Exonerating the Innocent with Probabilistic Genotyping

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
DNA Mixture Interpretations and Statistics – To Include or Exclude Cybergenetics © Prescription for Criminal Justice Forensics ABA Criminal Justice.
Advertisements

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,
Preventing rape in the military through effective DNA computing Forensics Europe Expo Forensics Seminar Theatre April, 2014 London, UK Mark W Perlin, PhD,
TrueAllele ® Interpretation of DNA Mixture Evidence 9 th International Conference on Forensic Inference and Statistics August, 2014 Leiden University,
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,
Revolutionising DNA analysis in major crime investigations The Investigator Conferences Green Park Conference Centre May, 2014 Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.
Revolutionising DNA analysis in major crime investigations The Investigator Conferences Green Park Conference Centre May, 2014 Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.
No DNA Left Behind: When "inconclusive" really means "informative" Schenectady County District Attorney’s Office January, 2014 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD,
Revolutionising DNA analysis in major crime investigations The Investigator Conferences Green Park Conference Centre May, 2014 Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.
Solving Cold Cases by TrueAllele ® Analysis of DNA Evidence Finding Closure: The Science, Law and Politics of Cold Case Investigations October, 2014 Pittsburgh,
TrueAllele ® Mixture Interpretation Cybergenetics © th Annual DNA Technology Educational Seminar Centre of Forensic Sciences and the Promega.
Computer Interpretation of Uncertain DNA Evidence National Institute of Justice Computer v. Human June, 2011 Arlington, VA Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD.
TrueAllele ® Modeling of DNA Mixture Genotypes California Association of Crime Laboratory Directors October, 2014 San Francisco, CA Mark W Perlin, PhD,
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)
Cracking the DNA mixture code – computer analysis of UK crime cases Forensics Europe Expo Forensic Innovation Conference April, 2014 London, UK Mark W.
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.
TrueAllele ® interpretation of Allegheny County DNA mixtures Cybergenetics © Continuing Legal Education Allegheny County Courthouse February,
Virginia TrueAllele ® Validation Study: Casework Comparison Presented at AAFS, February, 2013 Published in PLOS ONE, March, 2014 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD,
TrueAllele ® Computing: All the DNA, all the time Continuing Professional Development Sydney, Australia March, 2014 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics,
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.
Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics © Duquesne University October, 2015 Pittsburgh, PA What’s in a Match?
Open Access DNA Database Duquesne University March, 2013 Pittsburgh, PA Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics ©
Objective DNA Mixture Information in the Courtroom: Relevance, Reliability & Acceptance NIST International Symposium on Forensic Science Error Management:
Death Needs Answers: The DNA Evidence Cybergenetics © Andrea Niapas Book Launch Pittsburgh, PA May, 2013 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics,
DNA-led investigation through computer interpretation of evidence Pennsylvania State Police Training Seminar Hershey, PA April, 2014 Mark W Perlin, PhD,
Data summary – “alleles” Threshold Over threshold, peaks are labeled as allele events All-or-none allele peaks, each given equal status Allele Pair 8,
Separating DNA Mixtures by Computer to Identify and Convict a Serial Rapist Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Garett Sugimoto,
Understanding DNA Evidence Beaver County Courthouse March, 2016 Beaver, PA Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics ©
When DNA alone is not enough: exoneration by computer interpretation
Four person DNA mixture
DNA: TrueAllele® Statistical Analysis, Probabilistic Genotyping
The Triumph and Tragedy of DNA Evidence
A Match Likelihood Ratio for DNA Comparison
Forensic Stasis in a World of Flux
Validating TrueAllele® genotyping on ten contributor DNA mixtures
Shedding Light on Inconclusive DNA: TrueAllele® Computer Analysis
How to Defend Yourself Against DNA Mixtures
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
“Using Computer Technology to Overcome Bottlenecks in the Forensic DNA Testing Process and Improve Data Recovery from Complex Samples”
Machines can work it out: Automated TrueAllele® workflow
Virginia TrueAllele® Validation Study: Casework Comparison
Solving sexual assault cases using DNA mixture evidence
TrueAllele in Indiana courts
TrueAllele for DNA Mixtures
Solving Crimes using MCMC to Analyze Previously Unusable DNA Evidence
Investigative DNA Databases that Preserve Identification Information
No information from mixture
severed carotid artery
TrueAllele® computer technology
2018 AAFS Annual Scientific Meeting February 22, 2018
The Triumph and Tragedy of DNA Evidence
Probabilistic Genotyping to the Rescue for Pinkins and Glenn
DNA Transfer for Lawyers
DNA Identification: Mixture Interpretation
Testifying about probabilistic genotyping results
David W. Bauer1, PhD Nasir Butt2, PhD Jeffrey Oblock2
Using probabilistic genotyping to distinguish family members
Presentation transcript:

Exonerating the Innocent with Probabilistic Genotyping Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists Annual Conference May, 2019 Morgantown, WV Jennifer M. Hornyak, MS Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics © 2003-2019 Cybergenetics © 2007-2012

DNA Evidence DNA can link evidence or a place to a person Evidence 2 DNA Evidence DNA can link evidence or a place to a person Evidence DNA data Match statistics Inclusionary Exclusionary

3 Human Interpretation Over threshold, peaks are labeled as allele events Allele Pair 7, 7 7, 10 7, 12 7, 14 10, 10 10%10, 12 10, 14 12, 12 12, 14 14, 14 All-or-none allele peaks, each given equal status Threshold

Threshold Issues - 2005 NIST study in 2005 4 Threshold Issues - 2005 NIST study in 2005 Two contributor mixture data, known victim When not “inconclusive”: 213 trillion (14) 31 thousand (4) Forensic DNA labs put on notice 14 years ago

Two Thresholds Higher threshold for human review Allele Pair 7, 7 5 Two Thresholds Higher threshold for human review Allele Pair 7, 7 7, 10 7, 12 7, 14 10, 10 0%10, 12 10, 14 12, 12 12, 14 14, 14 Under threshold, alleles less used Threshold

6 Threshold Issues - 2013 False inclusions with two thresholds

Threshold Issues - Casework 7 Threshold Issues - Casework False inclusions in casework with human review Ten comparisons with no statistical support:

Non-valid Scientific Method 8 Non-valid Scientific Method Threshold methods cannot work

X False convictions Good DNA data, failed interpretation 9 False convictions Good DNA data, failed interpretation Result: People stayed in jail X

TrueAllele® Casework ViewStation User Client Database Server 10 TrueAllele® Casework ViewStation User Client Database Server Interpret/Match Expansion Visual User Interface VUIer™ Software Parallel Processing Computers

Computers can use all the data 11 Computers can use all the data Quantitative peak heights at locus D5S818 Consider every possible genotype solution Explain the peak pattern Better explanation has a higher likelihood One person's allele pair A second person's allele pair A third person's allele pair

12 Evidence Genotype Objective genotype determined solely from the DNA data. Never sees a comparison reference. 45% 34% 10% 2% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

How much more does the defendant match the evidence 13 DNA Match Information How much more does the defendant match the evidence than a random person? Prob(evidence match) Prob(coincidental match) 1/20x 19% 1%

Is the reference in the evidence? 14 Is the reference in the evidence? Calculated at all loci tested A match between the evidence and the reference is: 1.1 million times less probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated African-American person

TrueAllele Exclusions 15 TrueAllele Exclusions Five exonerations Indiana v. Darryl Pinkins Indiana v. Roosevelt Glenn Montana v. Paul Jenkins Montana v. Fred Lawrence Georgia v. Johnny Lee Gates Other cases Connecticut v. Michael Ciannella, Jr. Idaho v. Christopher Tapp Pennsylvania v. Joshua Huber

Indiana v. Darryl Pinkins and Roosevelt Glenn 16 Indiana v. Darryl Pinkins and Roosevelt Glenn 1989 – 5 men raped an Indiana woman Darryl Pinkins and 2 others misidentified 1991 – wrongfully convicted, 65 year sentence 2001 – DNA mixture evidence 2 contributors found, not the accused but 5 were needed, post-conviction relief denied

Computer Analysis The TrueAllele computer: 17 Computer Analysis The TrueAllele computer: 1. compared evidence with evidence 2. calculated exclusionary match statistics 3. revealed 5% minor mixture contributor 4. jointly analyzed DNA mixture data 5. showed three perpetrators were brothers found 5 unidentified genotypes, defendants not linked to the crime

18 Pinkins exonerated Indiana April 25, 2016

19 Glenn exonerated January 30, 2017

Montana v. Fred Lawrence and Paul Jenkins 20 Montana v. Fred Lawrence and Paul Jenkins 1994 – murder, 2 men accused Jailhouse “snitch” testifies against them At trial, no physical evidence presented connecting either man to the crime 2015 – petitions for DNA testing submitted Ligatures from crime scene tested – minor component inconclusive

Computer Analysis TrueAllele used all of the data 21 Computer Analysis TrueAllele used all of the data to separate the mixture in to 3 contributors

DNA Hit Database hit to major component – David Nelson 22 DNA Hit Database hit to major component – David Nelson Had confessed the homicide to his nephew shortly after crime

TrueAllele results Jenkins and Lawrence excluded, 23 TrueAllele results Jenkins and Lawrence excluded, two unknown contributors found Description Fred Lawrence Victim Paul Jenkins ligature one in 722 billion 11.4 quadrillion one in 157 thousand Reported unknown major contributor matches David Nelson Additional unknown 8% contributor found

April 13, 2018 – Lawrence and Jenkins release from prison 24 Case Outcome April 13, 2018 – Lawrence and Jenkins release from prison

Georgia v. Johnny Lee Gates 25 Georgia v. Johnny Lee Gates 1976 – woman raped and murdered 1977– Gates admits to murder after brought to crime scene Convicted and sentenced to death 2015 – two evidence items found not destroyed by state Bathrobe belt and necktie used to bind victim Degraded mixtures of 3 or 4 people – inconclusive results

Post-conviction Hearing 26 Post-conviction Hearing May 2018 hearing: Dr. Mark Perlin testified about the TrueAllele results Inconclusive results with human interpretation are now exclusionary match statistics The crime laboratory supported the findings

Gates excluded, 6 unknown contributors found 27 TrueAllele Analysis Gates excluded, 6 unknown contributors found Item Description 76C2573-004 Johnny Lee Gates 76C2573-032 robe belt side 1 swab one in 1.5 million 76C2573-033 robe belt side 2 swab one in 134 thousand 76C2573-034 front of black tie swab one in 4.33 million 76C2573-035 back of black tie swab one in 963 million 76C2573-042 robe belt M-vac filter one in 902 trillion 76C2573-044 black tie M-vac filter one in 825 billion

January 10, 2019 – new trial granted 28 Gates Outcome January 10, 2019 – new trial granted

DNA in Justice Without probabilistic genotyping, there would be 29 DNA in Justice Without probabilistic genotyping, there would be no justice for Darryl Pinkins, Roosevelt Glenn, Fred Lawrence, Paul Jenkins, or Johnny Lee Gates

TrueAllele YouTube channel 30 More information http://www.cybgen.com/information • Courses • Newsletters • Newsroom • Presentations • Publications • Webinars http://www.youtube.com/user/TrueAllele TrueAllele YouTube channel jennifer@cybgen.com