STRmix is a software for the interpretation of complex DNA profiles. The three developers are Dr Duncan Taylor (Forensic Science South Australia), Dr Jo-Anne Bright and myself from ESR in New Zealand. We do not receive any benefit direct or indirect from sales of STRmix. We are all civil servants on the pay of our respective states.
It is currently in use in 29 labs in the US, all 8 State and territory labs in Australasia, and 4 labs elsewhere
See here for a full list Labs live
I have concealed my People v Hillary and Mark Perlin pages. Government labs may receive information on these personally from me by email.
A non-exhaustive list of US cases:
NY v Bullard-Daniels , Niagara County strmix-niagara-county-ny-decision-_201603101415
State of Texas vs. Michael Shane Clack. Daubert/admissibility hearing April/20/16,
State of Texas vs. Roy Edward Smith April/20/16 Smith County near the Dallas area.
Appeal Roy Edward Smith v Texas 16-139-CR Smithv StateApr 28’17
Henry Watkins Skinner v Texas June 8th 2016 Skinner v State Tex_ Court of Criminal Appeals 2016 – Google Scholar
People v. Irby (heard in Michigan). June 21st 2016
People v Sayers (Mi) 9th November 2016,
Daubert People v Herbert Alford (Mi) 16th November 2016,herbert-alford-opn-and-order-re-strmix-m-in-limine-11-28-16
Florida vs. Marc Regisme Daubert hearing denied 22nd November 2016, state_v-_regisme-daubert-denial
United States v Pettway (New York) October 21, 2016
People v Hillary (NY) hillary-08-26-16-decision-and-order-dna-analysis-admissibility, 07-25-16-fye-hearing-transcript
Michigan v Larry David Smith 3rd May 2017 Smith Daubert Ruling
Florida v Dwayne Cummings 12th May 2017 State of Florida v Dwayne Cummings Daubert Denied
Daubert Michigan Genesee County People v Marlon Burns 15th June 2017 STRmix admitted Daubert Order Burns
R v Pfening (Australia) r-v-pfennig-judgement-11-nov-2016
R v Sandra Weir (Scotland) for the murder of Mary Logie High Court in Edinburgh 5th January 2017. Mr report was agreed with the defence who were Beltrami solicitors. The Scottish Police Agency scientist was asked me in court why they had sent work to ESR, how we sent the data, how the software works and if it is accepted in the scientific community
Josephus Marinus Johannes de Graef 21st November 2016
Due to the difficult LCN-profiles (34 cycles Identifiler, three replicates) this was a very special case. It was the first case in the Netherlands where the DNA-evidence was discussed in such detail. The probabilistic software and the outcome of three programs (LRmix, TrueAllele, STRmix) was discussed.
The judges found the DNA-evidence of STRmix and LRmix/ Mixcall (in-house developed version of LRmix) reliable. In the link below, under chapter “7.3.1 Weergave van de likelihood ratio’s.” you can find a table with results of Netherlands Forensic Institute and STRmix. They are similar. TrueAllele gave different result.
TrueAllele was run on only one replicate although be capable of being run on all three. The effect of replication is very considerable especially at low-template. Hence it would be unfair to score the TrueAllele result against the other two.
July 2017 R v Naweed Ali, Khobaib Hussain, and Mohibur Rahman at the Central Criminal Court (the ‘Old Bailey’) STRmix admissibility challenged. Cellmark provided validation documents and details of previous court challenges, including supporting information provided by ESR. The evidence was admitted. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40802787
Nelson v Texas This is not a STRmix case but STRmix features https://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar_case?case=15999635421785956074&q=strmix+dna&hl=en&as_sdt=2006
The views expressed in this site are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my organisation.