Education & Training

New Developments in Forensics



DNA

Articles

Applied Biosystems Provide Details of New Developments, Medicine & Law Weekly, Apr. 13, 2007, at 736. (First commercial reagent kit for analyzing degraded or limited DNA) (http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Medicine-and-Law-Weekly.html)

Frederick R. Bieber, Turning Base Hits into Earned Runs: Improving the Effectiveness of Forensic DNA Data Bank Programs, 34 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 222 (Summer 2006) (http://www.aslme.org/pub/jlme/ind ex.php)

Frederick R. Bieber, Charles H. Brenner & David Lazer, Finding Criminals Through DNA of Their Relatives, Science, Jun. 2, 2006, at 1315 (http://www.sciencemag.org)

Karen Cormier, Quantifiler® Kit and Allelic Ladder Updates, 39 J. Can. Soc'y Forensic Science (Dec. 2006) (http://www.csfs.ca/journal/journal .htm)

DNAboost Warms up Cold Cases, Chemistry World, Nov. 2006 (http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld)

C.J. Frégeau, C. Yensen, M. Lett, J. Elliott, K.L. Bowen, G. Cormier, J. Modler, I. Trudel, H. Poon & R.M. Fourney, Forensic DNA Revolutions and the Quest for Automation (pts. 1& 2), 39 J. Can. Soc'y Forensic Science (Dec. 2006) (http://www.csfs.ca/journal/journal .htm)

Peter Gill, Amanda Kirkham & James Curran, LoComation: A Software Tool for the Analysis of Low Copy Number DNA Profiles, 166 Forensic Sci. Int'l 128 (March 2007) (http://www.scienced irect.com/science/journal/03790738)

Henry T. Greely, Daniel P. Riordan, Nanibaa' A. Garrison & Joanna L. Mountain, Family Ties: The Use of DNA Offender Databases to Catch Offenders' Kin, 34 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 248 (Summer 2006) (http://www.aslme.org/pub/jlme/ind ex.php)

Mark Hansen, Match Point: How Denver Rape Probe Got the FBI to Change Policy and Release Kinship DNA, A.B.A. J., Dec. 2006, at 48 (http://www.abanet.org/jo urnal/redesign/home.html)

Elizabeth E. Joh, Reclaiming "Abandoned" DNA: The Fourth Amendment and Genetic Privacy, 100 Northwestern University Law Review 857 (Winter 2006) (http://www.law.northwestern.edu /lawreview)

Christiane Lauk & Jorg Schaaf, A New Approach for the Extraction of DNA from Postage Stamps, Forensic Science Communications, Jan. 2007 (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/ lab/fsc/current/backissu.htm)

Carole McCartney, The DNA Expansion Programme and Criminal Investigation, 46 British Journal of Criminology 175 (Mar. 2006) (http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org)

C. Meissner, P. Bruse, E. Mueller & M. Oehmichen, A New Sensitive Short Pentaplex (ShoP) PCR for Typing of Degraded DNA, 166 Forensic Sci. Int'l 121 (Mar. 2007) (http://www.scienced irect.com/science/journal/03790738)

New York Employs New DNA Profiling System, Forensic Magazine, Nov. 29, 2006 (http://www.forensicmag.com)

James Randerson, New DNA Technique Provides Clue to Identity of Bomb- Makers, The Guardian, Feb. 26, 2007 (http://www.guardian.co.uk)

Jaiprakash G. Shewale, Elaine Schneida, Jonathan Wilson B, Jerilyn A. Walker, Mark A. Batzer, & Sudhir K. Sinha, Human Genome DNA Quantification System, H -Quant: Development and Validation for Use in Forensic Casework, 52 Journal of Forensic Sciences 364 (Mar. 2007) (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022- 1198&site=1)

Tania Simonelli, Dangerous Excursions: The Case Against Expanding Forensic DNA Databases to Innocent Persons, 34 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 390 (Summer 2006) (http://www.aslme.org/pub/jlme/ind ex.php)

Victoria Anne Snowdon, Robert William Hay, & Douglas James Demetrick, Mitochondrial DNA Testing to Identify "Acellular" Samples, 39 J. Can. Soc'y Forensic Science (Dec. 2006) (http://www.csfs.ca.journal/journal .htm)

Franco Taroni, Silvia Bozza, Magali Bernard & Christophe Champod, Value of DNA Tests: A Decision Perspective, 52 Journal of Forensic Sciences 31 (Jan. 2007) (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022- 1198&site=1)

William C. Thompson, Tarnish on the 'Gold Standard': Understanding Recent Problems in Forensic DNA Testing, Champion, Feb. 2006, at 10 (http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/698c98dd101a846085 256eb400500c01/6285f6867724e1e685257124006f9177? OpenDocument&Highlight=0,dna)

John Wilson, Alana Lee & Wendy Lalonde, Sample Selection Criterion and Generation of STR DNA Profiles from Human Skeletal Remains, 39 J. Can. Soc'y Forensic Science (Dec. 2006) (http://www.csfs.ca/journal/journal .htm)


Cases

Com. v. Draheim, 849 N.E. 2d 823 (Mass. 2006): as a matter of first impression, the government could force defendant's children, as well as the complainants, to submit saliva samples for DNA testing as the evidence would "probably provide evidence relevant to defendant's guilt"

People v. Garvin, 847 N.E. 2d 82 (Ill. 2006): as a matter of first impression, the statute requiring DNA samples from defendants convicted or found guilty of a felony offense was not unconstitutional

People v. Nelson, 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 399 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006): advances in forensic technology justified the twenty-six year delay in charging defendant, and the technique used for the cold hit identification of the defendant was generally accepted by the scientific community

Pope v. State, 207 S.W. 3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006): as a matter of first impression, the work-product doctrine did not extend to the qualifications and identity of a defendant's DNA expert, nor the contents of the defendant's motion for independent examination of DNA evidence.

Roberts v. United States, 916 A.2d 922 (D.C. 2007): testimony about lab error rates was not required as a prerequisite for admitting DNA expert's estimates under Frye, and the reliability of mixed DNA sample interpretation did not raise admissibility issues

State v. Danley, 853 N.E. 2d 1224 (Ohio Misc. 2006): complaint and arrest warrant against “John Doe” that included defendant's gender and a detailed DNA profile successfully commenced the criminal action against defendant, thus tolling the applicable statute of limitations

State v. Gregory, 147 P.3d 1201 (Wash. 2006): as a matter of first impression, once the government lawfully possessed defendant's DNA profile in connection with a rape investigation, an independent warrant was not necessary to compare that DNA profile with evidence from another, unrelated rape case

State v. Hamilton, 886 A.2d 443 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005): expert testimony about the likelihood of detecting the DNA of a male who performed approximately five minutes of oral sex on a female was inadmissible

State v. Scarborough, 201 S.W. 3d 607 (Tenn. 2006): as a matter of first impression, taking and analysis of incarcerated defendant's blood sample pursuant to a DNA collection statute did not violate State or Federal Constitution

State v. Toomes, 191 S.W. 3d 122 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005): as a matter of first impression, DNA evidence from defendant, an identical twin, was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for rape, even without corroboration

United States v. Amerson, No. 05-1423-cr, 05-1063-cr, 2007 WL 1087201 (2d Cir. April 4, 2007): DNA collection statute did not violate the Fourth Amendment

United States v. Bean, No. 05-6760, 2007 WL 177898 (6th Cir. Jan. 24, 2007): federal DNA Act did not violate defendant's constitutional rights

United States v. Hook, 471 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2006): DNA collection act did not violate the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and Ex Post Facto Clause; and it did not constitute a Bill of Attainder

United States v. Kriesel, 416 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (W.D. Wash. 2006): as a matter of first impression, forcible extraction of DNA from a felon under the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act was permissible

United States v. Morrow, 374 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2005): even though PCR/STR method of producing DNA samples satisfies admissibility requirements under Daubert and the federal evidence rule, one must still show that the expert's qualifications and the testing practices have meet with generally accepted and established protocols

United States v. Reynard, No. 02-50476, 2007 WL 79545 (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2007): retroactive application of DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 to defendant was permissible, did not violate the Commerce Clause, and did not violate defendant's Fifth Amendment rights


Odontology

Articles

Nazar Al-Talabani, Noori D. Al-Moussawy, Faik A. Baker & Haitham Abdullah Mohammed, Digital Analysis of Experimental Human Bite Marks: Application of Two New Methods, 51 Journal of Forensic Sciences 1372 (Nov. 2006) (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/jfo/51/6)

Herman Bernitz, Willie FP van Heerden, Tore Solheim & Johanna H Owen, A Technique to Capture, Analyze, and Quantify Anterior Teeth Rotations for Application in Court Cases Involving Tooth Marks, 51 Journal of Forensic Sciences 624 (May 2006) (http://www.blackwell- synergy/toc/jfo/51/3)

J.G. Clement, V. Winship, J. Ceddia, S. Al-Amad, A. Morales & A.J. Hill, New Software for Computer-Assisted Dental-Matching in Disaster Victim Identification and Long-Term Missing Persons Investigations: "DAVID Web", 159 Forensic Sci. Int'l S24 (May 2006) (http://www.scienced irect.com/science/journal/03790738)

New Tooth Enamel Dating Technique Could Help Identify Disaster Victims, Science Daily, Sept. 15, 2005 (http://www. sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050915003928.htm)

Maja Omanovic & Jeff Orchard, Efficient Least Squares Matching of Dental X- Rays for Human Identification Purposes, 39 J. Can. Soc'y Forensic Science (Dec. 2006) (http://www.csfs.ca/journal/journal .htm)

Douglas Page, The Bite Stuff?, Law Enforcement Technology, Feb. 2007 (http://www.officer.com/publication/article.jsp? pubId=1&id=35359)

Balwant Rai, S.K. Dhatterwal & S.C. Anand, Five Markers of Changes in Teeth: An Estimating of Age, Internet Journal of Forensic Science (2006) (http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php? xmlFilePath=journals/ijfs/vol1n2/age.xml)

Fernanda Santos, Evidence from Bite Marks, It Turns Out, Is Not So Elementary, New York Times, Jan. 28, 2007, at 4 (http://www.nytimes.com)


Cases

Com. v. Nolin, 859 N.E. 2d 843 (Mass. 2007): delayed disclosure of forensic dentist's report that identified the victim from dental records did not prejudice the defendant

State v. Fortin, 917 A.2d 746 (N.J. 2007): this case involves bite marks that allegedly matched those inflicted in a prior attack, thereby linking the defendant with the current assault through "signature" crimes (Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (ViCAP) database also addressed)


Pattern Evidence

Articles

Michael Cherry & Edward Imwinkelreid, A Cautionary Note about Fingerprint Analysis and Reliance on Digital Technology, Champion, Aug. 2006, at 27 (http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/698c98dd101a846085256eb400500c01/0 556cc0fd4e51ab7852571e300634d52?OpenDocument)

Andy Coghlan & James Randerson, How Far Should Fingerprints Be Trusted?, New Scientist, Sept. 19, 2005, at 6 (http://www.newscientist.com)

Simon A. Cole, The Prevalence and Potential Causes of Wrongful Conviction by Fingerprint Evidence, 37 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 39 (Fall 2006) (http://www.ggu.edu/lawlibrary/ ggulawreview)

Fingerprint Technology Pioneered in Leicester – To Identify the Dead, Science Daily, Nov. 29, 2006 (http://www.sciencedaily.com)

Ronnie Garrett, Printing Decomps – Livescan and Digital Fingerprint Systems Streamline Identifying the Deceased, Law Enforcement Technology (June 2006) (http://www.officer.com/publication/pub.jsp? pubId=1&issueId=27)

Paul C. Giannelli, Daubert Challenges to Fingerprints, 42 Crim. L. Bull., Sept./Oct. 2006, at 5

Barbara Heflin, Mari Palazzolo, Marie Tengren-Knight & Dennis Walsh, The Use of Ardux and Fingerprint Powder to Recover Latent Fingerprints from Pig Skin, Forensic Magazine, June/July 2006 (http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asp?pid=98)

Fernando Puente León, Automated Comparison of Firearm Bullets, 156 Forensic Sci. Int'l 40 (Jan. 2006) (http://www.scienced irect.com/science/journal/03790738)

Deborah W. Morton, A Cut Above: Sharpening the Accuracy of Knife and Saw Mark Analysis, Forensic Magazine, June/July 2006 (http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asp?pid=94)

NIST 'Standard Bullet' Fights Gang Violence, Science Daily, Jan. 22, 2007 (http://www. sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070119164400.htm)

James Randerson, Study Questions Reliability of Fingerprint Evidence, The Guardian, Mar. 23, 2007 (http://www.guardian.co.uk)

Amy Richmond-Aylor, Suzanne Bell, Patrick Callery & Keith Morris, Thermal Degradation Analysis of Amino Acids in Fingerprint Residue by Pyrolysis GC-MS to Develop New Latent Fingerprint Developing Reagents, 52 Journal of Forensic Sciences 380 (Mar. 2007) (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022- 1198&site=1)

Matias Sametband, Itzhak Shweky, Uri Banin, Daniel Mandler & Joseph Almog, Application of Nanoparticles for the Enhancement of Latent Fingerprints, 11 Chemical Communications 1142 (2007) (http://www.rsc.org/Pu blishing/Journals/CC/Index.asp)

Yaron Shor, Alan Chaikovsky & Tsadok Tsach, The Evidential Value of Distorted and Rectified Digital Images in Footwear Imprint Examination, 160 Forensic Sci. Int'l 59 (June 2006) (http://www.scienced irect.com/science/journal/03790738)

Terror Fingerprint Database Created, Forensic Magazine, Dec. 26, 2006 (http://www.forensicmag.com)

William A. Tobin & William C. Thompson, Evaluating and Challenging Forensic Identification Evidence, Champion, July 2006, at 12 (http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/698c98dd101a846085256eb400500c01/8 a20d040b54b23c9852571c500787130?OpenDocument)


Cases

Clemons v. State, 896 A.2d 1059 (Md. 2006): admission of comparative bullet lead analysis (CBLA) testimony violated the Frye-Reed standard for admission of scientific evidence because CBLA was not generally accepted within the scientific community as reliable and valid

Com. v. Meeks, Nos. 2002-10961, 2003-10575, 2006 WL 2819423 (Mass. Sept. 28, Sept. 28, 2006): this opinion is an in depth report of findings of fact, rulings of law, and order on defendants' motions in limine to exclude ballistics evidence.

Com. v. Patterson, 840 N.E. 2d 12 (Mass. 2006): methodology of fingerprint comparison has not been accepted in the context of simultaneous latent impressions

Evans v. United States, 883 A.2d 146 (D.C. 2005): decision to allow a jury to view fingerprint exhibits with magnifying glasses was not an abuse of discretion

Ragland v. Com., 191 S.W. 3d 569 (Ky. 2006): formal Daubert analysis that was applied to the comparative bullet lead analysis (CBLA) evidence should have included a review of the scientific reliability of expert's conclusions, and expert's false statements was reversible error

Ratliff v. State, 110 P.3d 982 (Alaska Ct. App. 2005): shoeprint evidence was not subject to a formal Daubert analysis

State v. Gomez, 118 P.3d 626 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005): decision to prohibit a jury from viewing fingerprint evidence with magnifying glasses was not an "abuse of discretion"

State v. Johnson, No. 05AP-12, 2006 WL 158628 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2006): criminalist expert's opinion about comparing tool marks on live rounds to those on spent casings was based on commonly accepted, reliable scientific principles and was thus admissible

United States v. Cruz, 189 Fed. Appx. 725 (10th Cir. 2006): expert's testimony about fingerprints was properly admitted, even though the expert's method utilized "fewer points of congruency" than the technique used by the FBI

United States v. Faines, No. 05-4006, 2007 WL 470508 (3d Cir. 2007): district court properly limited fingerprint expert's testimony when the expert attempted to make a print comparison in court

United States v. Garza, 448 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2006): testimony of expert document examiner was properly excluded when expert admitted that she examined only copies of the documents rather than the originals

United States v. Glover, 479 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2007): probative value of expert testimony that usable prints are rarely recovered from firearms was not substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice in a drug dealing and weapons possession prosecution

United States v. Green, 405 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D. Mass. 2005): expert's toolmark evidence was admissible as long as it was limited to expert's observations, despite concerns about subjective testing methods and lack of evidence about error rates

United States v. Mahone, 328 F. Supp. 2d 77 (D. Me. 2004): government witness had sufficient experinec and education to qualify as a footwear impression expert even though she was not technically qualified as a footwear examiner by the International Association for Identification

United States v. Vargas, 471 F.3d 255 (1st Cir. 2006): defendant convicted of charges related to fraudulent identification documents unsuccessfully challenged fingerprint evidence and Homeland Security expert


Trace Evidence

Articles

Michael T. Flannery, Jerry Jones, Karen Farst, Karen Boyd Worley, Toss Worthington & Stanley Rauls, The Use of Hair Analysis to Test Children for Exposure to Methamphetamine, 10 Mich. St. U. J. Med. & L. 143 (Spring 2006) (http://www.msu.edu/~msujml)

IRL's Scanner: Fast, Colorful and Fully 3D, Forensic Magazine, Nov. 21, 2006 (http://www.forensicmag.com)

Rebecca Kanable, HemoSpat – New Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Software to Hit the Market, Law Enforcement Technology, Aug. 2006 (http://www.officer.com/publication/article.jsp? pubId=1&id=32890)

William A. MacCrehan & Mary Bedner, Development of a Smokeless Powder Reference Material for Propellant and Explosives Analysis, 163 Forensic Sci. Int'l 119 (Nov. 2006) (http://www.scienced irect.com/science/journal/03790738)

Andrew Masters, New Lasers Speed Evidence Recovery, Forensic Magazine, Dec. 2006/Jan. 2007 (http://www.forensicmag.com)

Jennifer Wiseman Mercer & Suzanne C. Bell, An Introduction to Data Fusion, Data Mining and Pattern Recognition Applied to Fiber Analysis, 46 Jurimetrics J. 53 (Fall 2005) (http://www.law.asu.edu/jurimetrics )

Adee Schoon, Sebastian Götz, Martijn Heuven, Martin Vogel & Uwe Karst, Training and Testing Explosive Detection Dogs in Triacetone Triperoxide, 8 Forensic Science Communications, Oct. 2006 (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/ lab/fsc/current/backissu.htm)

Pamela Mills Senn, Lighting the Laser Lens, Law Enforcement Technology, Oct. 2006 (http://www.officer.com/publication/article.jsp? pubId=1&id=33500)

Alexander Soule, Fairfield Professor Takes Aim at Crime-Scene Forensics: Develops Technique to Perform Forensics on Gunpowder Residue, Fairfield County Bus. J., Apr. 2, 2007 (http://www.fairfieldcbj.com)

Eric Stauffer & Doug Byron, Alternative Fuels in Fire Debris Analysis, 52 Journal of Forensic Sciences 371 (Mar. 2007) (http://www.blackwell- synergy.com/toc/jfo/52/2)

C. West, G. Baron & J.J. Minet, Detection of Gunpowder Stabilizers with Ion Mobility Spectrometry, 166 Forensic Sci. Int'l 91 (Mar. 2007) (http://www.scienced irect.com/science/journal/03790738)


Cases

People v. Cumbee, 851 N.E. 2d 934 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006): as a matter of first impression, evidence of luminol testing was admissible under Frye

People v. Hayes, 33 A.D. 3d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006): defendant's request for a Frye hearing to determine the admissibility of expert testimony about gunshot residue was properly denied

People v. Kogut, 806 N.Y.S. 2d 373 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005): methodology concerning post-mortem hair banding was deemed "generally accepted" within forensic scientific community

State v. Daniels, 179 S.W. 3d 273 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005): introduction of results of luminol tests without first conducting a Frye hearing was erroneous

State v. West, 877 A.2d 787 (Conn. 2005): expert testimony about microscopic hair analysis did not merit a hearing on threshold admissibility because such evidence "simply required jurors to employ their own powers of observation and comparison," and because the underlying methodology was generally accepted in the scientific community

United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 793 (5th Cir. 2006): police officer was allowed to test defendant's hands for gunpowder residue as a search incident to arrest for weapons charge, as long as the arrest itself was reasonable


Toxicology

Articles

D. Anderson, S. Reed, J. Lintemoor, S. Kegler, S. DeQuintana, M. Sandberg & J. Muto, A First Look at Duloxetine (Cymbalta®) in a Postmortem Laboratory, 30 J. Analytical Toxicology 575 (Oct. 2006) (http://www.jatox.com)

Wing-Chi Cheng, Tsan-Sang Yau, Ming-Kei Wong, Lai-Ping Chan & Vincent King-Kuen Mok, A High-Throughput Urinanalysis of Abused Drugs Based on a SPE-LC-MS/MS Method Coupled with an In-House Developed Post-Analysis of Data Treatment System, 162 Forensic Sci. Int'l 95 (Oct. 2007) (http://www.scienced irect.com/science/journal/03790738)

Joseph Crifasi, Michael Bruder, Christopher Long & Kimberly Janssen, Performance Evaluation of Thermal Desorption System (TDS) for Detection of Basic Drugs in Forensic Samples by GC–MS, 30 J. Analytical Toxicology 581 (Oct. 2006) (http://www.jatox.com)

Sebastian Dresen, Jürgen Kempf & Wolfgang Weinmann, Electrospray-Ionization MS/MS Library of Drugs as Database for Method Development and Drug Identification, 161 Forensic Sci. Int'l 86 (Sept. 2006) (http://www.scienced irect.com/science/journal/03790738)

Jeffery Hackett & Albert A. Elian, Extraction and Analysis of Clonzepam and 7-aminoclonazepam in Whole Blood Using a Dual Internal Standard Methodology, 166 Forensic Sci. Int'l 209 (Mar. 2007) (http://www.scienced irect.com/science/journal/03790738)

Tomomi Ishida, Keiko Kudo, Hiromasa Inoue, Akiko Tsuji, Takashi Kojima, & Noriaki Ikeda, Rapid Screening for and Simultaneous Semiquantitative Analysis of Thirty Abused Drugs in Human Urine Samples Using Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, 30 J. Analytical Toxicology 468 (Sept. 2006) (http://www.jatox.com)

Christine Moore, Michael Feldman, Edward Harrison, Sumandeep Rana, Cynthia Coulter, David Kuntz, Alpana Agrawal, Michael Vincent & James Soares, Disposition of Hydrocodone in Hair, 30 J. Analytical Toxicology 353 (Jul./Aug. 2006) (http://www.jatox.com)

S.G. Phillips & K.R. Allen, Acetylcodeine as a Marker of Illicit Heroin Abuse in Fluid Oral Samples, 30 J. Analytical Toxicology 370 (Jul./Aug. 2006) (http://www.jatox.com)

Robert W. Romberg, Matthew H. Jamerson & Kevin L. Klette, Rapid Analysis of Benzoylecgonine in Urine by Fast Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry, 30 J. Analytical Toxicology 554 (Oct. 2006) (http://www.jatox.com)

Diaa M. Shakleya, James C. Kraner, James A. Kaplan, Peter M. Gannett & Patrick S. Callery, Identification of N,N-dimethylamphetamine Formed by Methylation of Methamphetamine in Formalin-fixed Liver Tissue by Multistage Mass Spectrometry, 157 Forensic Sci. Int'l 87 (Mar. 2006) (http://www.scienced irect.com/science/journal/03790738)

Elisa K. Shibuya, Jorge E.S. Sarkis, Osvaldo Negrini-Neto & Luiz A. Martinelli, Carbon and Nitrogen Stable Isotopes as Indicative of Geographical Origin of Marijuana Samples Seized in the City of Sao Paulo (Brazil), 167 Forensic Sci. Int'l 8 (Mar. 2007) (http://www.scienced irect.com/science/journal/03790738)

Standard Developed for Collection of Suspicious Powders, Science Daily, Aug. 7, 2006 (http://www. sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060807121419.htm)


Cases

Blasi v. State, 893 A.2d 1152 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006): as matter of first impression, the administration of field sobriety tests by a police officer during a routine, valid traffic stop constituted a “search” under the Fourth Amendment

Davis v. Mitchell, 172 Fed. Appx. 199 (9th Cir. 2006): defendant's rights were not violated even though the state's toxicologist used up the entire blood sample that was taken from the defendant immediately after the vehicular accident

Alberts v. State, 131 Wash. App. 1043 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006): court found against group of 105 petitioners who filed motions to suppress the results of breathalyzer tests, despite petitioners' claims that the State of Washington could not prove a prima facie case that the temperature of simulator solutions in the breathalyzer machine was measured by a state toxicologist approved thermometer

People v. Wilke, 854 N.E. 2d 275 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006): expert's testimony about his method of calculating methamphetamine yield from given amount of precursor pseudoephedrine did not require a Frye hearing, the state's failure to disclose its conversion formula for calculating methamphetamine yield from precursor pseudoephedrine did not constitute a

discovery violation, and the state's use of chart to illustrate the mathematical formula used to determine potential methamphetamine production did not constitute a discovery violation

Plascencia v. Alameida, 467 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2006): expert testimony about the usual method of Rohypnal use and its common effects was relevant in this first-degree murder case

United States v. Dablan, 205 Fed. Appx. 620 (9th Cir 2006): forensic chemist's testimony about conversion ratio of pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine was properly admitted, but police detective's testimony about weight per dose of pseudoephedrine lack sufficient reliability and should have been excluded

United States v. Duran, No. 06-4178, 2007 WL 666457 (10th Cir. March 6, 2007): defendant unsuccessfully challenged Attorney General's authority to reclassify methamphetamine as a Schedule II controlled substance

United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2006): expert testimony about toxicology findings was admissible under Daubert even though the expert was unable to identify the chemical reaction and was unaware of relevant error rates, expiration dates, and chemical structures

United States v. Nevarez-Espino, 471 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2006): district court was allowed to use the total weight of pure methamphetamine in order to calculate the defendant's offense level

United States v. Roussos, Nos. 05-4549, 05-4574, 2006 WL 2076453 (4th Cir. July 26, 2006): probative value of photographs depicting a forensic analyst dressed in a hazmat suit and holding vials seized from meth lab was not substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice

United States v. Treft, 447 F.3d 421 (5th Cir. 2006): the weight of liquid containing trace amounts of meth could be considered in determining the statutory minimum mandatory sentence


General

Articles

Simon A. Cole, "Implicit Testing": Can Casework Validate Forensic Techniques?, 46 Jurimetrics J. 117 (Winter 2006) (http://www.law.asu.edu/jurimetrics )

Julie Mennell & Ian Shaw, The Future of Forensic and Crime Scene Science (pts. 1 & 2), 157 Forensic Sci. Int'l S7 (Mar. 2006), 157 Forensic Sci. Int'l S13 (Mar. 2006) (http://www.sciencedirect.com/s cience?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%235041%232006%23998429999.8998% 23617698%23FLA% 23&_cdi=5041&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0 &_userid=10&md5=bad898745c60dce6ae98bdf176c05412)

Olivier Ribaux, Simon J. Walsh, & Pierre Margot, The Contribution of Forensic Science to Crime Analysis and Investigation: Forensic Intelligence, 156 Forensic Sci. Int'l 171 (Jan. 2006) (http://www.scienced irect.com/science/journal/03790738)

Michael J. Saks & Jonathan J. Koehler, The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science, Science, Aug. 5, 2005, at 892 (http://www.sciencemag.org)

John M. Spires, Testimonial or Nontestimonial? The Admissibility of Forensic Evidence after Crawford v. Washington, 94 Kentucky Law Journal 187 (2005-2006) (http://www.kentuckylawblog.com)


Cases

Atkins v. County of Riverside, 151 Fed. Appx. 501 (9th Cir. 2005): in a case where defendant was exonerated through DNA evidence, the court held that serologist's arguably vague and misleading report, and his alleged failure to investigate or preserve certain pubic hairs, were not improper

Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725 (6th Cir. 2006): in a case where charges against defendant were later vacated, the court held that the forensic expert who performed DNA testing on hair samples was not absolutely immune from defendant's claims of falsified evidence

Holmes v. South Carolina, 126 S. Ct. 1727 (2006): if the prosecution introduces strong forensic evidence against a criminal defendant, rules that prohibit that defendant from introducing evidence of third-party guilt violate federal constitutional rights

McCarty v. State, 114 P.3d 1089 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005): defendant's conviction was reversed, his death sentence vacated, and his case remanded because of forensic expert's improper handling and analysis of hair and serological evidence.

Mosby v. Harrell, 909 So. 2d 323 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005): police officer's claims against FDLE for their allegedly negligent DNA testing and negligent reporting were not barred by sovereign immunity

United States v. Luke, 63 M.J. 60 (C.A.A.F. 2006): evidentiary hearing into whether defendant's DNA sample was contaminated was triggered by newly discovered evidence that the forensic chemist had engaged in improper practices in other cases (cross-contamination, evidence alteration, entry of false data)