Application of the Reasons for Elimination of Criminals in Cases of Corruption

The purpose of this study was to find out the application of the reasons for the elimination of criminals in cases of corruption. The results of this study are case number: 87/Pid.Sus/2010/PN.Mrb, which was strengthened in the Supreme Court's Cassation decision number: 321 K/Pid.Sus/2011, was wrong in applying the excuse of forgiveness as the reason for eliminating the crime in its legal considerations, where the element of forgiving reason applied by the Panel of Judges was not fulfilled, but the justifying reason should be applied because one of the elements of Article 3 of Law Number 31 of 1999 as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the eradication of criminal acts of corruption was not fulfilled because it relied on legal facts and expert testimony without mentioning in detail and with certainty who was benefited from the act, so the implication in this case is that the defendant should be acquitted (vrisjpraak).

Bases of Forensic Pathology Expert Testimony With Emphasis on Iowa v Tyler

Judicial scrutiny of the forensic sciences is increasing. This scrutiny targets the bases for expert opinions. Forensic pathologists must understand that when they express an opinion it must have an articulable underlying basis. Iowa v Tyler provides a cautionary tale where testimony from a forensic pathologist on the cause and manner of death based exclusively on police reports and audio and video recordings of police interviews of the suspect rather than on medical evidence were held to be inadmissible. Tyler has an odd and distinguishable set of facts, but has been widely cited as an example of problematic forensic pathology testimony.

The DeBoer v. Snyder Trial, 2014

Chapter 13 tells the story of the DeBoer v. Snyder trial, the expert testimony on both sides, and how the witnesses called to defend Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban were found to be entirely lacking in credibility. Defense witness Douglas Allen presented graphs that he admitted were not even intended to be accurate. Defense witness Mark Regnerus’ testimony was disavowed by his department chair and criticized by his professional organization. The plaintiffs’ expert witnesses described the scholarly consensus about the health of children raised by same-sex couples. This scholarly consensus was accepted by Judge Friedman. The DeBoer trial resulted in a victory for plaintiffs DeBoer and Rowse and their children, but the Sixth Circuit reversed the decision on constitutional grounds, necessitating a showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court.

LB17. Immunosequencing of the T-Cell Receptor Repertoire Reveals Signatures Specific for Diagnosis and Characterization of Early Lyme Disease

Background Changing climate and demographic trends have led to recent increases in the incidence of tick-borne illnesses. Early diagnosis of Lyme disease (LD) is critical for initiation of antibiotics to mitigate symptoms and prevent late manifestations. In patients not presenting with a typical erythema migrans rash, 2-tiered serologic testing is recommended to support a diagnosis of LD. However, 2-tiered testing is limited by ambiguity in interpretation and low sensitivity in early disease, highlighting an unmet clinical need for alternative diagnostic approaches. We identified a clinical signal for early LD based on evaluation of the T-cell response to B. burgdorferi infection. Methods We immunosequenced T-cell receptor (TCR) repertoires in blood samples from 3 independent cohorts of patients with laboratory-confirmed or clinically diagnosed early LD and endemic/non-endemic controls to identify 251 public, LD-associated TCRs. These TCRs were used to train a classifier that identified early LD with 99% specificity. Classifier sensitivity was evaluated in 211 LD cases and 2631 endemic controls and compared to that of standard 2-tiered testing (STTT). Biologic specificity was assessed by correlating TCR assay scores with clinical measures and by mapping the antigen specificity of Lyme-associated TCRs to B. burgdorferi antigens. Figure 1. LD-associated TCRs distinguish cases (orange) from controls (blue) in training cohorts. (A) Logistic-growth curve used to define a scoring function. (B) Positive-call threshold (99th percentile in endemic controls). Results In early LD, TCR testing demonstrated a 1.9-fold increase in sensitivity compared to STTT (56% vs 30%), with a 3.1-fold increase ≤4 days from the onset of symptoms (44% vs 14%). TCR positivity predicted subsequent seroconversion in 37% of initially STTT-negative patients, suggesting the T-cell response is detectable before the humoral response. While positivity for both tests declined following treatment, greater declines in posttreatment sensitivity were observed for STTT compared to TCR testing. Higher TCR scores were associated with measures of disease severity, including abnormal liver function tests, disseminated rash, and number of symptoms. A subset of LD-associated TCRs mapped to B. burgdorferi antigens, demonstrating the high specificity of a TCR immunosequencing approach. Figure 2. Validation of the TCR classifier in the JHU cohort and other holdout endemic controls. Distribution of model scores (A) and assay sensitivity (B). Model scores (C) and ROC (D) curves by serostatus. Figure 3. Clinical correlates of TCR scoring. (A) Liver function test; (B) lymphocyte count, (C) rash presentation, (D) number of symptoms. Conclusion T-cell-based testing has potential clinical utility as a sensitive and specific diagnostic for early LD, particularly in the initial days of illness. Disclosures Sudeb C. Dalai, MD, PhD, Adaptive Biotechnologies (Employee, Shareholder) Julia Greissl, PhD, Microsoft (Employee, Shareholder) Mitch Pesesky, PhD, Adaptive Biotechnologies (Employee, Shareholder) Allison W. Rebman, MPH, Global Lyme Alliance (Research Grant or Support)Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation (Research Grant or Support) Mark J. Soloski, PhD, NIH grant P30 AR070254 (Grant/Research Support)Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation (Research Grant or Support) Elizabeth J. Horn, PhD, Adaptive Biotechnologies (Research Grant or Support)Bay Area Lyme Foundation (Research Grant or Support)Lyme Disease Biobank (Employee)Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation (Research Grant or Support) Jennifer N. Dines, MD, Adaptive Biotechnologies (Employee, Shareholder) Rachel M. Gittelman, PhD, Adaptive Biotechnologies (Employee, Shareholder) Thomas M. Snyder, PhD, Adaptive Biotechnologies (Employee, Shareholder) Ryan O. Emerson, PhD, Adaptive Biotechnologies (Other Financial or Material Support, Employment with Adaptive Biotechnologies during the time of this study) Edward Meeds, PhD, Microsoft (Employee, Shareholder) Thomas Manley, MD, Adaptive Biotechnologies (Other Financial or Material Support, Declares employment with Adaptive Biotechnologies during the time of this study) Ian M. Kaplan, PhD, Adaptive Biotechnologies (Employee, Shareholder) Lance Baldo, MD, Adaptive Biotechnologies (Employee, Shareholder, Leadership Interest) Jonathan M. Carlson, PhD, Microsoft (Employee, Shareholder) Harlan S. Robins, PhD, Adaptive Biotechnologies (Board Member, Employee, Shareholder) John Aucott, MD, Adaptive Biotechnologies (Advisor or Review Panel member)Bay Area Lyme Foundation (Other Financial or Material Support, Scientific Advisory Board member)Department of Health and Human Services (Other Financial or Material Support, Past Chair, 2018, HHS Tick-borne Disease Working Group, Office of HIV/AIDS and Infectious Disease Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health)Expert testimony (Other Financial or Material Support, Expert testimony)Global Lyme Alliance (Research Grant or Support)Pfizer (Consultant)Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation (Research Grant or Support)Tarsus Pharmaceuticals (Consultant)

Bremelanotide and flibanserin for low sexual desire in women: the fallacy of regulatory precedent

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved two drugs for ‘hypoactive sexual desire disorder’ in women, flibanserin (Addyi) in 2015 and bremelanotide (Vyleesi) in 2019. In this paper we examine the outcome measures and clinical trial data upon which regulatory approval was based. In clinical trials, flibanserin led to an average of only one additional enjoyable sexual experience every two months, bremelanotide to none. Trials for both drugs feature shifts in primary outcomes and a contested indication. A politicised industry-sponsored advocacy campaign and conflicted patient and expert testimony likely influenced flibanserin’s approval at its third attempt. Bremelanotide, with even weaker efficacy, capitalised on the regulatory precedent set by the approval of flibanserin. Reconsideration of regulatory decisions to approve these drugs is in order, as well as a broader examination of how future regulatory decisions can better address conflicts of interest and clinically meaningful benefit.

The Interactive Effects of Race and Expert Testimony on Jurors’ Perceptions of Recanted Confessions

We examined the effect of defendant race and expert testimony on jurors’ perceptions of recanted confessions. Participants (591 jury-eligible community members) read a first-degree murder trial transcript in which defendant race (Black/White) and expert testimony (present/absent) were manipulated. They provided verdicts and answered questions regarding the confession and expert testimony. When examining the full sample, we observed no significant main effects or interactions of defendant race or expert testimony. When exclusively examining White participants, we observed a significant interaction between expert testimony and defendant race on verdicts. When the defendant was White, there was no significant effect of expert testimony, but when the defendant was Black, jurors were significantly more likely to acquit when given expert testimony. These findings support the watchdog hypothesis, such that White jurors are more receptive to legally relevant evidence when the defendant is Black.

The Interested Expert Problem and the Epistemology of Juries

The existence of experts raises a host of interesting questions in social, legal, and political epistemology. This article introduces and discusses interested experts – people who are experts on some topic, but who also have a distinct set of values and preferences regarding that topic, so that they are not well-described as “disinterested” parties. Interested experts raise several distinct problems in social, legal, and political epistemology. Some general questions arise: can we rationally or justifiably form beliefs relying on interested expert testimony? Do they constitute knowledge? Under what circumstances? This article focuses on a specific question in legal epistemology: should interested experts be allowed to serve on juries and, if so, should it be permissible for lawyers to strike them from the pool of potential jurors? My hope is that concentrating on this question will provide insight into the more general questions concerning the epistemology of testimony with respect to interested experts, while also providing concrete recommendations for jury reform to improve the epistemic performance of juries.