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.

Information on access to STRmix™ software by defense legal teams can be found here [PDF, 352 KB].  Copyright and disclaimer can be found here [PDF, 85 KB].

It is currently in use in 30 labs in the US, all 8 State and territory labs in Australasia, and 4 labs elsewhere

See here for a full list Labs live

A list of the peer reviewed publications for STRmix appears here
Peer reviewed publications for STRmix

A summary of the identified miscodes in STRmix appears here A summary of the seven identified miscodes in STRmix

People v Hillary People v Hillary II

A summary of the commercial releases all of which underwent full developmental validation appears here A summary of the commercial versions all of which had a full developmental validation

A non-exhaustive list of US cases:

Mi v Muhammad <a title="muhammad-daubert-transcriptmuhammad-daubert-transcript,p-v-muhammad-12-3-15,michigan-v-muhammad,

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, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas 8th June 2016 Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas 2016 WL 3351308 Skinner v State Tex_ Court of Criminal Appeals 2016 – Google Scholar

Roy Edward SMITH, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee 28th April 2016 Court of Appeals of Texas, Tyler 2017 WL 1534048

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 of America,v. Kenneth Pettway, Jr. and Demetrius Black, Defendants. 21st October 2016 Western District New York 2016 WL 6134493

People v Hillary (NY) hillary-08-26-16-decision-and-order-dna-analysis-admissibility07-25-16-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

Antonio Peres NELSON a/k/a Antonio Perez Nelson, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, State 17th August 2017 Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth 02–16–00184–CR

Daubert Michigan Genesee County People v Marlon Burns 15th June 2017 STRmix admitted Daubert Order Burns

Daubert Wyoming v Bradley Ross Fairbourn 25th August 2017 admitted FILELaunch718756_14737

Minnesota v Johnny Earl Edwards 31st October, 2017 admitted

California v Alvin Larry Davis Kelly Hearing Stockton, Ca 18-19th December 2017 Admitted

US v Melvin Russell, US District Court for the district of New Mexico. 31st October, 2017. Daubert hearing, evidence admitted. Melvin Russell


R v Pfening (Australia) r-v-pfennig-judgement-11-nov-2016

R v Tuite, Tuite v R (Australia) tuite-v-the-queen-2015-vsca-148tuite-interlocutory-appeal-decision
DPP v Tuite (Ruling No 3) 2017 VSC 442

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.

Nelson v Texas This is not a STRmix case but STRmix features

The views expressed in this site are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my organisation.


2 thoughts on “STRmix

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s