AAFS 2027

Pre-Registration Required — $165

8:00 am – 12:00 pm

Chair:
Peter Valentin, PhD 
University of New Haven
West Haven, CT

Co-Chair: 
Sharon L. Plotkin, EdD 
Miami Dade College
Miami, FL

Presenters: 
Adrienne Brundage, PhD 
Texas A&M University
Lane Bryan, TX 

Program Description: Forensic science programs share a commitment to preparing capable graduates, but the administrative strategies that work for a large, established program may not be practical for a smaller or developing program. Faculty and program leaders must continually make decisions about curriculum, staffing, faculty workload, laboratories, equipment, accreditation, assessment, student support, and industry expectations — often without opportunities to compare their approaches with colleagues at similar institutions.

Led by members of the COFSE Higher Education Committee, this interactive half-day workshop will provide a collaborative forum for examining these challenges and sharing practical solutions. Participants will join facilitated roundtables organized around large, mid-sized, and small or developing forensic science programs. Within these groups, attendees will compare administrative models, discuss common obstacles, and share successful approaches to curriculum management, laboratory operations, budgeting, enrollment, faculty responsibilities, Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission (FEPAC) accreditation, internships, advisory boards, graduate outcomes, and employer engagement.

The program-size groups will then reconvene to identify practices that can be adapted across different institutions. Participants will also consider resources that programs can develop or share, including administrative templates, curriculum models, assessment tools, laboratory exercises, safety materials, report-writing resources, library guides, internship contacts, and approaches to collecting feedback from graduates and employers.

Throughout the workshop, participants will be active contributors rather than passive audience members. Guided discussions, peer problem-solving, and individual planning exercises will allow attendees to apply ideas directly to their own institutions. Participants will leave with new professional connections, practical strategies from comparable programs, and a preliminary action plan tailored to their program's mission, size, challenges, and available resources.

Learning Objectives: The goals of this workshop are to:

• Evaluate the administrative and educational needs of their forensic science programs based on program size, mission, staffing, enrollment, facilities, institutional structure, and available resources
• Compare approaches used by large, mid-sized, and small or developing programs to address curriculum, faculty workload, laboratory operations, accreditation, assessment, student support, and workforce preparation
• Identify administrative practices, educational resources, and partnership models that can be adapted or shared among forensic science programs 
• Develop strategies for obtaining meaningful input from forensic laboratories, private-sector employers, advisory boards, alumni, and other academic programs
• Create a preliminary action plan containing achievable priorities for strengthening their forensic science programs
   

Impact Statement: This workshop will strengthen forensic science education by creating a structured forum for program leaders and faculty to exchange administrative practices, compare solutions, and establish collaborations across institutions. Organizing discussions around large, mid-sized, and small or developing programs will allow participants to address challenges with colleagues working in comparable environments while also learning how successful practices can be adapted across programs of different sizes. Participants will leave with practical strategies for improving curriculum, administration, student preparation, industry engagement, assessment, and accreditation planning. The workshop will also identify resources that can be shared through the Council of Forensic Science Educators (COFSE) Higher Education Committee, reducing duplication of effort and expanding access to effective tools and practices. These connections will support continued collaboration among forensic science educators and help programs better prepare graduates for the expectations of forensic science service providers.

Target Audience: General
Knowledge Level: Basic

Pre-Registration Required — $165

8:00 am – 12:00 pm

Chair: 
Zeno J. Geradts, PhD 
Netherlands Forensic Institute/University of Amsterdam
Den Haag, Netherlands

Co-Chair: 
Catalin Grigoras, PhD 
University of Colorado Denver
Denver, CO

Presenters:
Stijn van Lierop, MSc 
Netherlands Forensic Institute/University of Amsterdam
Den Haag, Netherlands

Cole Whitecotton, MSc 
National Center for Media Forensics 
University of Colorado Denver
Denver, CO

Program Description: Seeing and hearing are no longer believing. The rapid proliferation of open-source Generative AI and deepfake technologies has fundamentally destabilized the presumptive trust traditionally placed in multimedia evidence. For forensic examiners, law enforcement, and legal professionals, this represents an unprecedented paradigm shift. Synthetic images, cloned voices, and manipulated video challenge established investigative protocols and threaten the integrity of judicial proceedings worldwide.

This intensive, multifaceted workshop provides a comprehensive scientific roadmap for navigating the complexities of synthetic media across image, video, and audio modalities. Participants will first decode the underlying architecture of modern generative models — including Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), diffusion models, and advanced voice cloning — to understand the mechanics of synthetic generation. Moving from theory to applied forensic casework, the session will deliver practical instruction on identifying subtle synthetic artifacts. We will explore cutting-edge detection methodologies, including the analysis of biometric anomalies, audio spectral inconsistencies, and the absence of authentic physiological signals, such as heartbeat-based blood flow (rPPG), which AI models frequently fail to replicate accurately.

Crucially, attendees will critically evaluate current algorithmic detection tools, emphasizing their operational limitations, error rates, and vulnerability to false positives. The workshop culminates by addressing the courtroom reality: navigating the intersection of international regulatory frameworks, examining the impact of legislation like the European Union AI Act on digital casework, framing findings for admissibility, and countering the "liar's dividend," where authentic evidence is falsely dismissed as artificial. Attendees will leave uniquely equipped to distinguish fact from algorithmic fiction, ensuring the robust authentication of digital media in an era of synthetic reality.

Learning Objectives: This workshop will: (1) differentiate between traditional digital manipulation (e.g., splicing, cloning) and AI-generated synthetic media, explaining the underlying mechanisms of Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) and diffusion models across image, video, and audio modalities; (2) analyze multimedia evidence using current algorithmic detection tools to identify distinct forensic artifacts — such as spatial inconsistencies, biometric anomalies, and audio spectral glitches — left behind by generative AI models; (3) evaluate the scientific limitations, error rates, and false-positive vulnerabilities of existing open-source and commercial deepfake detection software when applied to real-world forensic casework; and (4) articulate the challenges of authenticating digital media in a courtroom setting, specifically addressing how to defend findings under Daubert/Frye admissibility standards and frame expert witness testimony regarding synthetic media.

Impact Statement: This presentation will impact the forensic science community by equipping digital examiners, investigators, and legal professionals with the critical analytical skills required to triage, evaluate, and testify regarding AI-generated synthetic media. As open-source generative AI and deepfake technologies become universally accessible, the presumptive trust in multimedia evidence is being severely eroded. This workshop bridges the critical gap between rapid algorithmic advancements and standardized forensic methodology. By providing practitioners with a robust understanding of both detection capabilities and their inherent limitations (error rates), this session directly supports the reliable admission of digital evidence and safeguards the judicial system against both fabricated evidence and the "liar's dividend" (the false dismissal of authentic media).

Target Audience: Criminalistics, Digital & Multimedia Sciences, Engineering & Applied Sciences, General, Jurisprudence, Questioned Documents
Knowledge Level: Intermediate

Pre-Registration Required — $165

8:00 am – 12:00 pm

Chair: 
Eugenio Alladio, PhD 
Department of Chemistry
University of Turin
Torino, Italy

Co-Chair: 
Paolo Garofano, PhD 
Centro Avanzato di Diagnostica "A. Bertinaria"
Rome, Italy

Presenter: 
Sergio Schiavone, MA 
Carabinieri Scientific Investigation Group
Rome, Italy

Program Description: Multivariate data are now routine in forensic laboratories. Spectra, chromatograms, and instrumental profiles arrive faster than most analysts have been trained to interpret them, and the gap is usually filled by software defaults that nobody in the laboratory can fully explain in court. This workshop closes that gap in a single morning, at a keyboard rather than in a lecture hall.

Participants work through a complete analytical workflow on real forensic datasets: importing and inspecting data, choosing preprocessing appropriate to the measurement, exploring structure with principal component analysis and clustering, building a classification model, and validating it with cross-validation and permutation testing. Every exercise ends at the same question, which is what the result actually supports when written into a report.

The session is taught by an academic chemometrician and a forensic expert, so each method is followed immediately by how it behaves in casework, where reference material is limited, samples number is low, and conclusions are challenged.

All software used is free and openly available, and every workflow is reproducible in other environments. Participants install nothing proprietary (but the open-source software) and leave able to repeat the entire session on their own data. They receive a digital workbook with step-by-step documentation, the reference datasets, and summary slides.

Participants need a laptop and no prior experience with chemometrics or machine learning. Basic familiarity with instrumental data is helpful but not required.

Learning Objectives: After attending this workshop, participants will be able to import, preprocess, and visualize analytical chemistry datasets, and to select preprocessing steps appropriate to the data at hand, including scatter correction, derivatives, and baseline treatment. Participants will be able to apply unsupervised methods, principal component analysis, and hierarchical clustering, explore sample structure and detect outliers, and apply supervised classification and interpret its output. Participants will be able to validate a classification model using cross-validation and permutation testing and explain why performance estimated without an independent validation scheme is not admissible evidence of model quality. Finally, participants will be able to recognize the limits of what a chemometric result supports in a forensic report and reproduce the complete workflow in their own laboratory using freely available software.

Impact Statement: This workshop will impact the forensic science community by giving practitioners direct, hands-on competence in multivariate methods that are increasingly present in casework but rarely taught in a form that laboratory analysts can immediately apply. It addresses a recurring weakness in the field, the reporting of classification results without adequate validation, by making validation an integral part of every exercise rather than a closing remark. Because all software used is freely available and the workflows are reproducible in other environments, participants can continue applying the methods in their own laboratories, extending the effect of the session beyond the conference.

Target Audience: Criminalistics, Engineering & Applied Sciences, General, Toxicology
Knowledge Level: Basic

Pre-Registration Required — $165

8:00 am – 12:00 pm

Chair: 
Dana Delger, JD 
Self Employed
Casper, WY

Co-Chair: 
Melissa Taylor, BA 
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, MD

Presenter:
Niki Osborne, PhD 
PHF Science
Porirua, New Zealand

Program Description: AI is already influencing the environments in which forensic scientists work. It is being used to search and summarize information, generate and revise text, classify images, identify patterns in complex data, automate routine processes, and support professional decision-making. Forensic organizations therefore face an increasingly practical challenge: determining when and how AI may responsibly be used within forensic work and ensuring that any resulting use can be scientifically justified, transparently documented, and explained if scrutinized in legal proceedings.

The central question is no longer simply whether forensic science should use AI. It is how a particular AI system is being used, what it meaningfully influences, what risks arise from that influence, and what evidence would be required to justify its use.

Drawing on work funded by the NIST to advance the responsible adoption of AI in forensic science, this interactive half-day workshop will bring together scientific, legal, governance, and human-factors perspectives. The presenters will introduce a practical framework for evaluating proposed AI applications and moving from broad responsible-AI principles to specific, documented adoption decisions.

Participants will distinguish among AI uses that support administrative work, scientific processes, interpretation, decision-making, and communication. They will examine how the significance of AI use changes depending on where it is introduced in the forensic lifecycle, what information it processes, and its proximity to observations, interpretations, reports, testimony, or other consequential decisions.

The workshop will also consider the legal implications of using AI within forensic work. Topics will include reliability and validity, transparency and explainability, discovery and disclosure, documentation, expert reliance on automated outputs, and the information courts may require when evaluating forensic evidence or opinions influenced by AI. Rather than treating legal admissibility as a question to address only after implementation, the workshop will demonstrate how legal and evidential requirements can inform system design, validation, procurement, and governance from the outset.

Through facilitated exercises, participants will develop and assess realistic forensic AI use cases. They will identify affected stakeholders, map human and machine roles, determine which observations and decisions may be influenced, and consider potential failure modes. Participants will then apply a structured risk-and-value assessment to identify appropriate safeguards, including validation, data governance, performance monitoring, documentation, meaningful human oversight, escalation criteria, and limits on use.

Participants will leave with practical tools for moving from a proposed AI use case to a reasoned, proportionate, and defensible decision about whether and how it should be adopted in forensic practice.

Learning Objectives: After attending this workshop, participants will be able to: 

1. identify and describe potential Artificial Intelligence (AI) use cases across the forensic lifecycle, including the specific observations, interpretations, decisions, and outputs that an AI system may influence. 
2. assess proposed AI uses according to their scientific, legal, operational, human-factors, and governance risks. 
3. explain how validation, transparency, documentation, human oversight, and disclosure may affect the admissibility and defensibility of AI-assisted forensic analysis and interpretation. 
4. apply a structured decision-making framework to determine whether, and under what conditions, a proposed AI use case should proceed.

Impact Statement: This workshop will translate emerging findings from National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) -funded work on advancing the responsible adoption of AI in forensic science into practical tools for the forensic community. Participants will strengthen their ability to identify suitable use cases, recognize when AI use becomes scientifically or legally consequential, and establish proportionate governance, validation, documentation, and oversight before implementation.

Target Audience: General
Knowledge Level: Basic

Pre-Registration Required — $165

8:00 am – 12:00 pm

Chair: 
Linton A. Mohammed, PhD 
Forensic Science Consultants, Inc.
Poway, CA

Co-Chair: 
Zain Bhaloo, MSc 
Canada Border Services Agency
Ottawa, ON, Canada

Presenter: 
Jonathan EJ Jackson-Morris, MSc 
Morris Forensic Consultants Limited
Glasgow, Scotland

Program Description: Much of the modern rational concerning evaluative reporting in forensic science can be traced back to the influential papers by Cook et al. titled "A model for case assessment and interpretation" (1998) and "A hierarchy of propositions: Deciding which level to address in casework" (2000) as well as the paper titled "More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions" (Evett et al.). Since then, numerous publications and presentations have underscored the relevance of evaluative reporting and the implementation of a logical scientific reporting process in forensic environments. Key documents include the "ENFSI Guideline for Evaluative Reporting in Forensic Science" (2015), the National Institute of Forensic Science's "An Introductory Guide to Evaluative Reporting" (2017), the NIST report "Forensic Handwriting Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice Through a Systems Approach" (2021) and more recently the publications of Bird et al. in WIREs Forensic Science. Each of these works supports the adoption of a logical, or evaluative, reporting process within forensic science. 

While principally focusing on questioned document examination and trace evidence, this workshop will outline the steps taken during an evaluative reporting approach in other areas of forensic science as well: initial assessment, setting propositions, defining expectations, analysis, comparison, evaluation, and forming a conclusion. 

ISO 21043-4:2025(en) "specifies requirements and provides recommendations for the interpretation of observations to reach opinions that answer questions that are relevant for decision making in investigations or legal proceedings." ISO 2043-5:25 (en) specifies requirements and provides recommendations for reporting of forensic work." Both Parts 4 and 5 discuss evaluative reporting.

Learning Objectives: Using specific examples, participants will be guided through the application of this approach to forensic examinations. Practical sessions will concentrate on the aspects that differ from the traditional approach: propositions, expectations, evaluation, and conclusion. Participants will gain an understanding of the relative simplicity and effectiveness of a logical reasoning approach to forensic examinations, predominantly forensic handwriting/ document examination and other pattern-recognition disciplines.

Impact Statement: This workshop will impact the forensic science community and especially the pattern recognition field by introducing methods of interpretation and reporting that may address the ways in which forensic scientists conduct casework and report results. This will also have impact on the judicial system.

Target Audience: Criminalistics, Questioned Documents
Knowledge Level: Intermediate

Pre-Registration Required — $300

8:00 am – 5:00 pm

Chair: 
Howard Baum, PhD 
Baum Scientific Consulting LLC
Randolph, NJ

Co-Chair: 
Amy Watroba, JD 
Illinois Forensic Science Commission
Glen Ellyn, IL

Presenters: 
Tebah Browne, PhD 
Innocence Project
New York, NY

Mario Galioto, MS 
Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences
Houston, TX

Charlotte Word, PhD 
Consultant
Richmond, VA

Erika Ziemak, MS
Center for Human Identification

Program Description: Given the increased sensitivity of modern DNA testing, contamination must be viewed as an expected event that can be minimized but not prevented completely. When contamination occurs, it may no longer necessarily mean that the DNA testing results should be disregarded without critical evaluation. It is essential for laboratory personnel to continually adapt their procedures for the prevention, detection, monitoring, mitigation, and reporting of contamination at all steps of evidence processing — from collection through the final steps of data generation and interpretation. It is likewise critical that legal professionals understand the myths, realities, and nuances of contamination events to accurately evaluate potential privacy and legal implications of contamination events. The primary goal of the workshop is to endorse and support quality testing and reporting standard operating procedures for addressing contamination in forensic testing laboratories and minimize the impact of any contamination event on the criminal justice system.

This workshop will provide actionable plans for improving the quality of testing and reporting in laboratories by providing insights for implementation of three relevant standards and best practice recommendations. These standards include: (1) ANSI/ASB Standard 136: Forensic Laboratory Standard for Prevention, Monitoring, and Mitigation of Human DNA Contamination; (2) ANSI/ASB Best Practice Recommendation 171: Best Practice Recommendations for the Management and Use of Quality Assurance DNA Elimination Databases in Forensic DNA Analysis; and (3) ANSI/ASB Standard 175: Standard for Interpreting, Comparing and Reporting DNA Test Results Associated with Failed Controls and Contamination Events.

Through lectures and interactive discussions, including problem solving, the specific requirements and recommendations for each document, and mechanisms for their implementation into the attendee's laboratory will be presented. Scientific, privacy, and legal considerations will be provided throughout the workshop.

This workshop will be beneficial for anyone interested in learning more about various aspects of contamination, to include DNA analysts/technical leaders/supervisors, QA/QC managers, trainers, and laboratory directors overseeing any type of testing where contamination can occur as well as legal professionals tasked with presenting or evaluating DNA evidence in the criminal justice system. 

Learning Objectives: Attendees at this workshop will: (1) gain an understanding of the various scientific, privacy, and legal issues associated with contamination; (2) learn about the prevention, detection, mitigation, and communication of contamination in forensic laboratories internationally; and (3) acquire knowledge and insights regarding the implementation of three ANSI/ASB Standards and Best Practice Recommendations that specifically address contamination in testing and reporting. The ultimate goal of the workshop is to endorse and support quality testing and reporting standard operating procedures for addressing contamination in forensic testing laboratories, to limit the impact of any contamination event, and to promote transparency and effective communication with the criminal justice system.

Impact Statement: This workshop will impact the forensic science community by encouraging attendees to rethink how procedures, data analysis, reporting, and testimony are impacted by the risk of DNA contamination and contamination events. Laboratory personnel will be provided with guidance and tools for conducting high-quality testing and reporting through the development of protocols and policies for the management of various aspects of evidence contamination. Additionally, this workshop will educate the legal community on the realities of contamination events in modern DNA analysis, including the steps laboratories take to address contamination in evidence collection and testing processes.

Target Audience: Criminalistics, Jurisprudence
Knowledge Level: Basic

Pre-Registration Required — $300

8:00 am – 5:00 pm

Chair: 
Lorenzo Gitto, MD 
Cook County Medical Examiner's Office
Chicago, IL

Co-Chair: 
Ponni Arunkumar, MD 
Cook County Medical Examiner's Office
Chicago, IL

Presenters: 
Celeste Addyman, JD 
Cook County Public Defender's Office
Chicago, IL

Brittany Barclae, JD
Cook County Public Defender's Office
Chicago, IL

Samantha N. Champion, MD 
Cook County Medical Examiner's Office
Chicago, IL

Kristin Escobar Alvarenga, MD 
Cook County Medical Examiner's Office
Chicago, IL

Veena Ramaiah, MD 
University of Chicago Comer Children's Hospital
Chicago, IL

Meredith A. Reynolds, MD 
Cook County Medical Examiner's Office
Chicago, IL

Robert W. Rodemeyer, JD 
Cook County State's Attorney's Office
Chicago, IL

Marlisa Sole, BS 
Cook County Medical Examiner's Office
Chicago, IL

Lisa M. Taylor, JD 
Circuit Court of Cook County
Chicago, IL

Annette G. Thornton, JD 
Cook County State's Attorney's Office
Chicago, IL

Lucy Vazquez-Gonzalez, JD 
Cook County Juvenile Center
Chicago, IL

Program Description: The medicolegal investigation of child abuse is among the most complex and consequential tasks in forensic pathology, requiring coordination among death investigators, forensic pathologists, clinical specialists, child protective services, and the justice system.

During this workshop, the morning medical panel will discuss the investigation of child abuse cases from the initial call and scene investigation through the autopsy. Sessions will address the natural diseases that must be considered and excluded, the recognition of child abuse signs in the hospital setting, the documentation of extracranial and cranial injuries at autopsy together with dedicated autopsy techniques, the involvement of the Department of Children and Family Services, and the neuropathology of non-accidental head trauma.

The afternoon jurisprudence panel will discuss how these cases are managed and presented in court. Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys with experience in child abuse litigation will address judicial oversight, evidentiary standards, the admissibility of expert testimony, charging decisions, and defense strategy.

The workshop will culminate in a mock trial built around a child abuse case, allowing attendees to observe direct examination, cross examination, competing expert testimony, and closing arguments. A state expert and an independent defense expert will offer differing interpretations of the same findings, illustrating the contested scientific questions that arise in these proceedings, while faculty commentators provide real time analysis.

Attendees will participate in didactic sessions, case studies, and an interactive courtroom simulation led by forensic pathologists, a death investigator, a clinical pediatrician, and representatives of the legal profession (judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys), facilitating interactive learning across the disciplines that intersect in every child abuse investigation.

Learning Objectives: After attending this workshop, participants will have an enhanced understanding of the medicolegal investigation of child abuse and the courtroom that follows. Emphasis will be placed on scene investigation, the recognition of natural diseases and injuries that mimic or accompany abuse, autopsy technique, neuropathology of abusive head trauma, and the presentation of these findings in court. Attendees will develop the skills necessary to investigate suspected child abuse deaths comprehensively and to communicate their findings effectively to legal professionals and juries. They will be exposed to the full arc of a case through didactic presentations, case-based discussions, and a simulated courtroom proceeding.

Impact Statement: This workshop will emphasize the multidisciplinary nature of child abuse investigation, bringing together a team of medical and jurisprudence experts to bridge the forensic autopsy and the judicial process. Didactic lectures, case-based instruction, and a mock trial will be provided to enhance investigative competency and courtroom preparedness, with a focus on how medical findings are interpreted, challenged, and presented as evidence in child abuse proceedings.

Target Audience: Criminalistics, Forensic Nursing Science, General, Jurisprudence, Pathology/Biology
Knowledge Level: Intermediate

Pre-Registration Required — $300

8:00 am – 5:00 pm

Chair: 
Simone Grassi, MD, PhD 
University of Florence
Florence, Italy

Co-Chair: 
Hannah C. Jarvis, MRCS 
Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences
Houston, TX

Presenters:
Melissa M. Blessing, DO 
Johnson County Medical Examiner and University of Iowa Health Care
Iowa City, IA

Andrea Costantino, MD 
Careggi University Hospital
Florence, Italy

Gregory Dickinson, MD 
New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner
New York, NY

Declan McGuone, MBChB 
Yale School Medicine
New Haven, CT

Eleonora Nardi, MD 
Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS
Rome, Italy

Antonio Oliva, MD, PhD 
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
Rome, Italy

Vilma Pinchi, PhD 
University of Florence
Florence, Italy

Francesco Ventura, MD 
University of Genoa
Genoa, Italy

Jason M. Wiersema, PhD 
Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences
Houston, TX

Program Description: Fetal and pediatric deaths have a devastating impact on families and society and represent a highly specialized subject. 

The forensic pathologist may face difficulties not only in integrating information derived from the necessary multidisciplinary approach, but also in operating within a context where additional legal questions often arise compared to standard forensic cases. 

For example, in a perinatal death, obstetricians/gynecologists may be accused of failing to diagnose fetal distress and/or performing a delayed cesarean section, and the pathologist is required to perform a feto-placental analysis to search for signs of distress and determine their onset. In the discovery of a fetal/neonatal body, it may be necessary to determine whether the infant was born alive — a question with intricate legal implications, especially in countries/states where abortion is illegal or heavily restricted. As age increases, the complexity of the issues remains unchanged: from sudden infant deaths to the discovery of bodies of minors of unknown age, from sudden pediatric deaths to cases of suspected abuse, the technical and medicolegal challenges are exceptionally complex. Indeed, the workshop aims to address the issue of fetal and pediatric deaths in all its levels of complexity. 

The first level is technical complexity: these cases require multidisciplinary approaches in which the techniques, starting with autopsies, demand highly specialized expertise. Multidisciplinary data must then be integrated: radiological, toxicological, pathological, anthropological, and genetic findings may not be decisive on their own, but combined, they may provide comprehensive answers for judicial purposes. The second level is socio-legal complexity. In fetal deaths, obstetric liability is often invoked, and since the fetus is inaccessible through standard diagnostic tools (except for radiology), providing exhaustive answers is difficult without analyzing all available information, starting with placental data; similarly, in cases where deceased fetuses or newborns are discovered, the legal implications are highly significant and tied to the specific legal frameworks of each state/nation. In sudden deaths, families must not only cope with a tragedy but are also anxious to know if the death could be due to hereditary conditions, which often have an autosomal-dominant inheritance pattern. In deaths where abuse is suspected, finding highly specific signs is extremely difficult, and circumstantial information from caregivers can be misleading or unreliable. The workshop is therefore divided into two sessions — one dedicated to the fetus and one to the child — where specialists from different forensic disciplines will help provide a comprehensive overview of the correct approach to delivering evidence-based answers to both the justice system and families.

Learning Objectives: The objectives are to provide a detailed, multidisciplinary overview of the roles of macroscopic and microscopic postmortem examination as well as toxicological, genetic, radiological, and anthropological/odontological analyses in these cases. The ultimate goal is not only to provide theoretical updates and practical guidance, but above all to educate on the integration of all these data to effectively address medicolegal questions

Impact Statement: Participants will acquire a multidisciplinary and integrated perspective on the forensic approach to fetuses and minors, gaining knowledge that can support forensic investigations on both the deceased and the living. In a context where information is often scarce and ambiguous, the goal is to promote a targeted, multidisciplinary approach capable of providing evidence-based answers to the justice system and the victims' families, even in highly challenging scenarios such as sudden deaths and suspected abuse.

Target Audience: Anthropology, Jurisprudence, Odontology, Pathology/Biology, Toxicology
Knowledge Level: Intermediate

Pre-Registration Required — $300

8:00 am – 5:00 pm

Chair: 
Tim Kalafut, PhD 
Sam Houston State University
Huntsville, TX

Co-Chair: 
Simone Gittelson, PhD 
DC Department of Forensic Sciences
The George Washington University
Washington, DC

Presenters: 
Michael A. Marciano, PhD 
Syracuse University
Manlius, NY

Joel Sutton, MSFS 
United States Criminal Investigation Laboratory
Forest Park, GA

Program Description: This workshop addresses the current challenges faced in North America regarding the ALE of biological evidence, especially during courtroom testimony, when experts are asked unexpected questions about "DNA transfer" and potential activities that could have transferred DNA.

Key issues:

• Activity-level inquiries about the expert's findings happen in real time while at trial, often with no warning for the expert.
• Such questions asked in real time at trial do not allow for a model-driven ALE with formal reporting.
• Answers of the type, "Yes, it's possible…" are problematic, because they offer no useful information, can be misleading, and violate published recommendations.
• The refusal response (i.e., not answering activity-level questions) does not provide any useful information, transferring the ALE to the fact finder, which runs the risk of the fact finder applying the sub-source level likelihood ratio to the activity-level question.
• Limiting answers to only general information on transfer, persistence, prevalence/background, and recovery runs the risk of lay persons incorrectly applying complex scientific information, leading to misinformed beliefs about what the findings mean with regard to the propositions in the context of this case.

Workshop focus:

• The ALE framework, including the formulation of activity-level propositions, the Principles of Evidence Interpretation, case pre-assessment, activity-level likelihood ratios, and correctly formulating ALE conclusions and answers to activity-level questions.
• Practical guidelines for preparing for and answering activity-level questions asked during testimony in a balanced, logical, transparent, and robust manner.
• Realistic strategies for implementing ALE into a forensic science laboratory's workflow.
• A comprehensive ALE training plan for DNA analysts.

This workshop's guidance fills the gap between providing no useful information for activity-level questions and formally reporting a model-driven ALE prior to testimony. It provides DNA experts with practical, ethical, and defensible strategies for ALE training, implementation, training, and testimony.

Learning Objectives: After attending this workshop, attendees will be familiar with the application of the fundamental Principles of Evidence Interpretation to the evaluation of biological findings given activity-level propositions. They will know the requirement to answer activity-level questions in a balanced, logical, transparent, and robust manner, support their opinions with data, perform a case pre-assessment, and understand the concrete steps required for training analysts in Activity-Level Evaluation (ALE) and implementing ALE in a forensic science laboratory in North America.

Impact Statement: This workshop will impact the forensic science community by providing practical guidance on how to train for, prepare for, and answer activity level questions in North American courts when no formal, model-based ALE has been reported. These guidelines will provide participants with ways to prepare and provide answers to activity-level questions that are useful to the court, follow the Principles of Evidence Interpretation and are based on data, as well as guidance on how to implement ALE into a forensic science laboratory's workflow.

Target Audience: Criminalistics, Jurisprudence
Knowledge Level: Intermediate

Pre-Registration Required — $165

1:00 pm – 5:00 pm

Chair: 
Jacqueline Parai, MD 
Eastern Ontario Regional Forensic Pathology Unit
Ottawa, ON, Canada

Co-Chair:
Christopher Milroy, MD 
University of Ottawa
Ottawa, ON, Canada

Presenter: 
Alberto Chighine, MD, PhD 
University of Cagliari
Cagliari, Italy

Program Description: Death investigators frequently examine cases where the hospital biochemistry laboratory can provide significant assistance in specific deaths, including hypothermia, sodium nitrate/nitrite poisoning, and dehydration as well as anaphylaxis. A knowledge of what testing can and cannot be utilized postmortem is required. Common disorders that are assisted by biochemical analysis include diabetes mellitus and alcohol use disorder. However, standard clinical tests, such as blood glucose, are unreliable postmortem. Matrices other than blood are available, particularly vitreous humor. Vitreous is most commonly used to assess postmortem biochemistry for urea, creatinine, and electrolytes and has proven useful for beta-hydroxybutyrate analysis in ketoacidosis. Blood is still an important matrix for such tests as beta-hydroxybutyrate, hemoglobin A1c, methemoglobin, and mast cell tryptase analysis. These tests are not always available from toxicology laboratories.

Vitreous humor has recently been used for metabolomic studies. This involves the extensive analysis of metabolites for identification of disease and for use in such issues as determining postmortem interval, and holds great potential for future death investigations. 

This workshop will use lectures and case studies to show how postmortem biochemistry using standard hospital techniques can be used to accurately identify causes of death and introduces forensic metabolomics on vitreous and other fluids in death investigation. 

Learning Objectives: Attendees will be able to understand the role a hospital biochemistry laboratory can play in death investigation of common and less common disorders. Tests conducted in biochemical laboratories will be identified and shown how they can be adapted for postmortem studies to provide important information in common and uncommon disorders. The potential of metabolomics in postmortem investigation is introduced.

Impact Statement: This workshop will impact forensic pathology, forensic toxicology, and death investigation by showing how ancillary investigations available in hospital laboratories can assist in death investigation. The use of biochemical testing at autopsy provides accurate causes and manner of death and will show the future role of metabolomics in death investigation.

Target Audience: General, Pathology/Biology, Toxicology
Knowledge Level: Basic

Pre-Registration Required — $165

1:00 pm – 5:00 pm

Chair: 
Mary E. Zaney, BSc 
Miami-Dade Medical Examiner Department
Miami, FL

Co-Chair: 
Elisa N. Shoff, MS 
Miami-Dade Medical Examiner Department
Miami, FL

Presenters: 
Luli Akinfiresoye, PhD 
Drug Enforcement Administration
Washington, DC

Max T. Denn, MS 
CFSRE
Horsham, PA

Chris R. McCurdy, PhD 
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL

Nicholas B. Tiscione, MS 
Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office
West Palm Beach, FL

Russell S. Vega, MD 
District Twelve Medical Examiner
Miami, FL

Agnes D. Winokur, PhD 
Drug Enforcement Administration
Miami, FL

Program Description: This half-day workshop is a collaboration between the AAFS Opioids and Emerging Drugs Ad-Hoc Committee and the SOFT NPS Committee. Mitragynine, the primary alkaloid found in the Mitragyna speciosa plant (commonly known as kratom), has become increasingly prevalent in forensic casework due to its widespread availability and varying legal status across states. More recently, highly potent mitragynine-related compounds, including 7-hydroxymitragynine, mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, dihydro-7-hydroxymitragynine (MGM-15) and 9-fluoro-7-hydroxymitragynine (MGM-16), have emerged in commercial and illicit products. While traditional kratom products, such as powders, capsules, and liquids, typically contain alkaloids consistent with natural plant material, many recently encountered tablets contain highly potent mitragynine-related compounds as their primary constituents. The product labeling often does not accurately reflect the identity or concentration of the compounds present, increasing the risk of unintentional overdose and creating significant analytical and interpretive challenges across forensic disciplines.

For seized drug and forensic toxicology laboratories, these compounds present analytical challenges due to the limited availability of certified reference materials, the emergence of new analogs, and the need to continually adapt analytical methods. They also complicate the interpretation of impairment, postmortem blood concentrations, and the role these substances may have played in Driving Under the Influence of Drugs(DUID) and medicolegal death investigation cases.

Through a multidisciplinary approach, this workshop will bring together experts in seized drug analysis, forensic toxicology, pharmacology, impaired driving, and medicolegal death investigation to discuss the evolving landscape of mitragynine-related compounds. Presentations will address analytical method development and identification strategies, pharmacology, abuse potential, current scheduling efforts, impairment assessment in DUID investigations, postmortem interpretation, and emerging case trends. By integrating perspectives from multiple forensic disciplines, this workshop will provide attendees with practical knowledge and current scientific information needed to accurately identify, interpret, and report findings involving this evolving class of novel psychoactive substances. 

Learning Objectives: After attending this workshop, participants will be able to describe the analytical challenges associated with identifying different mitragynine-related compounds in seized drug and forensic toxicology casework. Attendees will gain an understanding of the abuse potential, relative potency, pharmacology, and current scheduling of these emerging substances. Participants will also better understand impairment associated with mitragynine-related compounds, the interpretation of postmortem toxicological findings, and the challenges of certifying deaths involving these substances.

Impact Statement: This workshop will impact the forensic science community by promoting a multidisciplinary approach to the identification and interpretation of emerging mitragynine-related compounds. By integrating perspectives from seized drug analysis, forensic toxicology, impaired driving investigations, and medicolegal death investigations, attendees will gain practical knowledge of analytical identification strategies, the impact of mislabeled products, the pharmacology of these substances, current scheduling efforts, impairment assessment, and the interpretation of postmortem toxicological findings to support accurate certification of cause and manner of death.

Target Audience: Criminalistics, General, Pathology/Biology, Toxicology
Knowledge Level: Intermediate

Pre-Registration Required — $165

1:00 pm – 5:00 pm

Chair: 
Lisa Mertz, MS 
Office of Chief Medical Examiner
New York City, NY

Co-Chair: 
Terri Rosenblatt, JD 
New York County District Attorney's Office
New York, NY

Presenters: 
Bryce Benjet, JD 
Queens County DA
New Gardens, NY

Adina M. Thompson, PhD 
Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice
Philadelphis, PA

Program Description: Post-conviction DNA testing has come a long way since the first DNA exonerations of the late 1980's. This session looks at the current landscape of post-conviction DNA practice and explores the intersection of two essential aspects of post-conviction DNA testing: the scientific considerations involved in selecting evidence for testing and the legal framework governing access to that testing under applicable statutes. The panelists all bring expertise in modern post-conviction testing as stakeholders across the criminal justice system, including the prosecution, defense, and the lab. 

This presentation will strengthen attendees' knowledge and practical skills in identifying evidence that is most likely to yield meaningful results through post-conviction forensic testing. Although the primary emphasis is DNA evidence, the session will also explore the evidentiary value of fingerprints, hair, and other forensic disciplines in post-conviction investigations. This will assist lab staff in triaging requests and determining testing methods. It will also assist lab members and other members of law enforcement in identifying ways to ensure that new evidence is collected and tested in a way that could preserve items for future testing if needed. 

In addition, this workshop will help members of the legal community understand how courts view newly discovered or newly tested DNA or other forensic evidence in the context of a case. Attendees will learn about the landscape of laws that apply to testing requests. They also will learn about how new DNA results are contextualized under various state laws when presented to the court in support of an exoneration. Lastly, the presentation will address the legal implications of identifying a potential alternate perpetrator through post-conviction forensic testing, including the statutes and procedural requirements that may govern any subsequent criminal investigation or prosecution.

Learning Objectives: Participants will gain an understanding of which types of evidence are most suitable for post-conviction DNA analysis, including the items most likely to be preserved years after a conviction and the types of evidence most likely to yield meaningful results. The session will also examine how courts evaluate and apply post-conviction DNA testing results within the context of the full case record and the relevant legal standards. Through both a high-level overview and examples drawn from recent cases, attendees will gain practical insight into how post-conviction DNA testing is conducted, litigated, and ultimately considered by the courts.

Impact Statement: After attending this workshop, participants will have an enhanced understanding of the scientific and legal issues involved in post-conviction forensic testing and will be better equipped to collaborate across disciplines in pursuing fair and just resolutions. These skills will support outcomes that are guided by the evidence, whether that leads to exoneration or confirms the integrity of the original conviction.

Target Audience: Criminalistics, General, Jurisprudence, Pathology/Biology
Knowledge Level: Basic 

Pre-Registration Required — $165

1:00 pm – 5:00 pm

Chair: 
Michelle D. Miranda, PhD 
Center for Criminal Justice Studies
Farmingdale State College

Co-Chair: 
Shiela Willis, DSc
Leverhume Research Centre for Forensic Science
Dublin, Ireland

Presenters: 
Patrick Buzzini, PhD 
Sam Houston State University
Huntsville, TX

Antonel Olckers, PhD 
African Forensic Sciences Academy 
Pretoria, South Africa

Claude Roux, PhD 
University of Technology Sydney 
Sydney, Australia

Program Description: AI is often seen as an equalizing and leapfrog technology, especially in under-resourced areas. However, the environment in which it is implemented must be ready and able to accommodate it. A clear roadmap for adoption, and the key stages thereof, must precede implementation. Hence the adoption of AI across forensic science, whether in education, research, the field, or the laboratory, must begin during exhaustive pre-implementation phases where the factors such as the terms of implementation and the range of autonomy is defined. AI holds potential for the forensic science community but, if operated without a human-in-the-loop, can be detrimental to the overall performance of the forensic science system.

This workshop will begin by addressing digital transformations in forensic science, with a focus on modern trends in AI. Drawing on specific case studies demonstrating the utility of AI, the workshop will demonstrate how AI has been successfully — and properly — utilized to answer forensic science questions. In addition, this workshop will consider the implementation of AI programming in higher education to prepare the next generation with the skills for AI implementation, utilization, and oversight across criminal justice domains. This workshop will then address the implementation of AI within the laboratory setting, proposing an approach to adoption and integration. The overarching theme of the workshop will be to frame the role of AI in the ongoing digital transformation, reminding the scientist of the need for a unified scientific approach to forensic science problems.

Learning Objectives: After attending this workshop, attendees will explore how digital transformations impact forensic science outcomes; consider how to educate forensic scientists on the implementation, use, and oversight of AI systems; evaluate AI through ethical, legal, and social lenses; consider the future of forensic science in the post-digital era.

Impact Statement: This presentation will impact the forensic science community by encouraging forensic scientists across all disciplines to consider the benefits and costs of Al implementation and use in forensic science. This workshop seeks to encourage forensic scientists, from academics and practitioners to managers and legal experts, to think about what knowledge is necessary to properly and effectively implement AI and what quality measures are in place to ensure that human oversight remains a critical component of forensic science in an increasingly AI world.

Target Audience: All Disciplines
Knowledge Level: Intermediate