Evaluation of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine concentrations in human urine samples and a comparison of the specificity of DRI amphetamines and Abuscreen online (KIMS) amphetamines screening immunoassays

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of two amphetamine class screening reagents to exclude ephedrine (EPH), pseudoephedrine (PSEPH), and phenylpropanolamine (PPA) from falsely producing positive immunoassay screening results. The study also sought to characterize the prevalence and concentration distributions of EPH, PSEPH, and PPA in samples that produced positive amphetamine screening results. Approximately 27,400 randomly collected human urine samples from Navy and Marine Corps members were simultaneously screened for amphetamines using the DRI and Abuscreen online immunoassays at a cutoff concentration of 500 ng/mL. All samples that screened positive were confirmed for amphetamine (AMP), methamphetamine (MTH), 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), EPH, PSEPH, and PPA by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). The DRI AMP immunoassay identified 1,104 presumptive amphetamine positive samples, of which only 1.99% confirmed positive for the presence of AMP, MTH, MDA, or MDMA. In contrast, the online AMP reagent identified 317 presumptive amphetamine positives with a confirmation rate for AMP, MTH, MDA, or MDMA of 7.94%. The presence of EPH, PSEPH, or PPA was confirmed in 833 of the 1,104 samples that failed to confirm positive for AMP, MTH, MDA, or MDMA; all of the 833 samples contained PSEPH. When compared to the entire screened sample set, PSEPH was present in approximately 3%, EPH in 0.9%, and PPA in 0.8% of the samples. The results indicate that cross reactivities for EPH, PSEPH, and PPA are greater than reported by the manufacturer of these reagents. The distribution of concentrations indicates that very large concentrations of EPH, PSEPH, and PPA are common.     

Defining event reconstruction of digital crime scenes

Event reconstruction plays a critical role in solving physical crimes by explaining why a piece of physical evidence has certain characteristics. With digital crimes, the current focus has been on the recognition and identification of digital evidence using an object's characteristics, but not on the identification of the events that caused the characteristics. This paper examines digital event reconstruction and proposes a process model and procedure that can be used for a digital crime scene. The model has been designed so that it can apply to physical crime scenes, can support the unique aspects of a digital crime scene, and can be implemented in software to automate part of the process. We also examine the differences between physical event reconstruction and digital event reconstruction.     

Validation study of the TrueAllele automated data review system

The New York State Convicted Offender DNA Databank is the first U.S. lab to complete an internal validation of the TrueAllele expert data review system. TrueAllele is designed to assess short tandem repeat (STR) DNA data based on several key features such as peak height, shape, area, and position relative to a standard ladder and use this information to make accurate allele calls. The software then prioritizes the allele calls based on several user-defined rules. As a result, the user need only review low-quality data. The validation of this system consisted of an extensive optimization phase and a large concordance phase. During optimization, the rule settings were tailored to minimize the amount of high-quality data viewed by the user. In the concordance phase, a large dataset was typed in parallel with the ABI software Gene Scan and Genotyper (manual review) and TrueAllele (automated review) for comparison of allele calls and sample state assignment. Only one significant difference was discovered out of 2048 samples in the concordance study. In this case, TrueAllele revealed a spike in the profile that was interpreted as a DNA peak by the analyst in Genotyper. TrueAllele was designed to focus the review on poor data and to eliminate the need for complete reanalysis technical review. This validation project proved TrueAllele to be dependable for use at the NYS Convicted Offender DNA Databank.     

Analysis of nitrite in adulterated urine samples by capillary electrophoresis

A simple method for analyzing nitrite in urine has been developed to confirm and quantify the amount of nitrite in potentially adulterated urine samples. The method involved separation of nitrite by capillary electrophoresis and direct UV detection at 214 nm. Separation was performed using a bare fused silica capillary and a 25 mM phosphate run buffer at a pH of 7.5. Sample preparation consisted of diluting the urine samples 1:20 with run buffer and internal standard, and centrifuging for 5 min at 2500 rpm. The sample was hydrodynamically injected, then separated using -25 kV with the column maintained at 35 degrees C. The method had upper and lower limits of linearity of 1500 and 80 microg/mL nitrite, respectively, and a limit of detection of 20 microg/mL. The method was evaluated using the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) protocol (Document EP10-A2), and validated using controls, standards, and authentic urine samples. Ten anions, ClO-, CrO4(-2), NO3-, HCO3-, I-, CH3COO-, F-, SO4-, S2O8(-2), and Cl-, were tested for potential interference with the assay. Interferences with quantitation were noted for only CrO4(-2) and S2O8(-2). High concentrations of Cl- interfered with the chromatography. The method had acceptable accuracy, precision, and specificity.     

Impact of Defense-Only and Opposing Eyewitness Experts on Juror Judgments

Previous research shows that expert testimony on eyewitness memory influences mock-juror judgments. We examined the extent to which opposing expert testimony mitigates the impact of defense-only expert testimony. Participants (N = 497) viewed a video-taped trial involving an eyewitness identification and individually rendered verdicts and evaluated the evidence and the experts. We manipulated the Foils (unbiased vs. biased) and Instructions (unbiased vs. biased) of the lineup and Expert Testimony (no expert vs. defense-only expert vs. opposing experts). Expert testimony did not significantly influence juror judgments, but the opposing expert testimony diminished the credibility of the defense expert in the eyes of the jurors. Results point to the need for further research on conditions that qualify the impact of expert testimony.     

Priming Unconscious Racial Stereotypes About Adolescent Offenders

Two studies examined unconscious racial stereotypes of decision makers in the juvenile justice system. Police officers (Experiment 1) and juvenile probation officers (Experiment 2) were subliminally exposed to words related to the category Black or to words neutral with respect to race. In a presumably unrelated task, officers read 2 vignettes about a hypothetical adolescent who allegedly committed either a property crime (shoplifting from a convenience store) or an interpersonal crime (assaulting a peer). The race of the offender was left unstated and the scenarios were ambiguous about the causes of the crime. Respondents rated the hypothetical offender on a number of traits (e.g., hostility and immaturity) and made judgments about culpability, expected recidivism, and deserved punishment. They also completed a self-report measure of conscious attitudes about race. As hypothesized, officers in the racial prime condition reported more negative trait ratings, greater culpability, and expected recidivism, and they endorsed harsher punishment than did officers in the neutral condition. The effects of the racial primes were not moderated by consciously held attitudes about African Americans. The implications of the findings for racial disparity in the juvenile justice system and for changing unconscious stereotypes were discussed.