Amicus Brief: Daniel Gissantaner
United States v. Daniel Gissantaner
Filing Date
June 8, 2020
Charge
Possession of firearm by a felon
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Partners
41 other scholars of forensic science
Summary
Katherine Judson of CIFS participated in this brief signed by 41 other scholars of forensic science in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Daniel Gissantaner’s case to argue that the district court elevated the Daubert standard when evaluating the admissibility of STRmix. Thorough examination of the evidence more than satisfies the applicable abuse of discretion standard.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Amici focus on two Daubert factors—(1) testing and (2) peer review and publication—to explain what is required under Daubert and why the standard was not met here. Establishing a technique’s validity through testing is at the very heart of the scientific method; consequently, “testing” is paramount among the enumerated admissibility factors. 1 MOD. SCI. EVID. § 1:16 (David L. Faigman et al. eds., 2019). See also Bradley v. Brown, 852 F. Supp. 690, 698 (N.D. Ind. 1994), aff’d, 42 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 1994) (“The first of these considerations, which asks whether the theory of methodology has been subjected to the scientific method, is the most weighty.”). “Testing” has two dimensions: tests that establish a method’s foundational validity, and tests that demonstrate a particular laboratory is validly applying the method in particular circumstances. STRmix, commercial software used to interpret DNA profiles, may be a foundationally valid method when applied to samples of adequate quantity and quality. But when stretched beyond its capacity, or when applied by a lab that failed to properly establish its limits, STRmix is unreliable. That is what the district court correctly found happened here, and this Court should not find an abuse of discretion.