The DNA Legacy of Thomas Jefferson

Richard E. Green, Samuel H. Vohr, Joshua D Kapp, Jane E. Ailes, Samuel Sacco, Remy Nguyen, James Cahill, Peter D. Heintzman, Joanne Flores, Logan Kistler, Courtney A. Hofman, Robert C. Fleischer, Beth Shapiro, Richard Kurin

This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?].

Allegations that Thomas Jefferson fathered the children of the enslaved Sally Hemings emerged in the context of U.S. presidential politics in the late 1700s and early 1800s and entailed strongly contested denials and affirmations by family members, biographers, and historians ever since. Previous analysis of Y chromosome markers in contemporary members of the Jefferson and Hemings patrilines was consistent with the paternity hypothesis but rejected by those who pointed out that, absent Jefferson DNA and its direct comparison to the DNA of possible descendants, other Jefferson males could have fathered Sally Hemings children. In this study, we developed an innovative technique to recover DNA from multiple rootless hair samples in a museum collection whose provenance, mitochondrial genomes, Y chromosome markers, and identity to each other indicate that these hairs and the DNA from them are from Thomas Jefferson. Using these DNA data, we find clear evidence of Thomas Jefferson ancestry in descendants of both his wife Martha Wayles Jefferson and Sally Hemings. We measured the amount of identical-by-descent DNA shared between Thomas Jefferson and his known and putative descendants. We find that the amount of shared Jefferson DNA is more likely under the model of direct Thomas Jefferson paternity than other proposed scenarios.

REG is co-founder and paid consultant of Astrea Forensics. SHV is employed by Embark Veterinary, Inc. BS is the chief science officer of Colossal Biosciences.

Copyright
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.18.752809v1.full.pdf

The science generally accepted as reliable within the scientific community:

https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter//3dseries/2025/2025_25203.htm

New York v Heuermann, 2025 NY Slip Op 25203 [88 Misc 3d 513] September 3, 2025, Mazzei, J, Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Conclusions of Law

Conclusions of Law

This court notes at the outset that "the modern trend in the law of evidence has been awayfrom imposing a special test on scientific evidence and toward using the traditional standards of relevancy and the need for expertise" (People v Wesley, 83 NY2d 417, 426 [1994] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Thus, novel scientific evidence can be admitted without any hearing (id.).

However, the long-established test used to determine the admissibility of novel scientific [*19] evidence is set forth in Frye v United States (293 F 1013 [DC Cir 1923]). That is, "whether the accepted techniques, when properly performed, generate results accepted as reliable within the scientific community generally" (Wesley at 422). "[T]he particular procedure need not be 'unanimously indorsed' by the scientific community but must be 'generally acceptable as reliable'" (id. at 423, quoting People v Middleton, 54 NY2d 42, 49 [1981]). The relevant scientific community are those "scientists who would be expected to be familiar with the particular use of the evidence at issue" (Wesley at 439).

The Frye test should not be based on counting scientists' votes to determine how many disagree or oppose the new scientific evidence, but rather, "[t]he more exact inquiry should be whether the dissenting voices are from scientists who have empirical proof to refute the validated empirical evidence and thus substantiate their competing hypotheses" (People v Williams, 35 NY3d 24, 54 n 6 [2020]).

Furthermore, it has been held that "the mere fact that a court is the first to evaluate novel scientific evidence does not mean the evidence is unreliable" (Wesley at 437). Whereas here, where the People are the proponent of the novel scientific evidence, the burden rests with the People to establish its general acceptance in the relevant scientific community (see Williams at 40).

General acceptance of reliability in the scientific community has been shown through the admission of peer-reviewed articles or scientific literature demonstrating the new scientific evidence is reliable (see People v Wakefield, 38 NY3d 367 [2022]; Williams, 35 NY3d 24) as well as through legal precedent or expert testimony (see People v Vaughn, 43 NY3d 190 [2024]; Williams, 35 NY3d 24). Even where a new scientific methodology was not being used in many forensic crime laboratories at the time of the Frye hearing, it was still found reliable and {**88 Misc 3d at 542} generally accepted by the scientific community based on "the empirical evidence of its validity, as

- - - - -

demonstrated by multiple validation studies, including collaborative studies, peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals and its use in other jurisdictions" (Wakefield at 381).

Here, this court is asked to determine whether Astrea Forensics' use of whole genome sequencing, to extract DNA from rootless hairs in order to generate SNP data and create a DNA profile therefrom, as well as the use of IBDGem—their probabilistic genotyping software program used to compare the DNA profile generated by them with the DNA profile of a known suspect—is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.

The court finds that Astrea's method of using whole genome sequencing to extract DNA from rootless hairs in order to generate SNP data and create a DNA profile is generally accepted as reliable within the scientific community based not only on the expert testimony of Dr. Harris, Dr. Novroski, and Dr. Green, but also on the numerous peer-reviewed articles submitted by the People into evidence regarding whole genome sequencing and the use of SNP data to create a DNA profile, and also based on its use in other jurisdictions including Idaho and California (see Vaughn, 43 NY3d 190; Wakefield, 38 NY3d 367; Williams, 35 NY3d 24). Dr. Harris, an expert in population genetics and bioinformatics (biology and computer science), testified that she wrote 40 peer reviewed articles with most of them concentrating on whole genome sequencing. According to Dr. Harris, the best method to develop a DNA profile when you are dealing with a short fragment of DNA—where the sample collected only contains a small amount of DNA (i.e. rootless hairs)—is whole genome sequencing. She testified that the use of whole genome [*20] sequencing to create a nuclear DNA profile is generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community. Dr. Harris also testified that SNP DNA has been used in many scientific fields including forensic identification and medical genetics. Dr. Harris further testified that, like Astrea Forensics, she herself has library prepped a small amount of DNA, and then placed it into an Ilumina sequencer—the dominant technology on the market that has been generally accepted by the scientific community as reliable—to receive an output of pieces of DNA. Thereafter, she has also taken those pieces of DNA and has stitched them together to create a DNA profile. Dr. Harris also peer-reviewed Dr. Green's paper discussing {**88 Misc 3d at 543} whole genome sequencing of rootless hairs which included the studies he performed and his results, and in her opinion, Dr. Green's method using whole genome sequencing and SNP data to create a DNA profile was "suitable for forensic use" and "generally accepted in the scientific community."

Similarly, Dr. Novroski, an expert in forensic science and DNA sequencing, who has processed thousands of DNA extractions to develop DNA profiles therefrom, and also written two

- - - - - - - - - -

chapters in two textbooks about SNPs and advanced technologies with focus on challenged DNA samples including rootless hairs, testified that whole genome sequencing and the use of SNPs have been used by scientists for decades. She further testified that whole genome sequencing has been used in the field of forensic science for the past five to seven years, and that both the use of whole genome sequencing and SNP data to create a nuclear DNA profile is generally accepted as reliable by the scientific community. Dr. Novroski testified that SNP information is often used where a scientist is dealing with a degraded or challenged sample (i.e. rootless hair) to uncover the information necessary to make an identity determination for ancestry or genealogy due to the fact that there is no large fragment of DNA so STRs cannot be used. Dr. Novroski then explained the steps used by scientists in analyzing SNP DNA which include extraction of DNA from the sample, quantifying how much DNA is present from the extraction, using a library preparation kit on the sample, and then sequencing the entire genome by placing it in a sequencer machine. After the sequencer generates information in the form of DNA reads, the DNA can be compared to other SNP DNA profiles (i.e. GEDmatch or FamilyTreeDNA) and statistics are performed on both DNA profiles. The court notes that the steps used by scientists in analyzing SNP DNA, as testified to by Dr. Novroski, mirror the steps taken by Astrea Forensics when extracting DNA and creating a DNA profile. Dr. Novroski testified that targeted SNP testing of data observed from a DNA sample is generally accepted as reliable within the scientific community, and that Astrea Forensics' method of extracting the DNA and using the Illumina sequencer is generally accepted within the scientific community as reliable. Dr. Novroski testified that SNP DNA has even been used in courtrooms including a case in Kern County California as well as in an Innocence Project case in Idaho. She also testified that there have been hundreds of cases where SNP DNA was used to identify previously {**88 Misc 3d at 544} unidentified human remains or a perpetrator in a criminal case using the genetic genealogical landscape in forensic science.

Finally, Dr. Green, an expert in computational biology, populations genetics, and forensic science, and the owner of Astrea Forensics, testified with respect to whole genome sequencing and the use of SNP data to create a DNA profile. Dr. Green is a professor of biomolecular engineering at the University of California in Santa Cruz where he teaches classes about the technology used to extract DNA out of a sample and the process of sequencing the DNA. He has [*21] also written over one hundred peer-reviewed articles with respect to DNA technology, genomics, and the use of whole genome sequencing, and is the editor of the Forensic Genomics Journal. Dr. Green testified that the research lab at the University focuses on ancient DNA and developing technologies for extracting DNA out of difficult samples or those with little DNA within them (i.e. rootless hairs). According to Dr. Green, whole genome sequencing of SNP DNA to create a nuclear DNA profile

- - - - - - - - - -

has been studied by scientists for decades and is widely accepted by the scientific community as reliable. Dr. Green testified that the steps of whole genome sequencing DNA extraction including library preparation and sequencing are used by many labs and are generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community. In addition, Dr. Green testified that the use of SNPs is the best test to use when dealing with a challenging sample with little DNA (i.e. rootless hairs). As a result of all of his work with the FBI in helping them to solve cold cases, Dr. Green started Astrea Forensics in 2018. Dr. Green testified that Astrea Forensics receives much of its work from law enforcement, including the FBI, and deals with any sample containing a small amount of fragmented DNA including rootless hairs and old bones. According to Dr. Green, Astrea Forensics has analyzed thousands of DNA samples for law enforcement since 2019. In addition, Dr. Green testified that Astrea Forensics has received DNA samples to analyze from other DNA labs including Othram, Bode, Parabon, and DNA Labs International. Dr. Green has also testified as an expert in courts in Idaho and California. Notably, in 2024, he testified in the criminal case of State of Idaho v David Dalrymple, who was convicted based on Astrea Forensics' use of whole genome sequencing to extract DNA from rootless hairs found on the victim in order to generate SNP data, and created a DNA profile therefrom. In that {**88 Misc 3d at 545} case, Astrea Forensics also utilized IBDGem to compare the DNA profile generated by Astrea Forensics with the DNA profile of a known suspect (David Dalrymple), and the court admitted this novel scientific evidence at trial. While this court is cognizant of the fact that the State of Idaho does not adopt the Frye test as the State of New York does, but rather focuses on the reliability and relevance of the expert testimony and evidence (see Idaho Rules Evid rule 702), novel scientific evidence has been found to be generally accepted as reliable within the scientific community even where "courts in [other jurisdictions] did not use the Frye standard, based on expert testimony, [but] found that the [novel scientific evidence] w[as] sufficiently reliable to be submitted to the jury" (People v Palumbo, 162 Misc 2d 650, 656 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1994] [denying defendant's motion for a the Frye hearing with respect to the admissibility of PCR test results on the ground that it had been accepted in other jurisdictions and, therefore, was generally accepted as reliable]).

Based on the foregoing testimony and evidence admitted at the hearing, and the fact that neither of defendant's expert witnesses controverted Astrea Forensics' use of whole genome sequencing to extract DNA from rootless hairs to generate SNP data and create a DNA profile therefrom, this court finds that Astrea Forensics' use of whole genome sequencing to generate SNP data and create a DNA profile therefrom is generally accepted as reliable within the scientific community (see Wesley, 83 NY2d 417; Vaughn, 43 NY3d 190; Wakefield, 38 NY3d 367; Williams, 35 NY3d 24; Palumbo, 162 Misc 2d 650).{**88 Misc 3d at 546}

- - - - - - - - - -

Turning to Astrea Forensics' use of IBDGem—their probabilistic genotyping software program used to compare the DNA profile generated by them with the DNA profile of a known suspect—the court finds it is generally accepted as reliable within the scientific community. This [*22] court bases its finding upon the expert testimony of Dr. Harris and Dr. Green, as well as the peer reviewed article co-authored by Dr. Green with respect to Astrea Forensics' use of whole genome sequencing and IBDGem (defendant's B), the numerous peer-reviewed articles which discuss the underlying methodologies used by IBDGem including likelihood ratios, linkage disequilibrium, and the 1000 Genomes Project as a reference panel (People's 1B, 1E, 2B, 3D), the voluminous validation studies of IBDGem performed by Astrea Forensics, and its use in other jurisdictions (see Vaughn, 43 NY3d 190; Wakefield, 38 NY3d 367; Williams, 35 NY3d 24; Palumbo, 162 Misc 2d 650).

Dr. Green testified that IBDGem does a direct one-to-one comparison of data at thousands to hundreds of thousands of SNP positions which yields likelihood ratios far exceeding those routinely achieved with STRs. IBDGem uses a likelihood ratio, which is a comparison of two numbers. Those numbers are the likelihood of some observation given some reality, and a likelihood of the observation given a different reality. He testified that likelihood ratios have been used for over one hundred years and are widely accepted in the field of computational biology, and that he has calculated billions of them. He even discussed peer-reviewed articles (People's 3D) in support of the use of likelihood ratios showing that they are acceptable as reliable in the scientific community. In further support of this, Dr. Harris also testified that she has also used likelihood ratios to calculate how likely some observations were that she made under different scenarios to confirm or disprove her hypotheses, and that the use of a computer program to calculate a likelihood ratio of the statistical significance in whole genome sequencing DNA profiles is widely accepted in the scientific community.

Dr. Green testified that IBDGem places a statistical weight on a DNA sample when it is compared to another DNA sample. IBDGem takes the data that is generated from the sequencer from each sample (rootless hair of unknown individual and buccal swab of known suspect) and compares the data. IBDGem asks the question, "How likely is it that the data I received from this hair comes from a person who has the genotype that I found in the buccal swab? And what is the likelihood that the DNA from the hair came from an unknown, unrelated individual?" The likelihood ratio tells you which one of those different scenarios is bigger and by how much. It can also calculate the probability of a DNA sample from a person of interest as compared to a panel of unknown, unrelated individuals using the 1000 Genomes Project.

- - - - - - - - - -

Dr. Green testified that the 1000 Genomes Project is a well-known reference panel which is an adequate representation of worldwide variance and is well accepted within the scientific community as it can be used for any application in genomics, including forensics, where you want an actual catalog of actual people to understand human genetic variation. In further support of this, Dr. Harris testified that the 1000 Genomes Project is the best public reference panel to use when calculating likelihood ratios in population genetics, and that Dr. Green's IBDGem {**88 Misc 3d at 547} software's use of the 1000 Genomes Project is not the only time that the 1000 Genomes Project has been used by scientists to calibrate statistical significance of SNP DNA testing and comparisons. Dr. Harris testified that in the scientific field, there have been many peer-reviewed articles (People's 1E) using the data from the 1000 Genomes Project. Similarly, Dr. Novroski testified that the use of the 1000 Genomes Project is accepted in the general scientific forensic community as being a sufficient reference panel and is best suited to capture global genetic variation. She also testified that there are labs across the country which utilize the 1000 Genomes Project to solve cases as well as peer reviewed articles supporting the use of the 1000 Genomes Project (People's 2B). Dr. Novroski also testified that comparing a SNP DNA sample to a sample from a reference panel (such as the 1000 Genomes Project) as well as attaching a statistical significance to that comparison is generally accepted by the forensic scientific community.

Dr. Green testified that in all of the numerous validation studies he performed, IBDGem never had a false positive or false negative outcome when he tested two samples of DNA from the same individual (i.e. hair and saliva from same person). He explained that when he performed a negative control test, when he knew that the DNA was not coming from that exact person, IBDGem showed stronger evidence in support of what he knew to be the correct answer, and less evidence than when he performed a test where the DNA did come from that exact individual. Dr. Green testified that the IBDGem program is very conservative in that it overestimates the likelihood in the denominator of the equation which benefits the defense. After reviewing all of the results of the tests conducted by Dr. Green set forth in his paper, Dr. Harris concluded that the IBDGem method using its likelihood ratio was confident about both outcomes, and was accurate.

Dr. Green testified that his peer-reviewed paper (defendant's B), which detailed the use of IBDGem on rootless hairs, was written after a study was performed using DNA samples (rootless hairs and saliva) from eight individuals. They conducted both positive (comparing saliva and hair from same person) and negative (comparing hair from one individual and saliva from a different individual) control tests. Each computation performed by IBDGem gave strong support for what Dr.

- - - - - - - - - -

Green knew to be the correct answer. Dr. Green showed all of the likelihood ratios IBDGem calculated in the form of graphs in {**88 Misc 3d at 548} his PowerPoint presentation (People's 3). The likelihood ratios are negative on the graphs when the DNA sample did not come from an unknown, unrelated individual. Dr. Green testified that there was always statistical support for what answer he knew to be true. Dr. Harris testified that while peer-reviewing Dr. Green's paper, she studied the equations used by Dr. Green in his IBDGem computer software program, his studies, and his results, and found that IBDGem was reliable. In her opinion, IBDGem is "suitable for forensic use" and "generally accepted in the scientific community."

With respect to the accuracy of IBDGem, Dr. Green has tested the IBDGem software for accuracy, and after conducting studies on the reliability of IBDGem, Dr. Green wrote a paper which is still in the process of being peer-reviewed. One quality assurance measure used to make sure the DNA did not come from multiple sources is another program created by Dr. Green called Tilda. Dr. Green explained how Tilda is run before the samples are placed in IBDGem and runs an analysis of the evidence sample by itself to see if the nuclear DNA in the sample is consistent with coming from a single source. He testified about a second quality assurance used by Astrea Forensics before samples are placed in IBDGem called MixENT. He explained that MixENT is a computer program which reads the library of the DNA which comes from the mitochondria, which is inherited from a person's mother. The mitochondrial DNA of the DNA sample should be the same type throughout. If the computer software shows different variants, then the sample comes from different mitochondrial versions which is evidence that the sample is a mixture of DNA samples and not just from one source. Dr. Green has published peer-reviewed articles on both Tilda and MixENT.

[*23] Dr. Green further testified that he conducted another test to ensure the accuracy of IBDGem using 50 individuals who donated saliva and a cut piece of head hair (30 of those individuals also donated a pubic hair). Dr. Green published the results from the 4,000 positive and negative control tests IBDGem completed on these samples on a website. IBDGem never got a positive likelihood ratio from a known non-contributor or a negative likelihood ratio from a known contributor. Dr. Green also tested IBDGem for when errors would occur by intentionally creating issues or problems (i.e. sequencing error, DNA mixtures) to see how the computer program would work under those conditions. Even with errors, IBDGem still gave the correct {**88 Misc 3d at 549} answer. The more errors Dr. Green introduced into the program, the less positive the likelihood ratio was but it was still positive and gave the correct answer for what he knew to be true. Another way Dr. Green tested the accuracy of IBDGem was by using another company's computer program

- - - - - - - - - -

to take the DNA sequence data from a sample and infer a genotype with it. Normally, Astrea Forensics uses its own program, Astrea Impute 2, to perform this prior to using IBDGem. Here, Dr. Green used a program called GATK (Genome Analysis Tool Kit) and another program called GLIMPSE. The results with the negative control experiments produced a more negative likelihood ratio than the positive control experiments produced a positive ratio. This again showed that IBDGem is conservative as it is more confident when its making a negative comparison than when making a positive comparison. While the numbers were a bit different, Dr. Green received the same results he would have with IBDGem and Astrea Impute 2 as he did using IBDGem and these other programs. All the results show strong statistical support for the correct answer. Dr. Green testified that the use of Astrea Impute 2 is accepted in the scientific community as it calls genotypes from sequence data.

While the defense takes issue with the fact that all of the validation studies done of IBDGem were performed by Dr. Green, who is the creator of IBDGem, it has been held that the fact that a developer of a computer software program was involved "in many of the validation studies does not preclude a determination of general acceptance as a matter of law" (Wakefield at 382). In Wakefield, the Court noted, as defense counsel notes in this case, their concern that not only was the creator of the computer software involved in the validation studies performed, but that the technology was proprietary. Despite this, the Court found that "[t]his skepticism, however, must be tempered by the import of the empirical evidence of reliability demonstrated here and the acceptance of the methodology by the relevant scientific community" (Wakefield at 381).

In addition to co-authoring a peer-reviewed paper on IBDGem showing all of his tests and results using IBDGem were accurate and reliable, Dr. Green testified that IBDGem has been available for public use for a few years. It has been held that where, as here, "[t]he mathematical and scientific principles underlying the [software] system . . . are well-established and independent validation of the reliability of the {**88 Misc 3d at 550} software is available in the form of a free trial that can be used to verify a known sample," this is further proof that it is generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community (Wakefield at 376).

As noted earlier, IBDGem was accepted as reliable by the State of Idaho in the case of State of Idaho v David Dalrymple. Again, this court notes that the State of Idaho does not adopt the Frye test. However, novel scientific evidence has been found to be generally accepted as reliable within the scientific community even where "courts in [other jurisdictions] did not use [*24] the Frye standard, based on expert testimony, [but] found that the [novel scientific evidence] w[as]

- - - - - - - - - - sufficiently reliable to be submitted to the jury" (Palumbo at 656). The court further notes that Dr. Krane and Nathaniel Adams—the defense witnesses in this hearing—testified in the Dalrymple case that IBDGem was not generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community, and the court nevertheless found that it was, and admitted the DNA evidence obtained using IBDGem. The court notes that there were also other criminal cases in California where IBDGem was used. While those cases never went to trial as one defendant pleaded guilty and the other was found unfit to stand trial due to severe mental illness, IBDGem was able to create a DNA profile for both suspects (Robert Lanoue and Jurn Norris) from rootless hairs left at crime scenes in 1979 and 1982.

The court notes that while there has yet to be another peer-reviewed article written specifically in support of IBDGem, Dr. Green's paper has been cited at least eight or nine times. In addition, there have been many peer-reviewed articles discussing and accepting as reliable the underlying methodologies used by IBDGem including likelihood ratios, the use of the 1000 Genomes Project as a reference panel as well as the use of linkage disequilibrium (People's 1B, 1E, 2B, 3D). To date, the only peer-reviewed paper criticizing IBDGem was written by Dr. Krane (defendant's O), an expert in forensic DNA profiling, molecular biology, bioinformatics and population genetics, who was also one of the witnesses for the defense in this case. At the outset, the court notes that Dr. Krane has always testified on behalf of the defense and against the admissibility of novel scientific evidence. In addition, Dr. Krane testified that he has never worked in a forensic crime lab or generated a DNA profile from a crime scene sample. The court also notes that the first draft of Dr. Krane's paper criticizing Dr. Green's {**88 Misc 3d at 551} paper was rejected by the Journal of Forensic Science International: Genetics as well as the Journal of Heredity, and was only published in May 11, 2025, by the Journal of Forensic Science International: Genetics after he submitted a second draft. Notably, Dr. Green was asked by that journal to write a peer review of Dr. Krane's paper. Dr. Green testified that he explained in his peer review that Dr. Krane's paper tried to explain how IBDGem worked after Dr. Krane used the program without any actual human data. Dr. Green testified that he uses actual human data when using IBDGem. In addition, Dr. Green noted that Dr. Krane used much smaller reference panels than the 1000 Genomes Project, did not calculate the likelihood ratio in the manner done using IBDGem, and did not conduct testing comparing a sample to a non-contributor. In fact, Dr. Krane testified that the data he used was from a haploid, and that IBDGem uses diploid data since humans are diploids. He also testified that he used a sample size of five simulated DNA profiles, yet he testified that the 2,504 sample size in the 1000 Genomes Project was not large enough. In addition, Dr. Krane's data was run using linkage equilibrium but Dr. Krane testified that humans are in linkage disequilibrium, and that IBDGem uses linkage disequilibrium. In another test run by Dr. Krane, he used a sample size of 100 and used diploids.

- - - - - - - - - -

However, the DNA was simulated for the diploids, and was not real.

Although Dr. Krane also testified that the likelihood ratios generated by IBDGem were much larger than those computed for more standard forensic null hypotheses and created the impression of stronger evidence for identity than is warranted, Dr. Krane did not testify that IBDGem reached the incorrect answer (produced a false positive or false negative answer) but only overinflated the likelihood ratio of the answer. He also testified that IBDGem generates a [*25] likelihood ratio asking a fundamentally different question, to wit: "What is the chance that this DNA sample is from one of the 2,504 people from the 1,000 Genomes reference panel for whom we have whole genome sequence information?" In his opinion, the better question is what has been asked for years which is, "what is the chance that a randomly chosen, unrelated person from a given reference population might also be confused as being the source of DNA found in common between a suspect and an evidence sample?" The court notes that while the question IBDGem asks may be different, this does not make it incorrect. {**88 Misc 3d at 552}

Additionally, Dr. Krane's biggest critique of the IBDGem program was its use of the 1000 Genomes Project as an alternate suspect pool as he believes IBDGem looks to see if the DNA sample actually came from someone in the 1000 Genomes Project. However, Dr. Green testified that the 1000 Genomes Project is used for statistical purposes in the denominator of the IBDGem formula to establish a likelihood ratio. Thus, this critique is flawed.

Turning to the testimony of the second witness proffered by the defense, Nathaniel Adams, while Mr. Adams purports to be an expert in software development and probabilistic genotyping software, and has been found in other courts to be considered an expert, this court disagrees. Mr. Adams only obtained his bachelor's degree from Wright University 10 years after starting his collegiate career. In addition, while he started his master's degree program at Wright University and completed all of the course work therefor in 2017, he still has not obtained a master's degree as he never completed his master's degree thesis. In addition, Mr. Adams has not published one peer reviewed article. The court also notes that Dr. Krane, the other witness for the defense in this hearing, was Mr. Adams' professor at Wright State University where he received his bachelor of science in 2014, is on his master's degree thesis committee, and is his current boss. Interestingly, the court notes that Dr. Krane testified that he wrote a chapter in a book about DNA (People's 29) which contains a section with respect to defense lawyers' cross-examination of DNA experts and how to challenge the expert's credentials. In that section, Dr. Krane wrote, "If the witness does not have at least a Master's Degree, you may be in a position not only to hammer on the witness's lack

- - - - - - - - - -

of credentials, but also to strike a damaging blow based upon the lack of sophisticated knowledge." Based upon the foregoing, this court does not find Mr. Adams to be a sufficient expert in software development and probabilistic genotyping software. The court also notes that Mr. Adams has only testified on behalf of defendants and has always testified against the admissibility of new scientific computer software. In any event, Mr. Adams' critique of IBDGem was flawed. Mr. Adams testified that IBDGem did not adhere to IEEE standards but then conceded that adherence to IEEE standards is not mandatory but voluntary (see People v Burrus, 81 Misc 3d 550 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023]). Mr. Adams also testified with respect to the computer software programs used by IBDGem, and {**88 Misc 3d at 553} stated that there was no description of how the software programs interacted with one another or how any of them were specifically configured or used. However, Mr. Adams admitted that he never reviewed the pipeline software provided by Astrea Forensics with respect to IBDGem which would have described each program, how they were used, in what order they were used, and how they interacted with each other.

In conclusion, neither Dr. Krane nor Mr. Adams provided "empirical proof to refute the validated empirical evidence" presented by Dr. Green with respect to the validity and reliability of IBDGem (Williams at 54 n 6). Furthermore, Dr. Green testified, and this court agrees, that [*26] while IBDGem is a relatively new software system, the principles used within it, which are behind the math used and data collected, are accepted as reliable in the scientific community based on the numerous peer-reviewed articles written with respect to the use of likelihood ratios as well as the use of the 1000 Genomes Project as a reference panel and the use of linkage disequilibrium, all of which are implemented by IBDGem.

Therefore, it is ordered that nuclear DNA results as well as expert testimony pertaining to said nuclear DNA results obtained from rootless hairs recovered from the person and/or crime scene of Maureen Brainard Barnes, Megan Waterman, Amber Costello, Sandra Costilla, Jessica Taylor and Valerie Mack are admissible at trial.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.