ࡱ> \( c/ 00DArialngsRomantt 1 0DGaramondRomantt 1 0 DTimes New Romantt 1 00DWingdingsRomantt 1 0 A .  @n?" dd@  @@`` `X;,,    !#%)+-/357=?ACEGLY[]_ehjkonpstz{|}~ 0AA@8ʚ;ʚ;g4IdIdV0Internal Reforms0P Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program (1978) ASCLD/LAB (1981) TWGDAM (1988) PQ  Expert Testimony0 (1) Subject matter requirement: Is this topic a proper subject for expert testimony? (2) Qualifications requirement: Is this witness qualified in this subject matter?bVS$=5 Subject Matter Requirement0Subject Matter Tests0Frye v. United States "0 D.C. Circuit (1923) (early polygraph)  General acceptance test Rationale: defer to scientists Criticisms Problems of application Often obscures critical issues Exception for non-novel evidence &oYoYRelevancy Approach0 Treat like other evidence: balance probative value against misleading the jury, etc. (Rule 403) Qualify expert, automatically qualifies technique Criticism: Too lax 0ZZZ Daubert Trilogy(0 0 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993) establishes reliability test; rejects Frye general acceptance test General Elec. Co. v. Joiner 522 U.S. 136 (1997) appellate review of Daubert issues: abuse of discretion Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael 526 U.S. 137 (1999) Daubert applies to  technical evidence  i.e., all experts%PXPPPNPPQP#;)    5  Z-5``Daubert Factors(0 0t (1) Testing ( falsifiability ) (2) Peer review & publication (3) Known or potential error rate (4) Standards controlling use of technique (5) General acceptance (from Frye test) PPPPzP o6New England J. Medicine Amici Curiae Brief in Daubert(7/((, Good science requires that a proposition be supported by experimental data, be reduced to writing, and be published after undergoing peer-review prior to any reliance thereon. Peer-review s  role is to promote the publication of well-conceived articles so that the most important review, the consideration of the reported results by the scientific community, may occur after publication. >ZZ Federal Evidence Rule 7020n  If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact [jury] to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise . . . 68 " K Rule 702: Amendment (2000)0 if (1) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. $TDaubert: Initial Reviews(00  Astonishingly, all parties expressed satisfaction with the Daubert decision  the lawyers for the plaintiff and defense, and scientists who wrote amicus briefs. Foster et al., Policy Forum: Science and the Toxic Tort, 261 Science 1509, 1614 (Sept. 17, 1993) c$;`)+>Comparison of Tests (1993)6Daubert: Liberal v. Strict(00  Given the Rules permissive backdrop and their inclusion of a specific rule on expert testimony that does not mention  general acceptance, the assertion that the Rules somehow assimilated Frye is unconvincing. Frye made  general acceptance the exclusive test for admitting expert scientific testimony. That austere standard, absent from, and incompatible with the Federal Rules of Evidence, should not be applied in federal trials. 509 U.S. at 589.nZ _Daubert (cont.)(0 0 B  The Rule s basic standard of relevance ... is a liberal one. Id. at 587.  [A] rigid  general acceptance requirement would be at odds with the  liberal thrust of the Federal Rules and their  general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to  opinion testimony. Id. at 588.ZKZZZ3S63 ,But:  Gatekeeper role0  [I]n order to qualify as  scientific knowledge, an inference or assertion must be derived by the scientific method. Proposed testimony must be supported by appropriate validation  i.e.,  good grounds, based on what is known. In short, the requirement that an expert s testimony pertain to  scientific knowledge establishes a standard of evidentiary reliability. Id. at 588.Vw> yUnited States v. Bonds0n DNA admitted at trial under Frye test  We find that the DNA testimony easily meets the more liberal test set out by the Supreme Court in Daubert. 12 F.3d 540, 568 (6th Cir. 1993)x&n"c"&Borawick v. Shay0 Repressed memory evidence  by loosening the strictures on scientific evidence set by Frye, Daubert reinforces the idea that there should be a presumption of admissibility of evidence 68 F.3d 597, 610 (2d Cir. 1995)n!;V!\wPolygraph Evidence0 U.S. v. Posado (5th Cir. 1995) (per se rule of exclusion inconsistent with Daubert) Galbreth & Crumby (district courts) (1995) (admitted polygraph results) State cases still reject tUILSLi" Later Supreme Court Cases0 Joiner (1997): Daubert  somewhat broader than Frye Kumho (1999): Daubert extends to nonscientific evidence Wisegram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440 (2000) Daubert sets an  exacting standard 8Z'ZZZ+ZZ-Z%Z       #   -        b! %%,*United States v. Horn0 Under Daubert, ... it was expected that it would be easier to admit evidence that was the product of new science or technology. In practice, however, it often seems as though the opposite has occurred  application of Daubert/Kumho Tire analysis results in the exclusion of evidence that might otherwise have been admitted under Frye. 185 F. Supp. 2d 530 (D. Md. 2002) (HGN)^S(](, .,Paradigm Shift0Supreme Court in Daubert and Kumho  is plainly inviting a reexamination even of  generally accepted venerable, technical fields. U.S. v. Hines, 55 F. Supp. 2d 62, 67 (D. Mass. 1999)  Courts are now confronting challenges to testimony & whose admissibility had long been settled. U.S. v. Hidalgo, 229 F. Supp. 2d 961, 966 (D. Ariz. 2002)5b:a'b:,3$" Civil Cases 0 In the Daubert case ... the Supreme Court rejected the deferential standard of the Frye Rule in favor of a more assertive standard that required courts to determine that expert testimony was well grounded in the methods and procedures of science. Kassierer & Cecil, Inconsistency in Evidentiary Standards for Medical Testimony: Disorder in the Courts, 288 J. Am. Med. Ass n 1382, 1383 (2002) )T,> q&$Rand Institute: Civil Cases0Z  [S]ince Daubert, judges have examined the reliability of expert evidence more closely and have found more evidence unreliable as a result. Dixon & Gill, Changes in the Standards of Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases Since the Daubert Decision, 8 Psychol., Pub. Pol y & L. 251 (2002)hZZZ }g)b trStudy of Criminal Cases0>  Daubert decision did not impact on the admission rates of expert testimony at either the trial or appellate court levels. Groscup et al., The Effects of Daubert on the Admissibility of Expert Testimony in State and Federal Criminal Cases, 8 Pyschol., Pub. Pol y & L. 339, 364 (2002)d}uc.buQ(&Forensic Community0  The Daubert Standard goes a step further than Frye and requires the forensic scientists to prove that the evidence is fundamentally scientifically reliable, not just generally accepted by his/her peers in the discipline. Jones, President s Editorial  The Changing Practice of Forensic Science, 47 J. Forensic Sci. 437, 437 (2002)ZZZnZ#  A  &  ,-/.Comparison of Tests (2007)0- No reliability test E.g., Relevancy test nZZZZ$  w Reliability tests E.g., Frye general acceptance test E.g., Daubert test E.g., Other reliability testsZ.ZZ5Z$*'[[Daubert in the States(00tFrye jurisdictions  Cal., N.Y., Fla., Ill., Pa., Md. Daubert jurisdictions But not necessarily Joiner & Kumho Relevancy test  e.g., Wisconsin Other reliability tests  e.g., N.C. 6ZZZ#ZKZ2    G,7,L54Strict v. Lax Approaches0@  The choice is not between easy Frye and difficult Daubert; it is between strict and lax scrutiny. Redmayne, Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice 113 (2001)f: $$$$*$ $ ,5+2nlDaubert : Strict v. Lax&0(U.S. v. Crisp, 324 F.3d 261 (4th Cir. 2003) Admitting handwriting comparison (lax) Admitting fingerprint identification (lax)  The government has had ten years to comply with Daubert. It should not be given a pass in this case. (strict) Id. at 272 (Michael, J., dissenting)`,Rr%,R19%^^^Lee v. Martinez (lax Daubert):000Admitting polygraph evidence under Daubert  This liberal approach [Daubert] to the admission of evidence is consistent with the intent of the drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 96 P.3d 291, 297 (N.M. 2004)l+#q,#omRamirez v. State (strict Frye)6000 In order to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system in Florida, particularly in the face of rising nationwide criticism of forensic evidence in general, our state courts & must apply the Frye test in a prudent manner to cull scientific fiction and junk science from fact. Any doubt as to admissibility & should be resolved in a manner that minimizes the chance of a wrongful conviction, especially in a capital case. 810 So. 2d 836, 853 (Fla. 2001) BZk0/!gePeople v. Davis (lax Frye)0Admitting  lip print evidence under Frye QD expert  testified that lip print comparison is an accepted method of scientific identification in the forensic science community . . . He is unaware of any dissent in the field regarding the methodology used to make a positive identification of a lip print. 710 N.E.2d 1251 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999)`*ZZZ%Z%%76Hair Comparisons0  This court has been unsuccessful in its attempts to locate any indication that expert hair comparison testimony meets any of the requirements of Daubert. Williamson v. Reynolds, 904 F. Supp. 1529, 1558 (E.D. Okl. 1995) rev d on this issue, Williamson v. Ward, 110 F.3d 1508, 1522-23 (10th Cir. 1997) (due process, not Daubert, standard applies in habeas proceedings)<$$S$$$BP*P:^*Williamson (cont.)4 Expert:  microscopically consistent Expert:  [T]here & could be another individual somewhere in the world that would have the same characteristics. *$(3bdcHair Comparison (cont.)0Most courts still admit this evidence DNA evidence compared: Microscopic analysis differ 12% of time. Houch & Budowle, Correlation of Microscopic and Mitochondrial DNA Hair Comparisons, 47 J. Forensic Sci. 964 (2002)r&As'$A$  A  !  >iT 88Handwriting Comparisons0 Because the principle of uniqueness is without empirical support, we conclude that a document examiner will not be permitted to testify that the maker of a known document is the maker of the questioned document. Nor will a document examiner be able to testify as to identity in terms of probabilities. U.S. v. Hidalgo, 229 F. Supp. 2d 961, 967 (D. Ariz. 2002)&1;1;::Handwriting (cont.)0m U.S. v. Prime, 363 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2004) (admitting) U.S. v. Crisp, 324 F.3d 261 (4th Cir. 2003) (same)4:3$m<< Fingerprints 0 U.S. v. Llera Plaza, 188 F. Supp. 2d 549, 558 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (excluding and then admitting) U.S. v. Mitchell, 365 F.3d 215, 247 (3d Cir. 2004) (admitting) U.S. v. Abreu, 406 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2005) (same)<^v, (>>U.S. v. Havvard0fError rate is  zero. ???  Peer review is a second examiner reviewing the analysis. ??? Adversarial testing = scientific testing ??? 117 F. Supp. 2d 848 (S.D. Ind. 2000) F]/'^/'OOFingerprints: Stephan Cowans0" Released after serving 6 years (Massachusetts) for nonfatal shooting of a police officer. First conviction overturned on DNA evidence in which fingerprint evidence was crucial in securing the wrongful conviction. Loftus & Cole, Contaminated Evidence, 304 Science 673, 959, May 14, 2004LZZIZ%QQ Riki Jackson 0 FConvicted of murder in 1997 based on bloody fingerprints discovered on a window fan. 2 defense experts, retired FBI examiners, testified that there was  no match. McRoberts et al., Forensics Under the Microscope: Unproven Techniques Sway Courts, Erode Justice, Chi. Trib., Oct. 17, 2004 zUZZQZ|ZZVQN, ^SSBrandon Mayfield0 Although F.B.I. found fingerprint match, Spanish officials matched the fingerprints to an Algerian national. Kershaw, Spain and U.S. at Odds on Mistaken Terror Arrest, N.Y. Times, Jun. 5, 2004 at A1 dn\n 1!  UUFBI Report (2004)0P  [D]issimilarities & were easily observed when a detailed analysis of the latent print was conducted.  inherent pressure of high-profile case  confirmation bias "ZZaaFBI Report (cont.)0 To disagree was not an expected response.  Verifiers should be given challenging exclusions during blind proficiency tests to ensure that they are independently applying ACE-V methodology correctly &  Stacey, A Report on the Erroneous Fingerprint Individualization in the Madrid Train Bombing Case, 54 J. Forensic Identification 707 (2004)VZZZX+Fingerprint Mistakes Cole, More Than Zero: Accounting for Error in Latent Fingerprint Identification, 95 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 985 (2005) (documenting 23 cases of misidentifications).IWXKCC+Firearms Identification: Admitting Evidence,, U.S. v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514 (5th Cir. 2004) U.S. v. Foster, 300 F. Supp. 2d 375 (D. Md. 2004) But see Schwartz, A Systemic Challenge to the Reliability and Admissibility of Firearms and Toolmark Identification, 6 Colum. Science & Tech. L. Rev. (2005)ncZZZc a*,!mkCartridge Case Ident. (cont.)0 Inadmissible because failed to follow standards: No documentation - sketches or photo No technical review by 2d examiner U.S. v. Monteiro, 407 F. Supp. 2d 351 (D. Mass. 2006) &{8{8'pnCartridge Case Ident. (cont.)0 b O Shea declared that this match could be made  to the exclusion of every other firearm in the world. . . . That conclusion, needless to say, is extraordinary, particularly given O Shea s data and methods. Admitting similarities, but not conclusion U.S. v. Green, 405 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D. Mass. 2005)&55Cartridge Case Ident. (cont.)0  I reluctantly come to the above conclusion because of my confidence that any other decision will be rejected by appellate courts, in light of precedents across the country . . . While I recognize that the Daubert-Kumho standard does not require the illusory perfection of a television show (CSI, this wasn't), when liberty hangs in the balance and, in the case of the defendants facing the death penalty, life itself the standards should be higher than were met in this case, and than have been imposed across the country. The more courts admit this type of toolmark evidence without requiring documentation, proficiency testing, or evidence of reliability, the more sloppy practices will endure; we should require more. U.S. v. Green, supra.,Z , U Reference YGiannelli & Imwinkelried, Scientific Evidence (4th ed. 2007) (Lexis/Nexis Publishing Co.)D  0` 3` ff>>\fg` J*T333` QYmx~3ft` \ғhEy`` cb^DDf`Y˵W` sg7xGr` K%ޯd{mG/` 33f>?" dd@,?nFd@    @ `  n?" dd@   @@``PR    @ ` `<p>>  (     6 #" `b `  X*   6H #" `` `  Z* xT ~   "~\ {   "{   c BB CDEFd @ bb   H   T W6Vw}\gFQ6<1++11 1L b6xQrq 6\}N   - c    0 A Q g     S    6N KawF bFy0 a*ly7lE;uz  B | a F 0 ! 1 < B < & l L 0  @`"T    c |BC+DEFyd @ ==gL6cI}\eA& w6m!W<! &<W!r6W}F6\}>68QNlX^XH8+Sgg|@`"Jo 5 J    B! CDEF @ ))\*l{FDNF W% W ! !   ! 6X L b x_ /aF6b}SA$|l\\TX@`s"*  T  u4   B C%DEF ss&QW}k6D Q r 8 N c t y y ;t Qi gS }8     T   :0\-Q4*%%v*o(V}5q;  S   < s } l \ g} \, L ;n &  Z}\[6 }WF<! e C }h m W ]  ,t B RxkqA,Rg@`" {b    BCDEFy @ ,,Lh6\}mWG &a*zCxsh-&jG]~5g6&LLZ\@`s"*   u(     BCDE|Fy @ __@% M|f4@{ f0`lA}L\A+h MB6ww FJl{ 0V|{J  *5KlGn a*:Pf\|6 /6Kbf|F kP}5x}VvaP@@@`s"*   =>    c BlCrDEF"d@ rlrl@`"~  6 " `}  T Click to edit Master title style! !  6 #" ``   Z* $  0ȟ " `  RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!     SB  s *޽h ? 3___PPT10i. u%.+D=' = @B +  Stream  0 $](  $xT ~ $ "~\ { $ "{ $ c BB CDEFd @ bb   H   T W6Vw}\gFQ6<1++11 1L b6xQrq 6\}N   - c    0 A Q g     S    6N KawF bFy0 a*ly7lE;uz  B | a F 0 ! 1 < B < & l L 0  @`"T  $ c |BC+DEFyd @ ==gL6cI}\eA& w6m!W<! &<W!r6W}F6\}>68QNlX^XH8+Sgg|@`"Jo 5 J $  B! CDEF @ ))\*l{FDNF W% W ! !   ! 6X L b x_ /aF6b}SA$|l\\TX@`s"*  T  u4 $ B C%DEF ss&QW}k6D Q r 8 N c t y y ;t Qi gS }8     T   :0\-Q4*%%v*o(V}5q;  S   < s } l \ g} \, L ;n &  Z}\[6 }WF<! e C }h m W ]  ,t B RxkqA,Rg@`" {b $  BCDEFy @ ,,Lh6\}mWG &a*zCxsh-&jG]~5g6&LLZ\@`s"*   u(   $  BCDE|Fy @ __@% M|f4@{ f0`lA}L\A+h MB6ww FJl{ 0V|{J  *5KlGn a*:Pf\|6 /6Kbf|F kP}5x}VvaP@@@`s"*   =>   $ c BlCrDEF"d@ rlrl@`"~  $ <@ "F   T Click to edit Master title style! !  $ 0  " `    W#Click to edit Master subtitle style$ $  $ 6H #" `` `  X*  $ 6D #" `b   Z*  $ 6 #" `d `  Z* B $ s *޽h ? 3___PPT10i. u%.+D=' = @B + (    00"  P%    X*   0&   %   Z*   6X+  P    X*   6      Z* H  0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.pv 0  *(  x  c $ $F   r  S L $ `    H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.%+D=' = @B +}  0 ($(  (r ( S   `}   r ( S   `  H ( 0޽h ? 3___PPT10i.p3 +D=' = @B +}  0 ,$(  ,r , S l  `}   r , S   `  H , 0޽h ? 3___PPT10i.fz+D=' = @B +  0   0(   x   c $!  `}   x   c $"  `  H   0޽h ? 3___PPT10i.K +D=' = @B +}  0 4$(  4r 4 S +  `}   r 4 S ,  `  H 4 0޽h ? 3___PPT10i.h+D=' = @B +$  0  $(  r  S =  `}   r  S d>  `  H  0޽h ? 380___PPT10.Pa$  0  H$(  Hr H S PA  `}   r H S (B  `  H H 0޽h ? 380___PPT10.L+  0 P T:(  T~ T s *XI  `}   |d  `4 T #" D  `4 T <<?`4 5Lay Knowledge inadmissible E.g., x-rays@6   ' @`+ T <Y?4 I Expertise admissible A B E.g., DNA<J   @`N T <0/? 4 n Experimental inadmissible E.g., polygraph :o  A @``B T 0o ? ``B T 0o ? 4`4`B  T 0o ?  4ZB  T s *1 ?4ZB  T s *1 ?4`B  T 0o ?``4H T 0޽h ? ^WNff3  0 IAp \(  \~ \ s *(r  `}   d  `^ \ #" D  `^ \ <v?`^ &Lay Knowledge 1.  beyond ken (common law) 2.  assist jury (Rule 702) JV   AP@08X \ <4?^ * Expertise A B4+   @` \ <? ^ ! Experimental 1. Frye test 2. Daubert test 3. Relevancy test 4. Other tests L  ><? @``B \ 0o ? ``B \ 0o ? ^`^`B  \ 0o ?  ^ZB  \ s *1 ?^ZB  \ s *1 ?^`B  \ 0o ?``^H \ 0޽h ? ^WNff3  0  <(  ~  s *  `}   ~  s *  `  H  0޽h ? ^WNff3<  0 P <(  ~  s *   `}   ~  s *  `  H  0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.`9$  0 <$(  <r < S @   `}   r < S    `   H < 0޽h ? 380___PPT10.up]  0 <(  ~  s *   `}   ~  s *!   `   H  0޽h ? ^WNff30  0 ` 0(  x  c $8   `}   x  c $8   `   H  0޽h ? 380___PPT10.L$  0 @$(  @r @ S LH   `}   r @ S $I   `   H @ 0޽h ? 380___PPT10.`Bu$  0 D$(  Dr D S @  `}   r D S $  `  H D 0޽h ? 380___PPT10. <  0 <(  ~  s *@T   `}   ~  s *U   `   H  0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.ww  0 c[ d(  d~ d s *Y   `}   5d  `4  d #" D  `4 d <e ?`4 . Frye test most restrictive:/     @`1 d <\q ?4 1 Daubert test intermediate standard82    & @` d <| ? 4 . Relevancy test most permissive:/     @``B d 0o ? ``B d 0o ? 4`4`B  d 0o ?  4ZB  d s *1 ?4ZB  d s *1 ?4`B  d 0o ?``4H d 0޽h ? ^WNff3  0 l<(  l~ l s *   `}   ~ l s *L   `   H l 0޽h ? ^WNff3<  0 t<(  t~ t s *   `}   ~ t s *   `   H t 0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.wN<  0 |<(  |~ | s *   `}   ~ | s *   `   H | 0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.v<  0 0<(  ~  s *L   `}   ~  s *   `   H  0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.}`@<  0 P<(  ~  s *ܯ   `}   ~  s *   `   H  0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.x0*  0  <(  ~  s *蹏   `}   ~  s *   `   H  0޽h ? ^WNff3<  0 <(  ~  s *   `}   ~  s *XÏ   `   H  0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.l<  0 0<(  ~  s *ҏ   `}   ~  s *ӏ   `   H  0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.xp<  0 P<(  ~  s *ُ   `}   ~  s *\ڏ   `   H  0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.x.<  0 <(  ~  s *   `}   ~  s *   `   H  0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.}0x<  0 <(  ~  s *`   `}   ~  s *8   `   H  0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.}`(F<  0 0<(  ~  s *   `}   ~  s *   `   H  0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.} <  0 <(  ~  s *,   `}   ~  s *   `   H  0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.}Q  0 2*p(  ~  s *   `}   ~  s *h       ~  s *@  p `   H  0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.p$  0 P$(  r  S '   `}   r  S (   `   H  0޽h ? 380___PPT10.$ ͖<  0 <(  ~  s *6   `}   ~  s *x9   `   H  0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.}7$  0 $(  r  S \>   `}   r  S 4?   `   H  0޽h ? 380___PPT10.I $  0 $(  r  S E   `}   r  S F   `   H  0޽h ? 380___PPT10.I0  0 0(  x  c $N   `}   x  c $tO   `   H  0޽h ? 380___PPT10.9=$  0 @$(  r  S 0^   `}   r  S _   `   H  0޽h ? 380___PPT10.C  0 <(  ~  s *k   `}   ~  s *l   `   H  0޽h ? ^WNff30  0  0(  x  c $Xu   `}   x  c $v   `   H  0޽h ? 380___PPT10.kY$  0 $(  r  S }   `}   r  S ~   `   H  0޽h ? 380___PPT10.g`  0 <(  ~  s *   `}   ~  s *   `   H  0޽h ? ^WNff3  0 0 <(   ~   s *p   `}   ~   s *H   `   H   0޽h ? ^WNff3<  0 P<(  ~  s *D   `}   ~  s *(   `   H  0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.yP|<  0 p<(  ~  s *   `}   ~  s *L   `   H  0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.W<  0 d<(  d~ d s *   `}   ~ d s *褑   `   H d 0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.S#<  0 l<(  l~ l s *   `}   ~ l s *   `   H l 0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.%0<  0 t<(  t~ t s *   `}   ~ t s *|*   `   H t 0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.ݕ<  0 |<(  |~ | s *Ƒ   `}   ~ | s *Ǒ   `   H | 0޽h ? ^WNff380___PPT10.&$  0 $(  r  S Xԑ   `}   r  S 0Ց   `   H  0޽h ? 380___PPT10.Hr$  0 ` `$(  `r ` S    `}   r ` S    `   H ` 0޽h ? 380___PPT10.s  0 0<(  0~ 0 s *   `}   ~ 0 s *   `   H 0 0޽h ? ^WNff3$  0 $(  r  S T   `}   r  S ,   `   H  0޽h ? 380___PPT10.CPe6!$  0 $(  r  S    `}   r  S    `   H  0޽h ? 380___PPT10.I3$  0 @ X$(  Xr X S T   `}   r X S ,   `   H X 0޽h ? 380___PPT10.wu{$  0 0 $(  r  S    `}   r  S    `   H  0޽h ? 380___PPT10.t/r`d]m @K 4`bO !R# %'"",$2&25(9,f.. 0;5@7 K\R:`T<dV>XCThOZQ0]St_Ua[>^dE` w cc 0PgIm@Xj8CGls v7n(f{*@pMswOh+'0T hp   $Scientific EvidencePaul GiannelliStreamAdministrator330Microsoft PowerPoint@pgfZ@@PSx GSg  )'    """)))UUUMMMBBB999|PP3f333f3333f3ffffff3f̙3ff333f333333333f33333333f33f3ff3f3f3f3333f33̙33333f333333f3333f3ffffff3f33ff3f3f3f3fff3ffffffffff3ffff̙fff3fffff3fff333f3f3ff3ff33f̙̙3̙ff̙̙̙3f̙3f333f3333f3ffffff3f̙3f3f3f333f3333f3ffffff3f̙3f3ffffffffff!___www4'A x(xKʦ """)))UUUMMMBBB999|PP3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙f3333f3333333333f3333333f3f33ff3f3f3f3333f3333333f3̙33333f333ff3ffffff3f33f3ff3f3f3ffff3fffffffff3fffffff3f̙ffff3ff333f3ff33fff33f3ff̙3f3f3333f333ff3fffff̙̙3̙f̙̙̙3f̙3f3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙3ffffffffff!___www___e_e____eee_e_e_e_eeee_e_e__e_e_e_e_e_eeee_ee__e_e_eeeeee_e_e_ee___e_eeeeeeeee_e_e_e_eeeeeeee___eee_ee_eeee_e_eeeee_e_ee_e_eee_e_eeeee_eeee_e_eeee_e_e__e_e_e__eeeeee__ee_e888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888____888888_8888888888888888888888_8888888888888888888888888888___88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888e_e_e_e88888_e88_e_e_88e88888e_e8888888_e88_888_e_e_e_e_e_e_eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee_e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee___e___e___e___e___e___e___e___e___e___e___e___e___e___e___e___e___e___e___e___eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee_e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e__e_eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_ee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_ee_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_eeee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_eee_?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root EntrydO)Current UserSummaryInformation(UPowerPoint Document(tDocumentSummaryInformation8