Missing Persons Cybergenetics Webinar December, 2014 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics,
Preventing rape in the military through effective DNA computing Forensics Europe Expo Forensics Seminar Theatre April, 2014 London, UK Mark W Perlin, PhD,
How TrueAllele® Works (Part 1)
TrueAllele ® Casework Validation on PowerPlex ® 21 Mixture Data Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society September, 2014 Adelaide, South Australia.
Using TrueAllele ® Casework to Separate DNA Mixtures of Relatives California Association of Criminalists October, 2014 San Francisco, CA Jennifer Hornyak,
Scientific Validation of Mixture Interpretation Methods 17th International Symposium on Human Identification Sponsored by the Promega Corporation October,
Computer Interpretation of Uncertain DNA Evidence National Institute of Justice Computer v. Human June, 2011 Arlington, VA Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD.
How TrueAllele ® Works (Part 2) Degraded DNA and Allele Dropout Cybergenetics Webinar November, 2014 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh,
TrueAllele ® Genetic Calculator: Implementation in the NYSP Crime Laboratory NYS DNA Subcommittee May 19, 2010 Barry Duceman, Ph.D New York State Police.
Separating Familial Mixtures, One Genotype at a Time Northeastern Association of Forensic Scientists November, 2014 Hershey, PA Ria David, PhD, Martin.
Cybergenetics Webinar January, 2015 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics © How TrueAllele ® Works (Part 4)
Forensic Science & Criminal Law: Cutting Edge DNA Strategies Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers September, 2015 Hotel Monaco, Pittsburgh,
Unleashing Forensic DNA through Computer Intelligence Forensics Europe Expo Forensic Innovation Conference April, 2013 London, UK Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD,
Rapid DNA Response: On the Wings of TrueAllele Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists May, 2015 Cambridge, Maryland Martin Bowkley, Matthew Legler,
Getting Past First Bayes with DNA Mixtures American Academy of Forensic Sciences February, 2014 Seattle, WA Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics,
Compute first, ask questions later: an efficient TrueAllele ® workflow Midwestern Association of Forensic Scientists October, 2014 St. Paul, MN Martin.
Murder in McKeesport October 25, 2008 Tamir Thomas.
When Good DNA Goes Bad International Conference on Forensic Research & Technology October, 2012 Chicago, Illinois Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics,
DNA Mapping the Crime Scene: Do Computers Dream of Electric Peaks? 23rd International Symposium on Human Identification October, 2012 Nashville, TN Mark.
Open Access DNA Database Duquesne University March, 2013 Pittsburgh, PA Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics ©
Exploring Forensic Scenarios with TrueAllele ® Mixture Automation 59th Annual Meeting American Academy of Forensic Sciences February, 2007 Mark W Perlin,
Objective DNA Mixture Information in the Courtroom: Relevance, Reliability & Acceptance NIST International Symposium on Forensic Science Error Management:
Simple Reporting of Complex DNA Evidence: Automated Computer Interpretation Promega 14th International Symposium on Human Identification Pointe Hilton.
Death Needs Answers: The DNA Evidence Cybergenetics © Andrea Niapas Book Launch Pittsburgh, PA May, 2013 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics,
DNA Identification: Quantitative Data Modeling Cybergenetics © Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA TrueAllele ® Lectures.
Separating DNA Mixtures by Computer to Identify and Convict a Serial Rapist Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Garett Sugimoto,
When DNA alone is not enough: exoneration by computer interpretation
A Match Likelihood Ratio for DNA Comparison
Forensic Stasis in a World of Flux
Overcoming Bias in DNA Mixture Interpretation
Validating TrueAllele® genotyping on ten contributor DNA mixtures
How to Defend Yourself Against DNA Mixtures
Error in the likelihood ratio: false match probability
Explaining the Likelihood Ratio in DNA Mixture Interpretation
PCAST report • DNA mixture limits 3 contributors 20% fraction
Distorting DNA evidence: methods of math distraction
On the threshold of injustice: manipulating DNA evidence
Virginia TrueAllele® Validation Study: Casework Comparison
Solving sexual assault cases using DNA mixture evidence
Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Suffolk County TrueAllele® Validation
American Academy of Forensic Sciences Criminalistics Section
Solving Crimes using MCMC to Analyze Previously Unusable DNA Evidence
Investigative DNA Databases that Preserve Identification Information
DNA Identification: Inclusion Genotype and LR
New York State Police TrueAllele® Validation
Forensic Thinking, Fast and Slow
DNA Identification: Stochastic Effects
Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
DNA Identification: Biology and Information
DNA Identification: Biology and Information
Forensic match information: exact calculation and applications
severed carotid artery
Probabilistic Genotyping to the Rescue for Pinkins and Glenn
DNA Identification: Biology and Information
DNA Identification: Mixture Interpretation
Exonerating the Innocent with Probabilistic Genotyping
Testifying about probabilistic genotyping results
David W. Bauer1, PhD Nasir Butt2, PhD Jeffrey Oblock2
Using probabilistic genotyping to distinguish family members
Reporting match error: casework, validation & language
Presentation transcript:

Forensic validation, error and reporting: a unified approach 1 Forensic validation, error and reporting: a unified approach American Academy of Forensic Sciences Jurisprudence Section February, 2019 Baltimore, MD Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics © 2003-2019 Cybergenetics © 2003-2011

Rule 702 – Daubert reliability • testable • error rate • peer reviewed • generally accepted

Simple DNA & random match 3 Simple DNA & random match 1 Probability(coincidental match)

Complex DNA & likelihood ratio 4 Complex DNA & likelihood ratio Probability(evidence match) Probability(coincidental match)

Monte Carlo for many genotypes 5 Monte Carlo for many genotypes Random drawings from the human population Gather log(LR) values many-to-many

Validation – specificity histogram 6 Validation – specificity histogram

Error for validation genotypes 7 Error for validation genotypes match strength log(536,000) = 5.729 ban noncontributor For a match strength of 536 thousand, only 1 in 9.65 million people would match as strongly

Monte Carlo sampling for one genotype 8 Monte Carlo sampling for one genotype noncontributor Gather log(LR) values one-to-many

Direct convolution for one genotype 9 Direct convolution for one genotype 5 10 15 Instant log(LR) non-contributor distribution one-to-none

Error for evidence genotype 10 Error for evidence genotype For a match strength of 536 thousand, only 1 in 7.32 million people would match as strongly match strength log(536,000) = 5.729 ban Non-contributor distribution population probability 1 / 7,320,000

Rule 403 – DNA match relevance 11 Rule 403 – DNA match relevance Probative value of DNA match statistic without error determined from the evidence Danger of misleading the jury without an error rate

How often would evidence match the wrong person as strongly as the defendant? information likelihood ratio unfamiliar concept How often probability frequency familiar concept

Case example – LR histogram 13 Case example – LR histogram A match between the sperm rectal swabs and the defendant is 4,890 times more probable than coincidence. Non-contributor distribution log(4,890) = 3.69

Case example – match error 14 Case example – match error Error = 1/28,700,000 << 1/4,890 = 1/LR For a match strength of 4,890, only 1 in 28.7 million people would match as strongly

Exclusionary match error 15 Exclusionary match error Contributor distribution log(1/4,890) = -3.69 For a non-association of 1/4,890, only 1 in 28.7 million people would be less associated with the evidence

Why are verbal equivalents unnecessary? • hides the real match strength information • not what a DNA expert actually believes • misleads the jury about “million” (Koehler) Just report LR error, along with the LR, when the match strength is under a million

How are error rates from DNA evidence and validation studies similar? A group of evidence genotype non-contributor distributions

Validation histogram is the average non-contributor distribution many-to-none • exact: average the evidence distributions (a second) • sample: compare evidence vs. random profiles (weeks)

Exact vs. sampled Exact all – 1024 genotypes Accurate exact probability function convolution – fast Sampled some – 104 genotypes Approximate sample using random profiles Monte Carlo – slow

20

Daubert requires match error 21 Daubert requires match error ✓ testable ✓ error rate ✓ peer reviewed ✓ generally accepted

Conclusions • measuring error is built into genotype probability 22 Conclusions • measuring error is built into genotype probability • always report the LR; can also report error • verbal equivalents are not good science • validation is easy – average the evidence curves no “right” match answer is needed, just the evidence genotype distributions Information theory makes forensics easy Alternative wastes time, money & information

TrueAllele YouTube channel 23 More information http://www.cybgen.com/information • Courses • Newsletters • Newsroom • Presentations • Publications • Webinars http://www.youtube.com/user/TrueAllele TrueAllele YouTube channel perlin@cybgen.com