[Senate Hearing 107-342]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-342
DNA CRIME LABS: THE PAUL COVERDELL
NATIONAL FORENSIC SCIENCES IMPROVEMENT ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 15, 2001
__________
Serial No. J-107-19
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-008 WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Sharon Prost, Chief Counsel
Makan Delrahim, Staff Director
Bruce Cohen, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Illinois....................................................... 27
Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Wisconsin...................................................... 21
Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa. 7
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 1
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 3
Thurmond, Hon. Strom, a U.S. Senator from the State of South
Carolina....................................................... 7
WITNESSES
Buel, Eric, Director, Vermont Forensic Laboratory, Waterbury,
Vermont........................................................ 36
Boyd, David G., Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C............................................................ 8
Coonrod, Keith K., Chair, Consortium of Forensic Science
Organizations, Albany, New York................................ 14
Downs, James Claude Upshaw, M.D., Director/Chief Medical
Examiner, Department of Forensic Services, State of Alabama,
Auburn, Alabama................................................ 40
Nix, Milton E., Jr., Director, Georgia Bureau of Investigation,
Decatur,
Georgia........................................................ 43
Petersen, William, Actor, Valencia, California................... 18
Sheppo, Michael G., Bureau Chief, Illinois State Police Division
of Forensic Services, Forensic Sciences Command, Springfield,
Illinois....................................................... 32
Townsend, Richard J., Director, Utah Bureau of Forensic Sciences,
Salt Lake City, Utah........................................... 28
Yura, Michael T., Director, Forensic Identification Program, West
Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia................. 47
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Questions submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary............ 54
Questions submitted by Senator Feingold.......................... 55
Responses of Eric Buel to questions submitted by the Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 55
Responses of Eric Buel to questions submitted by Senator Feingold 56
Responses of J.C. Upshaw Downs, M.D. to questions submitted by
the Committee on the Judiciary................................. 57
Responses of J.C. Upshaw Downs, M.D. to questions submitted by
Senator Feingold............................................... 58
Response of the National Institute of Justice to a question
submitted by Senator Schumer................................... 60
Responses of Milton E. Nix, Jr. to questions submitted by Senator
Feingold....................................................... 60
Responses of Michael G. Sheppo to questions submitted by the
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 61
Responses of Michael G. Sheppo to questions submitted by Senator
Feingold....................................................... 63
Responses of Richard J. Townsend to questions submitted by the
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 65
Responses of Richard J. Townsend to questions submitted by
Senator Feingold............................................... 66
Responses of Michael T. Yura to questions submitted by the
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 66
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Laboratory, Washington, DC,
proposal....................................................... 68
Fenger, Terry W., Director, Forensic Science Program, School of
Medicine, Marshall University, Huntington, WV, statement....... 70
Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC, report.......... 71
DNA CRIME LABS: THE PAUL COVERDELL NATIONAL FORENSIC SCIENCES
IMPROVEMENT ACT
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:13 p.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G.
Hatch, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Hatch, Sessions, Leahy, Feingold, and
Durbin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF UTAH
Chairman Hatch. Good afternoon. I am pleased to welcome all
of you to today's hearing on forensic science.
I appreciate the efforts of Senator Sessions, who has
agreed to chair the hearing.
While the topic may at first blush sound somewhat dry, I
assure you that any reader of Patricia Cornwell's novels or any
viewer of the television programs ``Quincy'' or ``CSI: Crime
Scene Investigation'' knows the work performed by our Nation's
forensic scientists is truly fascinating. These are the people
who, by analyzing fingerprints, DNA samples, fibers, hair,
ballistics and other crime scene evidence, help solve some of
our most difficult crimes. Without them, I don't think we would
solve a lot of crimes.
The work performed by these scientists carries with it an
awesome responsibility. Because of their expertise, the
testimony of forensic scientists often carries great weight
with a jury in a criminal trial. In that regard, we are all
troubled by allegations that mistakes by a police chemist
helped send innocent people to prison.
This isolated situation should not be used unfairly to
indict the thousands of forensic scientists who perform their
work professionally and responsibly. It should, however, remind
us that those who work in our criminal justice system have an
obligation to be diligent, honest and fair-minded. And we as
public policy leaders have the obligations to ensure that our
forensic scientists have the resources necessary to carry out
their critical work. Thanks in large part to Senator Sessions,
we now have legislation that will do just that.
The Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement
Act of 2000, introduced last session by Senator Sessions and
signed into law by President Clinton, authorized substantial
resources for State and local crime laboratories. These
resources, awarded to States by the Attorney General in the
form of block grants, can be used by laboratories for
personnel, facilities, training, equipment and other supplies.
The legislation also contains an important safeguard that will
ensure testing accuracy.
To apply for a grant, a State must certify that it has
either a forensic laboratory system, coroner's office or
medical examiner's office that is accredited by the Laboratory
Accreditation Board of the American Society of Crime Laboratory
Directors or the National Association of Medical Examiners, or
that the State would use a portion of the grant to prepare and
apply for such accreditation. This provision is critical given
that less than one-half of all crime laboratories in the United
States are currently accredited.
The resources authorized by this legislation are dearly
needed. To cite one statistic that I am certain we will hear
again this afternoon, a recent study by the American Society of
Crime Laboratory Directors found that 9,000 additional forensic
scientists are needed to have a 30-day turnaround of evidence.
The study also found that the majority of labs do not even have
the basic equipment needed to respond to the caseloads that
they currently have.
I know that the administration supports the Coverdell Act,
and I am confident that I can work with Attorney General
Ashcroft to see that the needs of our Nation's crime labs are
addressed.
Many of our witnesses today are officials with State
forensic laboratories. In closing, I want to urge you to be
creative and proactive in seeking solutions to your personnel
and resource needs. For example, there are now private
institutions that offer cost-effective training programs and
other services for forensic scientists. One such institute, the
non-profit Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine,
on whose board I am proud to sit, trains many of Virginia's
crime scene investigators, forensic scientists, medical
examiners and other law enforcement investigators. In many
cases, the Institute can provide training at a lower cost than
State-run laboratories. Many of you may want to go there and
take a good look at what they are doing.
Let me now turn to our Democratic leader on the Committee,
Senator Leahy, for his opening statement, and I will turn the
remainder of the hearing over to Senator Sessions, whose
efforts and leadership on this issue have been very, very
critical in getting these matters on their way. I am very
grateful to him. I am grateful to our Democrat leader on the
Committee, as well, for his hard work in these areas as a
former prosecutor and as somebody who fully understands these
problems.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Hatch follows:]
Statement of Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah
Good afternoon. I am pleased to welcome you all to today's hearing
on forensic science. While the topic may at first blush sound somewhat
dry, I assure you that, as any reader of a Patricia Cornwell novel or
any viewer of the television programs Quincy or CSI: Crime Scene
Investigation knows, the work performed by our nation's forensic
scientists is truly fascinating. These are the people who, by analyzing
fingerprints, DNA samples, fibers, hair, ballistics, and other crime
scene evidence, help solve some of our most difficult crimes.
The work performed by these scientists carries with it an awesome
responsibility. Because of their expertise, the testimony of forensic
scientists often carries great weight with the jury in a criminal
trial. In that regard, we are all troubled by allegations that mistakes
by a police chemist in Oklahoma helped send innocent people to prison.
This isolated situation should not be used unfairly to indict the
thousands of forensic scientists who perform their work professionally
and responsibly. It should, however, remind us that those who work in
our criminal justice system have an obligation to be diligent, honest,
and fair-minded.
And we, as public policy leaders, have the obligation to ensure
that our forensic scientists have the resources necessary to carry out
their critical work. Thanks in large part to Senator Sessions we now
have legislation that will do just that.
The Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act of
2000, introduced last session by Senator Sessions and signed into law
by President Clinton, authorized substantial resources for state and
local crime laboratories. These resources, awarded to states by the
Attorney General in the form of block grants, can be used by
laboratories for personnel, facilities, training, equipment and other
supplies.
The legislation also contains an important safeguard that will
ensure testing accuracy. To apply for a grant a state must certify
either that it has a forensic laboratory system, coroner's office, or
medical examiner's office that is accredited by the Laboratory
Accreditation Board of the American Society of Crime Laboratory
Directors or the National Association of Medical Examiners, or that the
state will use a portion of the grant to prepare and apply for such
accreditation. This provision is critical given that less than \1/2\ of
all crime laboratories in the United States are currently accredited.
The resources authorized by this legislation are dearly needed. To
cite one statistic that I am certain we will hear again this afternoon,
a recent study by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors
found that 9,000 additional forensic scientists are needed to have a
30-day turn around of evidence. The study also found that the majority
of labs do not even have the basic equipment needed to respond to the
caseload they currently have. I know that the Administration supports
the Coverdell Act, and I am confident that I can work with Attorney
General Ashcroft to see that the needs of our nation's crime labs are
addressed.
Many of our witnesses today are officials with state forensic
laboratories. In closing, I also want to urge you to be creative and
proactive in seeking solutions to your personnel and resource needs.
For example, there are now private institutes that offer cost-effective
training programs and other services for forensic scientists. One such
institute, the non-profit Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and
Medicine, on whose board I am proud to sit, trains many of Virginia's
crime scene investigators, forensic scientists, medical examiners, and
other law enforcement investigators. In many cases, the institute can
provide training at a lower cost than state-run laboratories.
I'll now turn to the Ranking Member, Senator Leahy, for his opening
statement.
Senator Leahy, we will turn to you.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
calling this hearing on the Paul Coverdell National Forensic
Sciences Improvement Act. In the last Congress, I was proud to
cosponsor this legislation which is named after a friend and
colleague of ours who was, I think it is safe to say, extremely
well liked on both sides of the aisle.
This legislation brings an infusion of Federal funds to
enable State and local crime labs across the Nation to update
their facilities and improve their crime-solving abilities. I
want to applaud Senator Sessions for his efforts in working
together with me to revise the bill's funding formula to make
it fair for all States. Senator Sessions helped make it
possible to get the kind of bipartisan consensus we needed.
We got the bill passed and President Clinton signed it into
law on December 21, 2000. It authorized $85 million in the
upcoming fiscal year and $738 million over the next 6 years.
For some reason, the new administration did not request any
funding for this new, bipartisan law. I think that was a
mistake on their part and I am going to work with them, and I
know Senator Sessions is, to put the money back in because we
need this funding for our State and local crime labs.
Senator Sessions and I are both former prosecutors. We know
that especially today, if you don't have good labs, more than
adequate labs--you have really got to have the best--law
enforcement and the prosecutor are hampered.
Then Senator Ashcroft had been a cosponsor of this bill,
and then Senator Abraham was also a co-sponsor so if we go back
to those two Cabinet members, they might be able to convince
the President to put the money back in, along with Senator
Byrd, Chairman Hatch, Senator Cleland and Senator Durbin.
I have already requested the full $85 million in the
Appropriations Committee. Senator Harkin and I offered a $1.5
billion amendment to the Budget Act which would have part of
this.
I also notice that there is a vote, and I will put my whole
statement in the record, but if I could just be a tiny bit
parochial, and I want to mention this has probably never
happened in this Committee on matters that anybody has ever
been parochial, but let me talk about Vermont.
The Vermont Forensics Laboratory is currently operating in
the old Vermont State Hospital building in Waterbury, Vermont.
It is one of only two fully accredited forensics labs in all of
New England. In population, we are the smallest State in New
England, so I am proud of that, but it is trying to do 21st
century science in a 1940's building--very limited space with
no central climate control.
With an outdated facility and limited resources, the
scientists in Vermont are trying to overcome a heroin crisis in
my home State. Heroin cases have gone up 400 percent. It is a
heavy caseload, in addition to the usual demands on the crime
lab which serves 92 local, State and Federal law enforcement
organizations in Vermont.
I think they have done a superb job there, but if we could
fully fund the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences
Improvement Act, they could do much more. I know Dr. Eric Buel,
who is here, has done a great deal; in fact, he helped me when
we were putting together the bill.
So, Mr. Chairman, I will put my whole statement in the
record, but I join with you and Senator Hatch and so many
colleagues on both sides to make sure we get this through.
[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy follows:]
Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Vermont
I commend Chairman Hatch for calling this hearing on the Paul
Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act.
In the last Congress, I was proud to cosponsor this legislation,
named after our departed friend and colleague, to provide an infusion
of federal funds to enable state and local crime laboratories across
the nation to update their facilities and improve their crime-solving
abilities. Senator Sessions and I worked together to revise the bill's
funding formula to make it fair for all states. We reached bipartisan
consensus and Congress quickly passed the Paul Coverdell National
Forensic Science Improvement Act. President Clinton signed it into law
on December 21, 2000.
The Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act
authorizes $85 million in the upcoming fiscal year and $738 million
over the next six years for Department of Justice grants to help our
state crime labs. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration did not
request any funding for this new bipartisan law. I do not understand
why the Administration failed to request funding to help our state and
local crime labs. Forensics are the science of fighting crime, and we
cannot afford to under-use all the tools that modern technology offers
in helping us to continue to bring crime rates down after eight years
of progress. This is a particular mystery since Attorney General
Ashcroft, when he served in this body, was a cosponsor of the Paul
Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act.
I look forward to working with Chairman Hatch, Senator Byrd,
Senator Sessions, Senator Cleland, Senator Durbin and other strong
supporters of the Coverdell Act to fully fund our legislation. As a
senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have already
requested the full $85 million for the next fiscal year for the new
law.
During the debate on the budget resolution, Senator Harkin and I
offered an amendment to add $1.5 billion to the Department of Justice
account in FY 2002 to fund programs to assist state and local law
enforcement, including the Coverdell Act. The Senate unanimously
approved the Leahy-Harkin law enforcement budget amendment. The budget
resolution conference report, passed last Thursday by the Senate,
retained most of the funding increases in the Leahy-Harkin law
enforcement amendment so additional resources are available in the
Department of Justice budget to fully fund these investments in
forensic science.
Forensic science workloads have increased significantly over the
past five years, both in number and complexity. Since Congress
established the Combined DNA Index System in the mid1994s, States have
been busy collecting DNA samples from convicted offenders for analysis
and indexing.
But funding has simply not kept pace with this increasing demand,
and State crime laboratories are now seriously bottlenecked. Backlogs
have impeded the use of new technologies like DNA testing in solving
cases without suspects--and reexamining cases in which there are strong
claims of innocence--as laboratories are required to give priority
status to those cases in which a suspect is known.
In some parts of the country, investigators must wait several
months--and sometimes more than a year--to get DNA test results from
rape and other violent crime evidence. Solely for lack of funding,
critical evidence remains untested while rapists and killers remain at
large, victims continue to anguish, and statutes of limitation on
prosecution expire.
Let me describe the situation in my home state of Vermont. The
Vermont Forensics Laboratory is currently operating in the old Vermont
State Hospital building in Waterbury, Vermont. Though it is proudly one
of only two fully-accredited forensics labs in New England, it is
trying to do 21st Century science in a 1940s building. The lab has very
limited space and no central climate control -both essential conditions
for precise forensic science.
With an outdated facility and limited resources, the scientists at
the Vermont Forensic Laboratory are trying to overcome a heroin crisis
in my home state. In the last year alone, heroin cases in Vermont have
risen by 400 percent. This heavy caseload is in addition to the usual
demands on the crime lab, which serves 92 local, state and federal law
enforcement organizations in Vermont.
I commend the scientists and lab personnel at the Vermont Forensics
Laboratory for the fine work they do every day under difficult
circumstances. But the people of the State of Vermont deserve better.
Fully funding the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement
Act is our chance to provide them with the facilities and equipment
they deserve.
I look forward to the hearing the testimony today of Dr. Eric Buel,
the Director of the Vermont Forensic Laboratory, on the importance of
the Coverdell Act to states like Vermont, which desperately need
federal support to handle the increased workloads placed upon their
forensic science systems.
Today's hearing is about the need to fund the Paul Coverdell
Forensic Sciences Improvement Grants. But I want to say a few words
about another aspect of the same legislation. When the Senate took up
this legislation, I proposed and the Senate adopted a modest Sense of
Congress amendment. Among other things, this amendment calls on the
States to make post-conviction DNA testing more widely available.
In recent years, DNA testing has led to the exoneration of more
than 80 men and women who, for one reason or another, were prosecuted
and convicted of crimes that they did not commit. This number includes
at least 10 individuals who had been sentenced to death and in some
cases came within days of being executed. It also includes more than a
dozen cases in which the DNA tests not only exonerated an innocent
person but also helped identify the real perpetrator.
Just last week, a man named Jeffrey Todd Pierce was freed from
prison in Oklahoma as a result of DNA testing. He was convicted of rape
and served 15 years of a 65 year sentence based in large part on the
so-called ``expert'' testimony of a police chemist named Joyce
Gilchrist. She claimed that hair found at the crime scene was
``microscopically consistent'' with Jeffrey Pierce's hair. The DNA
tests proved that she was wrong.
The Pierce case may be just the tip of the iceberg. The FBI did a
little investigation into other cases involving the same police chemist
and concluded that she exaggerated her results not just once or even
twice, but repeatedly. Governor Keating has promised a review of all of
the felony cases in which she was involved--that is roughly 3,000
cases, including 23 in which the defendant was sentenced to death. The
odds are that Jeffrey Pierce was not the only innocent person who was
convicted in Oklahoma based on sloppy lab work.
I mention the Pierce case because he was released just last week.
But I could have pointed to many other cases in which people were
wrongly convicted because forensic specialists were incompetent or
because they fabricated or overstated test results to support the
prosecution's theory of the case. In 1997, we learned about major
problems at the FBI's crime labs, ranging from unqualified forensic
scientists to contamination of evidence and the doctoring of laboratory
reports. Before that, there were similar problems in various state
crime labs.
All this is to say two things. First, we need to fund the Paul
Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act, which will help
improve the quality and credibility of our nation's crime labs. Second,
we must honor our commitment to ensuring broader access to
postconviction DNA testing. Jeffrey Pierce is free today because, after
years of requesting a DNA test, without success, he was able to take
advantage of Oklahoma's new post-conviction DNA statute. But most
States have yet to act.
I look forward to hearing from Dr. Buel and our other witnesses
today about the importance of the Paul Coverdell National Forensic
Science Improvement Act.
Senator Sessions [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator
Leahy. You helped us move this bill forward. It will help labs
in Vermont, particularly, but it will help others all over the
country and it is important that we get the funding.
We had legislation that we were pleased to work on last
year to give a substantive tribute to and honor Paul Coverdell.
We named it after him following his untimely death, and it was
passed unanimously. Unfortunately that doesn't mean we have got
the money yet, and I am glad to know how strongly you feel
about it, and so do I.
I have talked to Attorney General Ashcroft and I think they
will give us a fair hearing, and I believe the facts are going
to indicate quite clearly that we need more funding for
laboratories. According to a report issued by the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, as of December 1997, 69 percent of crime
labs reported DNA backlogs in 6,800 cases and 287,000 convicted
offender samples.
In my home State of Alabama judges report that typically 25
percent of cases set for trial are delayed because of
incomplete forensic data. Sixty-six percent of drug cases are
rescheduled for the same reason.
As a former prosecutor, I know how dependent the criminal
justice system is on fast, accurate and dependable forensic
testing. With backlogs in the labs, the prosecutors are forced
to wait for months, even years, to pursue cases.
Let me just say, in my experience of over 15 years as a
prosecutor, I am absolutely convinced that the single most easy
fixed bottleneck in the criminal justice system is our
inability to fund forensic laboratories and an inability for
those laboratories to get reports back promptly to the
prosecutor. Justice delayed is justice denied. There is
something exceedingly unhealthy about arresting a person on a
plain case of drugs--maybe it is part of that heroin increase
that the Senator sees in Vermont--the defendant is arrested by
the police and you have to wait months or a year before the
case can go to trial because the chemist has not come forward
and has not had time to establish that it is, in fact, heroin.
The case cannot go to trial until that report is in.
So I believe we are dealing with a matter that impacts
criminal justice in America adversely in far more ways than we
know. I don't think our State legislatures are as attuned to it
as they should be, and I don't think the Congress has been as
attuned to it as it should be.
For a small amount of money, compared to what we spend on
so many other things, we can, by helping our forensic
laboratories, improve criminal justice more than almost
anything I can imagine. So I am excited about the legislation;
I think it is good.
I am also pleased that we are having this hearing. I thank
Senator Hatch for his leadership and commitment to it. We are
just going to have to battle as hard as we can to make sure
that we get the funding that this program requires.
At this point, we will insert into the record prepared
statements from Senator Thurmond and Senator Grassley.
[The prepared statements of Senators Thurmond and Grassley
follow:]
Statement of Hon. Strom Thurmond, A U.S. Senator from the State of
South Carolina
I am pleased that we are holding this hearing today regarding the
need for increased funding for America's crime laboratories.
As technology is revolutionizing the fight against crime, law
enforcement on all levels must increasingly rely on scientific
evidence. This is especially true regarding DNA evidence, which is the
most revolutionary development in law enforcement since fingerprinting.
The use of DNA has risen dramatically in the past decade, and is
becoming a routine part of criminal investigations.
Today, all states require certain violent criminals, especially sex
offenders, to provide DNA samples that can be matched in DNA databases
to help solve crimes. The more complete and integrated our DNA criminal
databases are throughout the country, the more violent crimes we can
solve.
However, DNA evidence must be processed to be of any benefit, and
the crime labs have not been able to analyze the samples as quickly as
they are collected. Today, there is a huge backlog in the states in
evaluating samples from offenders and from crime scenes. For example, a
1998 Department of Justice Report found that almost 70% of all crime
labs had a backlog that totaled 6,800 cases and 287,000 convicted
offender samples. It is very difficult for crime labs to eliminate
these backlogs, especially as the demand for their services is
increasing. Moreover, it is extremely expensive for crime labs to keep
up with advances in technology.
In recent years, the Congress has taken steps to help address the
lack of resources in our crime labs. But more needs to be done. Last
year, we passed the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences
Improvements Act, of which I was an original cosponsor. This
legislation authorized a total of over $400 million dollars over the
next four years to provide grants to states for facilities, equipment,
personnel, and other needs. It is critical that we allocate sufficient
funding in this Congress to help states in this area.
Resources for law enforcement has increased considerably in recent
years, but funding for crime labs has not kept pace. We must help our
crime labs keep up with the demand and meet the challenges of tomorrow.
This hearing will help us understand the needs of law enforcement as we
fight crime in a new century.
Statement of Hon. Charles E. Grassley, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Iowa
First, let me commend the fine work of the men and women in the
area of forensic science. Their ``behind the scenes'' work done in the
field and at our crime laboratories is rarely given the weight of
recognition commensurate with their contributions. While I applaud
these efforts, it should come as no surprise to most of you that I have
developed a healthy concern in this area through my oversight
experience with the FBI, and specifically with the FBI Crime Lab
problems in the late 90's. I share concerns that the serious backlogs
that exist at the labs and are being discussed today will result in
rushed and sloppy work. I continue to be deeply concerned about the
deplorable conduct uncovered at the FBI, such as lab contamination,
lack of quality assurance standards, mishandling of evidence,
testimonial errors, and the withholding of exculpatory evidence. I
would caution those who argue that funding is the panacea for all your
problems. I worry about organizations that foster a culture of
arrogance and seek to stifle dissent. I've seen, first-hand, what
happened at the FBI when a laboratory scientist came forward with
information on improper actions. These occurrences have resulted in
somewhat of a ``loss of innocence'' within this area of expertise. And
it has been disturbing to learn that what was previously thought to be
an irrefutable and impartial opinion isn't necessarily the case. While
I understand that these may be exceptional occurrences, it has also
been discomforting to see that many state and local agencies are not
immune to this type of conduct. So, without appropriate and ongoing
training, management, and oversight, a fullyfunded program is no better
off than it was before because the truth is not being served.
Senator Sessions. Senator Leahy, the lights are not going,
but we are on a vote now. Is that correct?
Senator Leahy. The first lights are on. Do you want to just
go ahead and start?
Senator Sessions. Well, we might start, I think, with our
first panel and we will get as far as we can go.
Let me introduce to you our first panel, and the record we
will establish here today we will utilize as we talk with the
appropriators and the full Congress as we seek to justify the
funding this program needs.
Our first witness is Dr. David Boyd, the Deputy Director of
the National Institute of Justice, in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Keith Coonrod, with the New York State Police Forensic
Science Investigation Center in Albany, New York, is here today
in his capacity as Chairman of the Consortium of Forensic
Science Organizations, as well as the President of the American
Society of Crime Laboratory Directors.
Congratulations on those honors.
Mr. William Peterson is co-producer and star of the new hit
CBS prime time television series ``CSI: Crime Scene
Investigation.'' In its debut season, ``CSI'' was the only new
show to be nominated for a Golden Globe honor, and won a TV
Guide award for the best new show of the season.
Congratulations, Mr. Peterson. We will be delighted to hear
from you.
Senator Leahy. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that everybody
who has to run a lab in the country is jealous of the lab on
that show, which I think Mr. Peterson is going to point out.
Mr. Peterson. Very true.
Senator Sessions. Dr. Boyd?
STATEMENT OF DAVID G. BOYD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE
OF JUSTICE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Boyd. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Senator Leahy,
and thank you for this opportunity to testify today. I also
serve as the Director of the Office of Science and Technology
for the National Institute of Justice, which is the research
and evaluation arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, and we
provide the principal funding for R and D for the forensic
sciences in the United States.
Forensic scientists working in the more than 300 public
crime laboratories across the Nation have the scientifically
challenging responsibility of discovering as much about the
evidence left at a crime scene as possible. But as a recent
RAND report pointed out, this job is made more difficult by
huge case backlogs which makes it hard or impossible for
laboratories to perform the timely analyses that could shorten
investigations.
Further, budgetary constraints suppress their ability to
modernize or upgrade equipment. Yet, recent court decisions are
forcing forensic scientists to reevaluate, and in some cases
augment both the science and the implementation upon which
their results are based.
Addressing these needs has been the focus of several
programs at NIJ. One of these, the $40 million DNA Laboratory
Improvement Program, has already increased the number of DNA-
capable laboratories in the United States from fewer than a
dozen in 1996 to more than 130 separate laboratory facilities
in all 50 States by the end of last year.
But 95 percent of the laboratory directors surveyed in the
RAND report indicated that the single greatest need was for a
qualified, properly educated workforce for the laboratories. We
have accordingly begun the creation of a technical working
group of forensic practitioners, educators, trainers and others
to formulate a standardized curriculum for undergraduate and
graduate forensic science majors to ensure a relevant knowledge
base for those entering the forensic workforce.
The Forensic DNA Research and Development Program has been
providing enhancements to existing methods, techniques and
technologies, as well as creating new tools for the future of
DNA evidence.
Current projects aim to reduce the risk of loss of crucial
evidence to equipment failures; to develop a mitochondrial DNA
screening method that allows labs to examine old, degraded, or
very small evidence samples without resorting to expensive and
technically demanding DNA sequencing methods; develop high-
throughout, low-cost mass spectrometry instrumentation and to
exploit nanotechnology for forensic applications.
We expect the first forensic nanotechnology project, a DNA
chip with all 13 of the required genetic markers for
databasing, to be in the hands of practitioners for evaluation
by October of this year. This chip can produce a reliable
result in under 10 minutes, instead of the several hours
currently required, thus saving thousands of analyst-years of
productivity. This chip may even eventually offer new ways to
use DNA earlier in investigations.
The forensic workforce is so severely constrained that it
is simply not possible for them to work harder, so we have to
find ways to help them work smarter. Accordingly, this year's
non-DNA general forensic solicitation will fund projects that
can increase the sensitivity, speed, or reliability of
traditional forensic methods in areas such as trace evidence,
latent prints, toxicology, controlled substances, and other
forensic techniques.
But new technologies, methods and techniques can help to
achieve better productivity only when laboratories have the
time and ability to thoughtfully evaluate and validate them. As
the RAND report notes, the laboratories are so overwhelmed by a
lack of human resources that infusion of new technology is
incredibly difficult, at best. These circumstances make the
need to support crime laboratory improvement paramount before
these critical gains through technology transfer can be made.
I have spent much of my testimony describing our successes
in transferring the application of DNA to state and local
forensic laboratories. But it is important to remember that DNA
comprises less than 3 percent of the type of evidence needed by
the criminal justice system.
Controlled substances represent fully 54 percent of cases
and are the most frequently examined evidence, followed by
latent prints, blood alcohol and toxicology. The Coverdell
Act's attention to all types of forensic lab improvement rather
than just DNA is one of its greatest strengths.
It is imperative that we work to create an environment
where crime laboratories can function beyond case triage and
start performing the work that will save the entire criminal
justice system time and resources. It is that critical
investigative stage where forensic analyses can rule out
suspects, direct leads with real data, and help solve crimes
more quickly and more accurately than canvassing and eyewitness
interviews that require the use of already overburdened
investigators.
Supporting the full modernization and upgrading of our
Nation's crime laboratories means more than just saving time
and money; it means saving lives, stopping crimes, and
promoting public safety in a very real, tangible way. We
believe we have made great progress in enhancing the ability of
public crime labs to analyze many types of forensic evidence,
and we believe that the provisions outlined in the Coverdell
Act will help us build on that important work.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Boyd follows:]
Statement of David G. Boyd, Director, Office of Science and Technology,
Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice
Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today orr this important issue. My name is David
Boyd. I am the Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice and
the Director of its Office of Science and Technology. NIJ is the
research and evaluation arm of the Justice Department. My office, the
Office of Science and Technology, works to explore technology and other
resources that could be used by law enforcement officials to solve and
prosecute crimes.
NIJ believes it has made great progress in enhancing the ability of
public crime labs to improve their capacities to analyze many types of
forensic evidence. We believe that the provisions outlined in the Paul
Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-
561), if funded, will help us build on that important work.
DNA and other types of forensic evidence are valuable tools that
investigators, prosecutors, and other law enforcement officials use in
this manner. It is the job of forensic scientists working in the more
than 300 public crime laboratories across the nation to reveal as much
about the evidence as possible. This job, already a scientifically
challenging endeavor, is made more difficult by the restrictions faced
by virtually all of the public crime laboratories. A recent RAND
report, Challenges and Choices for CrimeFighting Technology, pointed
out that public crime laboratories face huge casework backlogs, forcing
them to prioritize work according to upcoming court dates, and making
it difficult for them to perform the timely analyses that might aid or
shorten investigations. Further, budgetary constraints suppress their
ability to modernize or upgrade equipment, yet recent court decisions
are forcing forensic scientists to reevaluate and, in some cases,
augment both the science and the implementation upon which their
results are based.
The needs faced by the public crime labs have been the subject of
several important programs at the National Institute of Justice over
the last six years. The first of these programs, the DNA Laboratory
Improvement Program, a $40 million initiative meant to improve the
capabilities and capacities of our nation's crime laboratories to
implement and conduct forensic DNA analysis, has already shown
significant and easily measurable results. When the program began in
1996, under the authority of the 1994 DNA Identification Act, fewer
than a dozen states had the capability to perform forensic DNA testing.
By the end of FY 2000, more than 130 separate laboratory facilities had
DNA capabilities. Many of these laboratories were able to use federal
funds to leverage their laboratories' priorities with their own state
legislatures. A number of states responded to NIJ's encouragement to
form consortiums across their state and local laboratories to make more
efficient use of funding and services.
An outgrowth of the DNA Laboratory Improvement program has been the
Crime Laboratory Improvement Program (CLIP), developed to aid all
facets of public crime laboratories, because DNA evidence is applicable
in a small portion of crimes. For most crimes, in addition to DNA,
other kinds of evidence must also be collected, analyzed, and
explained.
Important gains have been made in several areas that will improve
the capacity and capability of all public crime labs. One effort that
addresses what many believe is the most critical need in the crime
laboratory community is the creation of a Technical Working Group (TWG)
of forensic practitioners, educators, trainers, and others to formulate
a standardized curriculum for undergraduate and graduate forensic
science majors to ensure a relevant knowledge base for those entering
the forensic work force. Training, education, and human resource issues
are those cited as the most critical need by more than 95 percent of
the crime laboratory directors responding to the RAND survey.
NIJ is also undertaking the development of a Forensic Resource
Network that will be accessible to the forensic community to assist in
quality assurance, validation and evaluation, new technologies, and
surplus property distribution. We believe our experience with the DNA
Laboratory Improvement Program demonstrates that CLIP will have as
significant an impact in upgrading non-DNA forensic applications as the
DNA Laboratory Improvement Program had on DNA forensics for our nation.
NIJ has had great success in working to assist labs to address critical
issues and develop meaningful proposals that include measurable long-
term goals, and deliverables that will have important consequences for
bettering their productivity, capacities, and capabilities beyond the
life of the grant. The Coverdell Act's provision calling for state
plans to be developed prior to funds being released to a state should
help to continue this important aspect of laboratory improvement.
Finally, there is the Forensic DNA Research and Development
Program, which has been providing enhancements to existing methods,
techniques, and technologies, as well as creating new tools for the
future of DNA evidence. Such technological innovations were identified
in a report by a working group of the National Commission on the Future
of DNA Evidence as important in enhancing the value of DNA in solving
and preventing crime. Some of the program's $5 million annual budget is
used to develop technologies and techniques that will immediately
improve the use of DNA in today's laboratories. One such improvement
allows laboratories to predict instrumentation failures before they
occur, thus reducing arbitrary laboratory shut-downs and the risk of
loss of crucial evidence. Another example is the development of a
mitochondrial DNA screening method that allows labs to examine old,
degraded, or very small evidence samples without resorting to the
expensive and technically demanding DNA sequencing methods needed
beyond the screening stage. The program also supports future
improvements such as high throughput, low cost mass spectrometry
instrumentation and the exploitation of nanotechnology for forensic
applications.
We expect the first forensic DNA chip with all 13 of the required
genetic markers for data basing to be in the hands of the practitioners
for evaluation by October 2001. This chip, under development at MIT's
Whitehead Institute of Technology, uses standard, commercially
available reagents with a capillary electrophoresis format, but instead
of the several hours currently required to analyze a sample, the chip
can perform the same task and produce a reliable result in under 10
minutes. This type of instrumentation can save many thousands of man-
years of productivity when it is implemented in our nation's labs and
may eventually offer new ways to use DNA earlier in investigations.
Increases in productivity such as these are a crucial need in
forensic laboratories today. The forensic workforce is so severely
constrained that it is simply not possible for them to work harder, so
we must find ways to help them to work smarter. This is also the goal
of NIJ's current non-DNA general forensics solicitation, which will
fund projects that can increase the sensitivity, speed, or reliability
of traditional forensic methods in areas such as trace evidence, latent
prints, toxicology, controlled substances, and other forensic areas.
But new technologies, methods, and techniques can help to achieve
better productivity only when laboratories have the time and ability to
thoughtfully evaluate and validate them. As the RAND report notes, the
laboratories are so overwhelmed by a lack of human resources that
infusion of new technology is incredibly difficult at best. These
circumstances make the need to support crime laboratory improvement
paramount before these critical gains through technology transfer can
be made.
I've spent much of my testimony describing our successes in
transferring the application of DNA to state and local forensic labs.
But it is important to remember that DNA comprises less than 3 percent
of the type of evidence needed by the criminal justice system. The
attached table shows that, far and away, controlled substances (fully
54 percent of cases) are the most frequently examined evidence,
followed by latent prints, blood alcohol, and toxicology. The Coverdell
Act's attention to all types of forensic lab improvement, not just DNA,
is one of its most obvious strengths and comports with NIJ's expansion
to include all types of forensic lab improvement.
It is interesting to note that if labs could modernize their
equipment and, as just one example, add autosamplers to recent model
mass spectrometers (a total investment of approximately $3,000 for the
autosamples and about $90,000 for a decent recent model mass
spectrometer), they could double the number of controlled substances
they examined on each machine, but actually decrease the manpower
needed. That manpower could then be devoted to other types of analyses
that could actually aid in the ongoing investigation of crimes, rather
than just at the prosecution stage.
It is imperative that we work to create an environment where crime
laboratories can function beyond case triage and start performing the
work that will save the entire criminal justice system time and
resources. It is that critical investigative stage where forensic
analyses can rule out suspects, direct leads with real data, and help
solve crimes more quickly and more accurately than canvassing and
eyewitness interviews that requires the use of already overburdened
investigators. Supporting the full modernization and upgrading of our
nation's crime laboratories means more than just saving time and money.
It means saving lives, stopping crimes, and promoting public safety in
a very real, tangible way.
That concludes my remarks. I'd be happy to answer any question you
may have.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Dr. Boyd.
We have got a great panel to hear. I think the vote is
about over and it will take me about 7 minutes to go and vote.
So if you don't mind, we will temporarily recess and start back
as soon as we do that, and perhaps Senator Leahy can be back by
that time also.
Thank you. We will be recessed and return shortly.
[The Committee stood in recess from 2:33 p.m. to 2:49 p.m.]
Senator Sessions. We will get started again, and I
apologize again for--I guess they pay us to vote around here,
and hold us accountable sometimes for it, too.
Next will be Mr. Keith Coonrod, from the New York Police
Forensic Science Investigation Center there in Albany, who also
is here as Chairman of the Consortium of Forensic Science
Organizations, as well as President of the American Society of
Laboratory Directors. That is a mouthful, but they are
important duties.
We are glad to have you, Keith.
STATEMENT OF KEITH K. COONROD, CHAIR, CONSORTIUM OF FORENSIC
SCIENCE ORGANIZATIONS, ALBANY, NEW YORK
Mr. Coonrod. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
the Committee. I would like to thank the Senate Judiciary
Committee for this opportunity to provide testimony here today
regarding the needs of our forensic laboratories and the strong
support shown by the Committee in passage of two very important
pieces of legislation last year--the Coverdell National
Forensic Sciences Improvement Act and the DNA Backlog
Elimination Act.
My name is Keith Coonrod. I am currently employed by the
New York State Police as Director of Toxicology, Drug
Chemistry, Trace and Breath Testing, in our forensic laboratory
system. I am here as Chair of the Consortium of Forensic
Science Organizations, which is comprised of seven leading
forensic organizations. These include the American Society of
Crime Laboratory Directors, known as ASCLD, which represents
over 400 crime laboratory managers and directors, of which I am
currently president; the American Society of Crime Laboratory
Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board, known as ASCLD/LAB,
which is the accrediting body for forensic crime laboratories,
for which I am currently an ex officio member of the board of
directors, and have been team captain responsible for many
inspections of laboratories undergoing the accreditation
process; the International Association for Identification,
known as IAI, which is the oldest and largest forensic
identification association in the world; the American Academy
of Forensic Sciences, known as AAFS, which is a professional
organization representing numerous forensic specialties such as
criminalists, engineering sciences, jurisprudence, odontology,
pathology and biology, physical anthropology, psychiatry and
behavioral sciences, questioned documents, toxicology, and
multi-disciplinary general section; the National Association of
Medical Examiners, known as NAME, which represents medical
examiners, coroners and other physicians who conduct death
investigations; the National Forensic Science Technology
Center, known as NFSTC, which is dedicated to assisting
forensic science facilities to achieve the highest quality of
operations; and the National Center for Forensic Science, known
as NCFS, which represents research, education, training tools
and technology to meet the needs of forensic science,
investigative and criminal justice agencies.
While the public thinks of forensics as DNA, it is
essential that the Committee understand that it is just one of
many tools available to the criminal justice community by our
forensic laboratories. While DNA is indeed an important
discipline, forensic science is more broadly defined as the
examination of evidence submitted by criminal justice agencies
to forensic laboratories for the purpose of determining how
that evidence pertains to the law and/or the courts.
Forensic laboratories support the criminal justice
community by offering services in clandestine laboratory
investigations, explosives analysis, controlled substances
analysis, firearms examinations, alcohol analysis, toolmark
examinations, toxicology, impression evidence, arson analysis,
trace evidence examinations, death investigations, digital
evidence, physical match, crime scene investigations training,
as well as biological examinations, including DNA.
However, as you know, the use of forensic science by the
criminal justice system has increased dramatically over the
past several years, but our funding has not. We find ourselves
in a situation where we are unable to keep up with the demands
of the system, and unfortunately many cases are either held up
because we cannot deliver evidence on time or, worst yet, the
prosecutor goes to court without the proper information from
the forensic laboratory.
It is an unfortunate reality that with the staggering
backlogs, not all cases submitted to our Nation's laboratories
will be examined. Laboratories must decide which cases they
will analyzed.
Recently, the American Society of Crime Laboratory
Directors completed a study to determine those resources that
forensic laboratories need to adequately support our Nation's
criminal justice community with the quality examination of
evidence in a timely manner.
Forensic crime laboratory managers and directors were asked
to provide an accounting of resources needed to provide quality
analysis in a timely manner. A timely manner was defined as 30
days, unless shorter timeframes were required by a particular
State statute.
We actually don't know how many forensic laboratories exist
in the United States, as many facilities never before
considered as crime laboratories are now providing forensic
examinations in one or more forensic disciplines and should be
included. Therefore, these results are based on a very
conservative estimation of 500 forensic facilities throughout
the United States.
We conducted the study by surveying 224 crime laboratories.
The results show that an additional 9,000 forensic scientists
are needed to properly staff our laboratories. An additional
$1.3 billion is needed for adequate laboratory facilities, and
$285 million is needed to purchase the equipment necessary to
conduct analysis of submitted evidence. More than 26 percent of
our Nation's crime laboratories do not even have basic
laboratory management systems which assist laboratories in
documenting the chain of custody of their evidence.
The reality of the situation is that a budget of $35
million to improve our Nation's crime laboratories, divided
among 50 States, would mean an average of $700,000 per State,
or $70,000 per laboratory.
Mr. Chairman, a crucial piece of scientific instrumentation
called the gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer, which is the
backbone in a forensic laboratory utilized to analyze a simple
drug case, costs the laboratory $100,000.
The need to hire 9,000 forensic scientists would cost the
Nation's laboratories more than $650 million. Additional
laboratories rely on mentoring relationships to train new
forensic scientists, and this requires that the laboratory
utilize their limited resources of seasoned forensic scientists
and equipment for training purposes instead of actual case
work.
If the Chairman would like, I can submit the rest of
presentation in written form.
Senator Sessions. That would be great. We appreciate that
very much.
Mr. Coonrod. Thank you.
Senator Sessions. You made some stunning disclosures there
about what it really takes to get us up to where we need to be.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coonrod follows:]
Statement of Keith Kenneth Coonrod, Chair of the Consortium of Forensic
Science Organizations
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank the Senate Judiciary Committee for this
opportunity to provide testimony here today regarding the needs of our
forensic laboratories and the strong support shown by the committee in
passage of two very important pieces of legislation last year - The
Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act and the DNA Backlog
Elimination Act.
My Name is Keith Coonrod and I am currently employed by the New
York State Police as Director of Toxicology, Drug Chemistry, Trace and
Breath Testing in the forensic laboratory system. I am here as the
chair of the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations which is
comprised of 7 leading forensic organizations. These include:
the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors
(ASCLD) which represents over 400 crime laboratory managers/
directors - I am currently President;
the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/
Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) which is the
accrediting body for forensic crime laboratories for which I am
currently an ex-officio member of the Board of Directors and
have been Team Captain responsible for many inspections of
laboratories undergoing the accreditation process;
the International Association for Identification (IAI)
which is the oldest and largest forensic identification
association in the world;
the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) which
is a professional organization representing numerous forensic
specialties such as: Criminalistics; Engineering Sciences;
Jurisprudence; Odontology; Pathology and Biology; Physical
Anthropology; Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences; Questioned
Documents; Toxicology and a Multi-disciplinary General Section;
the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME)
which represents medical examiners, coroners and other
physicians who conduct death investigations;
the National Forensic Science Technology Center
(NFSTC) which is dedicated to assisting forensic science
facilities to achieve the highest quality of operations; and
the National Center for Forensic Science (NCFS) which
provides research, education, training, tools and technology to
meet the needs of forensic science, investigative, and criminal
justice agencies.
While the public thinks of forensics as DNA, it is essential that
the committee understand that this is just one of many tools available
to the criminal justice community by our forensic laboratories.
While DNA is indeed an important discipline, Forensic Science is
more broadly defined as the examination of evidence submitted by
criminal justice agencies to forensic laboratories for the purpose of
determining how that evidence pertains to the law and/or courts.
Forensic laboratories support the criminal justice community by
offering services in Clandestine Laboratory Investigations, Explosive
Analysis, Controlled Substance Analysis, Firearms Examinations, Alcohol
Analysis, Toolmark Examinations, Toxicology, Impression Evidence, Arson
Analysis, Trace Evidence Examinations, Death Investigations, Digital
Imaging, Physical Match, Crime Scene Investigations, Training as well
as Biological Examinations including DNA.
However, as you know, the use of forensic science by the criminal
justice system has increased dramatically over the past several years
but our funding has not. We find ourselves in a situation where we are
unable to keep up with the demands of the system and unfortunately,
many cases are either held up because we cannot deliver evidence on
time or worse yet, the prosecutor goes to court without the proper
information from the forensic laboratory. It is an unfortunate reality
with the staggering backlogs that not all cases submitted to our
nation's laboratories will be examined. Laboratories must decide which
cases they will analyze.
Recently the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors
completed a study to determine those resources that forensic
laboratories need to adequately support our nation's Criminal Justice
Community with quality examinations of evidence in a timely manner.
Forensic Crime Laboratory Managers and Directors were asked to provide
an accounting of resources needed to provide quality analysis in a
timely manner. A timely manner was defined as 30 days unless shorter
time frames where required by a particular state's statute.
We actually don't know how many forensic laboratories exist in the
United States as many facilities never before considered as crime
laboratories are now providing forensic examinations in one or more
forensic disciplines and therefore, should be included. Therefore,
these results are based on a very conservative estimation of 500
forensic facilities throughout the United States. We conducted our
study by surveying 224 Crime Laboratories.
The survey results show that an additional 9,000 forensic
scientists are needed to properly staff our laboratories, an additional
$1.3 billion is needed for adequate laboratory facilities and $285
Million is needed to purchase the equipment necessary to conduct
analysis of submitted evidence. More than 26% of our nation's crime
laboratories do not even have basic Laboratory Management Systems
(LIMS) which assist laboratories in documenting the chain-of-custody of
their evidence.
The reality of the situation is that a budget of $35 million to
improve our nation's crime laboratories divided among 50 states would
mean an average of $700,000 per state or $70,000 per laboratory. Mr.
Chainnan a crucial piece of scientific instrumentation called the Gas
Chromatograph--Mass Spectrometer, which is the backbone in a forensic
crime laboratory utilized to analyze a simple drug case, cost the
laboratory $100,000!
The need to hire 9,000 additional forensic scientists would cost
the nation's laboratories more than $650 million. Additionally,
laboratories rely on mentoring relationships to train new forensic
scientists. This requires that the laboratory utilize their limited
resources of seasoned forensic scientists and equipment for training
purposes instead of actual casework.
To address this issue, regional forensic training centers need to
be established in strategic locations utilizing existing talents and
staff of universities in conjunction with local forensic laboratories.
Many forensic laboratories have already started working with existing
universities in addressing these needs. Discussions are already
occurring between universities and crime laboratories in states such as
Illinois, Florida, Virginia, West Virginia, California and New York.
Finally, less than \1/2\ of all crime laboratories in the United
States are ASCLD/LAB accredited. The quality of forensic analysis
conducted in our nation's crime laboratories is paramount. Quality
analysis can be achieved by utilizing the current ASCLD/LAB
accreditation process for those laboratories that are not currently
accredited. Laboratories that accept money from the Coverdell National
Forensic Improvement Act that are not accredited must achieve
accreditation within 2 years. However, ASCLD/LAB currently does not
have the infrastructure to handle this potential wave of applicants and
would have to shift the substantial cost of accrediting these
facilities to those laboratories already accredited unless ASCLD/LAB
receives funding needed to offset these bridging costs.
As my concluding remarks Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the
committee for allowing me to share with them the facts regarding the
desperate needs of our forensic laboratories who provide valuable
support to our criminal justice community. I thank this committee for
their strong support in passage of the Coverdell National Forensic
Science Improvement Act and urge your continued support in obtaining
adequate funding and appropriation for this law.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Petersen, we are delighted to hear
from you, and thank you very much for taking time out of your
busy day to be with us.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM PETERSEN, ACTOR, VALENCIA, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Petersen. Thank you so much, Senator, for inviting me.
I feel completely honored to be able to address this
distinguished group.
I am here to speak to you on behalf of a television show
that highlights crime-solving technology. As a result of my
role in the CBS crime drama series ``CSI,'' I began to research
the field of forensic science and became fascinated with it.
Each week, our 23 million viewers find forensic science
equally fascinating. What motivates these viewers to tune into
``CSI'' is the believe that as Americans, I think they know
that our criminal justice system is about the truth, and I
believe they find comfort in the fact that the evidence is
ultimately the essence of that truth.
The forensic laboratory that my character, Gil Grissom,
inhabits is one that knows no budget constraints nor budget
cuts. It has adequate space and funding for every technological
advance imaginable. We have a sufficient number of expertly
trained employees to solve every crime that we encounter. We
have few, if any, backlogged cases.
My ``CSI'' lab processes evidence and solves crimes in the
mere 44 minutes of screen time allotted to us by our network.
My character's lab is a technological wonder and absolutely
state-of-the-art. But unfortunately we all know that this is
not the reality of the approximately 500 crime labs and
coroners' labs across our country. Their reality is quite
different than the manufactured world of my character and of
``CSI.''
Our country's crime labs are faced with a plethora of
problems. Caseloads have grown faster than funding and their
backlogs are constantly expanding. Many labs have outdated
facilities and equipment. They have to operate with an
insufficient number of qualified personnel and outmoded
technology to conduct the analyses that are so vital to our
criminal justice system.
For every 44 minutes that ``CSI'' spends solving a crime on
Thursday nights, 44 days, 44 weeks, sometimes 44 months are
spent by real victims and suspects waiting to receive the
truth. ``CSI'' restores people's belief in America's system of
justice before they go to bed that night, but in reality it is
frequently weeks, months, and sometimes years that the innocent
are held hostage and the guilty roam free while evidence sits
untouched in our Nation's overburdened crime labs.
Recently, the media has focused some attention on the
failures of certain individuals in the forensic community.
These scientists are the exception rather than the rule. As I
am sure each of you would agree, we must never let the
misguided behavior of any one person taint the dignity and
honor of a whole profession.
The forensic scientists I have met are dedicated
professionals committed to objectivity. They are advocates for
the truth. They recognize the consequences that their analyses
and decisions can have on both the accused and the victim. They
need and want the tools and training that are so vital to
keeping the scales of justice level.
In conclusion, let me say that I am deeply committed to
this issue and I recognize the needs of the laboratories doing
this important work. I want them to have help and I completely
and wholeheartedly support the efforts of our forensic
scientists and the funding of the Paul Coverdell National
Forensic Sciences Improvement Act.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to express my beliefs.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Petersen follows:]
Statement of William Petersen, CSI, Actor, Valencia, California
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am greatly
honored to have been invited to address such a distinguished group. I
am here to speak to you on behalf of a television show that highlights
crime solving technology. As a result of my role in the CBS dramatic
series, CSI, I began to research the field of forensic science and
became fascinated with it. Weekly, twenty three million viewers find
forensic science just as fascinating. What motivates these viewers to
tune in to CSI is the belief that, as Americans, our criminal justice
system is about the truth, and they find comfort in the fact that the
evidence is, ultimately, the essence of that truth.
The Forensic Laboratory that my character, Gil Grissom, inhabits is
one that knows no budget constraints or budget cuts, that has adequate
space for every technological advance imaginable, that has sufficient
employees to solve every crime that we encounter, and has no backlogs.
The CSI lab processes evidence and solves crimes in a mere 44 minutes
allotted to a network program. My character's lab is a technological
wonder and state of the art. But, we all know that this is not the
reality of the approximately 450 crime labs and coroner's labs across
our country. Their reality is quite different than the manufactured
world of my character and CSI.
Labs across the country are faced with a myriad of problems.
Caseloads have grown faster than funding and backlogs are expanding.
Many labs have outdated facilities and equipment and an insufficient
number of qualified personnel to conduct the analyses that are so vital
to our criminal justice system. For every 44 minutes that CSI spends
solving crime, 44 days, 44 weeks, or 44 months are spent by victims and
suspects waiting to receive the truth. CSI restores people's belief in
the criminal justice system before they go to bed at night, but in
reality it is frequently weeks, months, and sometimes years, that the
innocent are held hostage and the guilty roam free, while evidence sits
untouched in overburdened labs.
Recently the media has focused some attention on the failures of
several in the forensic community. These scientists are the exception,
rather than the rule. As I am sure you would agree, we cannot let the
behavior of any one taint the whole profession. The forensic scientists
that I have met are dedicated professionals committed to objectivity--
they are advocates for the truth. They recognize the consequences that
their analyses and decisions can have on both the accused and the
victim--they need and want the tools and training that are so vital to
keeping the scales of justice level.
In conclusion, let me say that I am deeply committed to this issue
and recognize the needs of the laboratories doing this important work.
I support the efforts of the forensic scientists and the funding of the
Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act. And again,
thank you for providing me with the opportunity to express my beliefs
before this esteemed Committee.
Senator Sessions. Thank you very much. That was a good
presentation from one not in the system and it is good to hear
that. I do think that the American people do like the pursuit
of truth. They do like the idea that we know something with
relative certainty and can determine that scientifically.
Do you think that is part of the charm or the lure of the
program that you have?
Mr. Petersen. I absolutely do. I don't want to analyze the
last 25 years of culture and society here in America, but I
believe that we are at a place in time where certainly our show
has come at the right time and place for a very, very large
amount of the American population. And I think it is that
certainty; I think it is the idea of knowing something
absolutely.
My character on the show often says, you know, people lie.
Whether they intend to lie or whether they forget something or
they thought they saw something that they didn't see, they end
up ultimately being lies and very difficult to deal with in any
sort of legal situation.
The great thing about our forensic scientists in this
country is that they are able to say, no, that couldn't have
happened because of this, that and this. And I think that is
one of the true points of why our show has been so successful
because it is what all of these crime lab directors and their
associates manage to do with evidence that makes the
difference.
Senator Sessions. Well, in my experience as a prosecutor of
15 years, I never had a problem with good scientific evidence.
In those years, I have seen two or three instances of a
wrongful identification where a witness literally believed that
was the person they identified as robbing them. But I have
never seen a fingerprint turn out not to be true or a chemical
analysis not come back in the right way.
Perhaps because of the shows and Patricia Cornwell books
and other things, people do expect good scientific evidence.
They expect that the professionals who are doing that have had
time and equipment, and so forth, to get the job done
correctly.
Dr. Boyd, do you have any indication or numbers of how much
increase there has been in the demand for forensic analyses to
be done in the last, say, decade?
Mr. Boyd. I don't know that we can give you specific
numbers. What I can tell you is that it is very clear, based on
what has been happening in the courts especially with DNA and
other things, that DNA evidence is clearly expected in those
cases when it is actually available.
I think we can take for granted that the success, kind of
the gold standard of DNA, has made the American public and the
courts generally expect there to be more scientific evidence,
for it to be better analyzed and for it to be more positive
than has been the case, I think, in the past.
I think there is an assumption that if it is available, it
ought to be used, and quite literally a demand. I think juries
expect to see it, I think judges expect to see it, I think the
public expects to see it.
Senator Sessions. I think you are correct. I know when I
first began prosecuting you would have a witness to testify
that they bought cocaine from the defendant. Then we used audio
and video recordings of the drug bust. So I think the juries
expect more, and you just can't go into a trial with DNA from
two samples and not all 20 drops of blood or whatever is on the
scene.
Mr. Boyd. I think one particular point to make is that we
know in drug cases one of the first things you have to do is
prove what the drug is. So all we have to do is look at the
number of drug cases and we can take that as just one part of
the growth because every drug case entails a laboratory
analysis.
Senator Sessions. Well, as I believe you indicated, 54
percent are drug cases, and that is a big part of the bread-
and-butter work that just needs to be done in a timely fashion.
Senator Feingold, we are glad you can join us, and I know
you may have other things, but I would defer to you at this
time. Thank you for coming. You may make a statement or ask
questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will make a
couple of remarks and ask a question or two. I regret that I
couldn't be here earlier. I very much appreciate the witnesses
being here.
I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, and our distinguished
ranking member, Senator Leahy, for holding the hearing. I am
very pleased to see this Committee once again address the need
for improving the tools for seeking the truth in our criminal
justice system.
Last year, we had a very informative and lively hearing
about post-conviction DNA testing, and I was a cosponsor last
year and am proud to be a cosponsor again this year of Senator
Leahy's bill that will ensure access to post-conviction DNA
testing, the so-called Innocence Protection Act.
DNA testing of biological material has played an incredible
role in the pursuit of truth and justice. DNA testing has
identified perpetrators or provided other important probative
value to the police and prosecutors who are investigating a
crime. But DNA testing has also further exposed what you might
say is a piece of the dark underbelly of our criminal justice
system, the conviction and sentencing of innocent people for
crimes they did not commit.
All Americans are becoming increasingly familiar with the
stories of people wrongfully convicted, sentenced and sent to
prison finally walking free as a result of DNA testing.
Nationwide, scores of innocent people have been able to walk
free, and the value of this test is even more poignant, of
course, for those sitting on death row.
Since the reinstatement of the modern death penalty, ten
death row inmates have been exonerated as a result of DNA
testing. While DNA has unlocked the prison doors for many
innocent people, it has also led us to the real perpetrator.
Mr. Chairman, our State crime labs play an important role
in identifying, receiving, handling, testing and storing the
biological evidence that is subject to DNA testing. In addition
to DNA testing, they, of course, conduct other aspects of
forensic science, like hair analysis, fingerprint analysis and
ballistics identification and imaging. The Federal Government
can provide meaningful support and resources to assist crime
labs with meeting these needs.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that our late
colleague, Senator Coverdell, championed the need for
additional resources for our State crime labs, and I am very
pleased that you, Senator Sessions, have continued Senator
Coverdell's work. I am glad that this bill was signed into law
and I hope our State crime labs get the resources they need.
Let me ask a question of all of you with a bit of material
at the beginning and then you can just take it where you wish.
As you are all aware, Joyce Gilchrist, an Oklahoma City
crime lab scientist, has been accused of shoddy lab work, or
even falsifying test results and testifying falsely on the
stand. Over a 15-year period, it is believed that she was
involved in hundreds of felony convictions, including 11 in
which the defendant was executed and 12 in which the defendant
is currently on death row.
Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating has said he is confident
not a single innocent person has been executed. I don't see how
he can be so confident, given that a full review of all cases
in which she was involved is only just beginning. In fact, just
last week Oklahoma released Jeff Pierce from prison after
serving 15 years of a 65-year sentence for a rape he did not
commit, and Joyce Gilchrist testified falsely in his case that
hair taken from the crime scene matched hair samples taken from
Mr. Pierce.
Mr. Pierce's lawyers had argued that Ms. Gilchrist had
overstated the certainty with which hair comparisons could be
used to identify a single person. As if this was not serious
enough, Ms. Gilchrist then violated a court order by failing to
forward the hair evidence to a private lab hired by the
defense. The evidence she did send leaked out of the package;
it could not be analyzed. This meant the defense could not
fully analyze the evidence before trial.
The State appeals court said that, while she violated the
court order, her failure to turn over the evidence was
insufficient to overturn the conviction. It was not until Mr.
Pierce was able to test certain biological evidence with modern
DNA testing that he finally won his release and walked out of
prison a free man just last week.
On Friday, May 11, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld of the
Innocence Project writing in the New York Times suggested that
we should place quality assurance standards on forensic labs in
the same way that we do on medical testing labs. They suggest a
model for improvement among forensic labs would be the 1988
Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act which provided
accountability for medical testing labs.
Now, I would ask you, do you agree that Federal standards
are needed to promote quality, accountability and integrity of
forensic labs?
Mr. Boyd. One of the principal roles of the National
Institute of Justice has been to try to help to develop
standards for the conduct of certain forensic or investigative
disciplines. Over the last, I think, 3 years we have published
a guide which is now kind of a standard for the way homicide
investigations should be conducted, one for the use of
eyewitnesses, one for arson and one for bombing investigations,
and one for crime scenes in general.
We also this year received from Congress in a reprogramming
authority to use $1.7 million of asset forfeiture money that we
will be using to reduce the DNA backlog to use expressly for
quality assurance to ensure that the testing that is being
done, in fact, meets those kinds of standards. NIJ has also
supported strongly the development by ASCLD and by the American
Academy of Forensic Sciences both accreditation and proficiency
testing kinds of programs for forensic scientists and for the
laboratories themselves.
I think one of the things that we need very much to do,
though, is now to look at developing a standard, consensus-
based set of curricula for the education of forensic
scientists. The reality today is that if you were to ask
someone with a forensic science degree what it meant, you would
get different answers, depending on where they got the degree,
and you would have seriously different questions about what
they were qualified to do in the forensic arena, so that they
typically have to be retrained for 6 to 12 months once they
have finally come to work in the laboratory.
So I think you need all of those things. You need the
development of standards in the forensic community by AAFS and
by ASCLD. You need a quality assurance process and you need
better education for forensic scientists.
Senator Feingold. Mr. Coonrod?
Mr. Coonrod. Quality is certainly an issue that we are all
concerned about, and one of the things we have to recognize is
less than one-half of our laboratories are currently
accredited. The accreditation process provides the quality
mechanism for our laboratories whereby, through the mechanisms
of external proficiency testing, audits, review of courtroom
testimony, different policies and procedures are developed by
those laboratories that are actually accredited so as when
those are implemented they provide a sound basis of quality for
the laboratory to ensure that they are indeed providing the
highest quality service.
I believe that as more laboratories become accredited--and
one of the things that is most important about the Paul
Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Act is it does provide
that laboratories utilizing monies from this must have applied
for accreditation within 2 years, and I think that that is very
critical in improving the quality of our Nation's laboratories.
Senator Feingold. Mr. Petersen?
Mr. Petersen. Well, Senator I agree with Mr. Coonrod, and
certainly defer to these gentlemen in terms of their expertise
about the accreditation of these crime labs. Obviously, the
situation in Oklahoma City, if true, is despicable and
hopefully isolated. I am not sure whether that is an accredited
lab.
Mr. Coonrod. It is not.
Mr. Petersen. It is not accredited. Certainly, these are
the gentlemen who know how to best handle that situation.
Senator Feingold. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. I appreciate those insights.
With regard to the Oklahoma problem, which was troubling to
anybody who cares about justice in America, Mr. Coonrod, you
indicated that that was not an accredited laboratory.
Mr. Coonrod. That is correct, sir.
Senator Sessions. Do you have any suggestions about how a
laboratory could better manage itself or be managed so that
those kinds of events are less likely to occur?
Mr. Coonrod. Absolutely.
Senator Sessions. What would you suggest?
Mr. Coonrod. Well, as I said, less than one-half of our
Nation's laboratories are accredited. This provides a very
valuable mechanism whereby the accreditation process has a
series of standards and principles by which those laboratories
that seek accreditation must comply with those standards and
criteria. They include, as I said, a series of quality
assurance measures like having a quality manager and quality
systems.
One of the problems we face in our Nation's laboratories
today is we need 9,000 more forensic scientists, as I said, in
order to be able to deal with the backlog we have. Many
laboratories are faced with if I have one or two positions that
I can hire, do I hire those one or two people as forensic
scientists to deal with that backlog or do I hire a support
person, known as a quality assurance manager?
The unfortunate reality is our laboratories are dealing
with a backlog and are concerned about getting the cases out
and they have to put a sideline on hiring, let's say, a quality
manager, which is a key cornerstone of quality of our forensic
laboratories and is required in seeking ASCLD lab
accreditation. So they are making these hard decisions because
they don't have the money available or the resources available
to be able to implement these quality systems which are part of
the accreditation process.
The accreditation process also has a very strong program on
proficiency testing whereby laboratories actually utilize
external proficiency test providers who are outside of the
laboratory where tests are made. They are submitted to the
laboratory and used to ensure that the quality of the
laboratory exists.
There is an audit mechanism whereby the laboratories must
go through a very extensive audit program where inspectors come
in. They come in and ensure that the policies and procedures
established by that laboratory do meet quality standards, that
these standards are scientifically valid and what they are
doing is good science. One of the other things is courtroom
testimony to ensure that there is follow-up, that these people
are actually presenting themselves in court correctly.
So to answer your question, yes, the accreditation process,
I feel, would do an excellent job.
Senator Sessions. Dr. Boyd, you mentioned quality
assurance. Would you describe for us what you think a quality
assurance program should be in an accredited lab?
Mr. Boyd. I could talk to you about the DNA quality
assurance program. What we are doing in quality assurance and
the backlog reduction program is to take a part of the samples
which are being tested in this case primarily by contract
laboratories, and we take a percentage of those out and have
another laboratory look at that analysis to make sure that it
has been executed correctly and that they are getting the right
kinds of results.
I think that you have to establish as a matter of policy
within any scientific activity some method for both internal
and, when appropriate, external reviews of the quality of the
work you have done. And I think one of the strongest such
activities in the country today is the ASCLD laboratory
accreditation process which brings in people not in that
laboratory to come in and look at that laboratory's process.
I think you need those things together in laboratories to
do that, but as long as we have half of our laboratories
unaccredited, then I think we have some reason to suggest that
things like the Coverdell bill which requires that kind of
accreditation to be the kinds of things we are going to need to
improve and strengthen all of our labs.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Petersen, you have shown on your
program a number of new and effective laboratory technologies.
Would you describe some of those? And maybe I will ask these
gentlemen if they are common around the country.
Mr. Petersen. Well, we fortunately have a lot of fabulous
technical advisers who are actually either former criminalists
or current criminalists who work with us. Invariably, everyday
they come into our lab and are just amazed.
The other thing is our stuff is given to us by the
manufacturers of those products. Just the other day, I believe
it was Kodak that gave us an unbelievable camera, you know, a
$30,000 digital camera that can do all kinds of stuff in the
field and you can computer it back to the lab. I mean, it is
just amazing equipment that obviously is quite expensive. We
have a gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer.
Senator Sessions. You have got it. Good.
Mr. Petersen. Yes, we have got one for free, because, of
course, they are promoting it. Often, I feel bad about it,
quite frankly. We also have an unlimited amount of personnel;
we call them ``extras,'' and they fill out all the rooms in our
lab and they are all quite qualified to stare into the
microscope.
I am truly amazed at what these criminalists in this
country do in terms of dealing with the criminal situation and
the crimes that take place in this country and I realize how
difficult it would be to not have this equipment. I mean,
obviously we take great liberal stretches in terms of how we
are able to put all this stuff together and solve our crimes in
one evening.
The amount of work and manpower and knowledge and equipment
that is required to actually do it in reality is quite
different, and it has just been very informative to me in the
last several days in terms of looking at this issue how
important obviously the assistance from the Paul Coverdell Act
would--I mean, I can't imagine us being able to go further
without it.
Senator Sessions. Well, I thank you for those good words.
Keith, do you have anything to add to this as a leader of
forensic scientists around the country?
Mr. Coonrod. Well, I agree with what Mr. Petersen says.
Programs like this have brought to light forensics to the
public community and that certainly has helped us, but I don't
think there is a laboratory that hasn't gotten a phone call
asking us to provide the service that they have seen on
``CSI.''
The disappointing thing is quite often the answer is, no,
we can't do that. We don't have the technology. We haven't
bought or we don't have available that piece of equipment, or
the research and development has not been done to ensure that
it would meet the standards in court of the technology that you
have seen on that TV show. So it is sometimes frustrating, but
enlightening, in that it does bring the public awareness of
forensic science and what forensics sometimes can and cannot
do.
Senator Sessions. With regard to the Federal Government,
Keith, you are not a part of that beast, but it strikes me, and
it always has, that the Federal Government by virtue of being
involved with all 50 States should not hesitate to play a role
in research, in equipment development and that sort of thing,
because each individual State has got its duties everyday to do
those reports.
Do you think the Federal Government could do a better job
of helping do scientific research and provide training and that
sort of thing for the labs around the country?
Mr. Coonrod. Well, first of all, the Federal Government is
trying to do the best they can in providing that. Certainly, we
have gotten support from many different Federal labs, but as we
know, 90 percent of the forensic work is done by State and
local laboratories.
With the need that we have in education and training, what
we need is actually more cooperative efforts with universities
and crime laboratories, and there already have been discussions
between universities and crime laboratories to provide the
needed training and education. They have occurred in various
different States such as Illinois, West Virginia, New York,
Florida and California, to name a few.
What we need is we need to expand on those discussions so
actually we have, let's say, regional training centers which
also can be worked with different forensic laboratories and
assisting so we work collectively in helping to train and
provide education and training.
Right now, our training is done on a mentoring basis,
basically one on one in the laboratory. Laboratories do not
have the resources available to tie up a person to train one-
on-one for sometimes, let's say, a questioned documents exam
that can take 2 to 3 years' worth of training. They are not
only tying up the examiner to work with a trainee, but also the
equipment that that laboratory needs to perform its analysis.
Laboratories cannot afford to utilize their limited resources.
Senator Sessions. Dr. Boyd, would you briefly like to
answer or make any comment on that?
Mr. Boyd. Well, a significant part of what we are trying to
do is to develop new tools with a focus on affordability, which
makes that a real challenge. It is important to note that
while, for example, the Department of Defense may spend $200
million or so on a single aircraft or piece of equipment, we
have today the largest forensic research and development budget
in the history of the United States and that comes, including
DNA, to probably less than $10 million total, out of which we
are now trying to do things like develop a new DNA micro chip
that can do the processing for a matter of a few dollars.
We figure if this thing costs more than $15 per sample, it
is not going to work because they are not going to be able to
afford it. These laboratories actually have to make hard
decisions between buying film for their cameras or buying new
equipment.
We are also working with New York, for example, in the
Albany crime laboratory in trying to take some things that we
developed for telemedicine to reduce the costs of medical care
in prisons and apply it in forensic sciences, where we call it
teleforensics.
We are actually working with NASA to see if we can take
some of these long-distance kinds of analytical devices they
have developed, make them affordable and put them into systems
so that a local crime laboratory that doesn't have a Henry Lee
or a Keith Coonrod available can make a link to Keith and say,
can you help me, can you look at this, can you help me figure
this out, can you remotely help analyze that, can you make a
connection to a laboratory to do that.
We are now trying to expand that demonstration project
which has worked very well in New York to a number of other
States, but it is going to take continuing effort to continue
to address the development of these technologies. The only one
in which the Federal Government has invested substantial money,
and it has made a difference in the United States because it
has invested that money, is DNA and that is the model, that is
the success.
The difference DNA has made, I think, is an example of the
difference R and D in the forensic sciences could make in other
areas, as well, in that 97 percent of cases that don't involve
DNA.
Senator Sessions. Well said. I think those are excellent
points.
Mr. Petersen, we will be seeing you, if you won't be seeing
us as often. We thank you gentlemen for coming, and thank you
very much for what you do with your program. I think it does
help restore confidence in justice in America. In a big big
country of nearly 300 million people, we will have some
problems. Everything won't go perfectly, but day after day the
forensic laboratory scientists that I have dealt with year
after year are men and women of the highest integrity and I
have never doubted the quality of their work. I think that is
important for us to recognize, particularly when we see a
problem develop.
Thank you.
Mr. Petersen. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
We will take our next panel, and I think we have got a good
table now of true experts.
Senator Durbin, we are glad you have joined us. I was about
to introduce the panel, but do you want to make an opening
statement first?
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
coming together with you on this bill that we are cosponsoring,
the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Act.
We have DNA testing and a lot of other technology to unlock
the secrets of forensic evidence and to learn whether we should
put people behind bars or set them free. But unfortunately, as
I am sure the Chairman has made clear, our crime labs are
critically backlogged.
We will hear from Mr. Michael Sheppo, with the Illinois
State Police, about the situation we are facing in our State of
Illinois where we have 11 forensic labs, 9 of which are
operated by the Illinois State Police. They oversee the third
largest system of crime labs in the world, surpassed only by
the FBI and Scotland Yard.
Recent data from the Illinois State Police shows a total of
8,965 forensic evaluations backlogged in the month of July;
1,069 of these backlogged cases were DNA cases, and almost
1,000 of these cases were over 30 days old. The laboratories
just can't keep up. This kind of backlog dilutes the benefits
of forensic testing to criminal investigations. In many cases,
the trail is allowed to run cold.
Forensic evidence can tell us the truth. DNA, for example,
can literally tell us whether people should be freed or kept
behind bars. We need to use this technology, and use it
effectively.
I am going to put the rest of my statement in the record in
its entirety, with the approval of the chairman, and look
forward to the testimony of the panel.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. I do appreciate your support
on this bill, and we just heard from the previous panel how
less than half the labs in America are accredited. This bill
will require them to either be accredited or be moving toward
accreditation, so I think that could be a good end of this
legislation.
Let me introduce the panel and we will just go down the
list and hear from each one of you.
Mr. Richard Townsend is with the Utah Department of Public
Safety's crime lab in Salt Lake City. Mr. Michael Sheppo is
with the Illinois State Police Division of Forensic Sciences.
We just heard about your office.
Dr. Eric Buel is Director of the Vermont Forensic
Laboratory in Waterbury, Vermont.
Do you know Senator Leahy?
Mr. Buel. Just a little bit.
Senator Sessions. He is a good one to know.
Dr. Jamie Downs is Director and Chief Medical Examiner of
the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences in Auburn, Alabama.
War Eagle, Dr. Downs?
Dr. Downs. War Eagle.
Senator Sessions. Dr. Downs, among other things that he
does, has been working on the recovery of the remains of the
individuals inside the Hunley submarine in South Carolina,
which is his home State.
Dr. Milton E. Nix, Jr. is the Director of the Georgia
Bureau of Investigation. We appreciate you, Mr. Nix. You have
been here working on this bill for a long time. I know you and
Paul Coverdell believed in it, and it is a pleasure for me to
be able to make a difference in making it a reality.
Dr. Michael Yura is Director of the Forensic Identification
Program at West Virginia University, in Morgantown, West
Virginia. Thank you, Dr. Yura, for being here.
So, Mr. Townsend, we will hear from you.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD J. TOWNSEND, DIRECTOR, UTAH BUREAU OF
FORENSIC SERVICES, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Mr. Townsend. Thank you, Senator.
It is my distinct honor and privilege to appear before the
Committee to discuss this subject which has become a vital
component in criminal justice investigations. I am going to
attack my testimony from an anecdotal story, inasmuch as I am
not a scientist. I am a police officer and investigator, and as
such am Director of the Utah State Criminalistics Laboratory
System.
In July 1999, two very brutal crimes occurred in the
western part of Salt Lake Valley. The first involved the sexual
assault of a female victim during a home invasion. After raping
and terrorizing the victim for a lengthy period of time, the
suspect attempted to destroy bodily fluid evidence using catsup
and hand lotion.
When police investigators were summoned to the crime scene,
the victim underwent a physical examination by a nurse
practitioner in order to capture any physical evidence left by
the suspect. A rape investigation kit was delivered to the
State criminalistics laboratory, and scientific analysis
provided a DNA profile of the suspect in spite of his attempt
to destroy the evidence.
Two weeks later, in the same general vicinity of the sexual
assault, a second victim was brutally raped and this time
murdered. In this particular case, the suspect set the dead
victim's bed on fire and when police investigators responded to
the crime scene, only a burned out torso was left of the
victim.
Although the victim's body had been mostly consumed by the
fire, bodily fluids were extracted from the victim which
ultimately led to the DNA profile of the suspect. In an
instant, the DNA profiles from both of these crime scenes were
compared and an exact match was made. The same suspect was
responsible for these atrocities. Sadly, the murder victim was
a well-known stage actress who had performed hundreds of times
in front of Utah audiences.
The entire west side of Salt Lake County was traumatized by
these two incidents. Once it was discovered both of these
crimes were committed by the same individual, law enforcement
was fearful of a serial rapist and killer on the loose. Sheriff
Aaron Kennard put his entire police agency on high alert and
extra patrols in the west side neighborhoods.
Approximately 1 week after the murder of the second victim,
a deputy sheriff stopped an individual who generally matched
the description of the suspect from the composite drawing given
by the rape victim. The deputy felt he had enough probable
cause to arrest the subject. Within a few hours, a police
lineup was conducted and the rape victim picked this individual
out whom the deputy had arrested.
The sheriff and all police agencies throughout the Salt
Lake Valley were greatly relieved that the dangerous individual
had been captured and taken off the street. The sheriff indeed
called a news conference in order to calm the community's
nerve. A crime lab state member was sent to the jail in order
to extract a blood standard from the suspect in order to make a
positive DNA match from the evidence collected at the two crime
scenes.
Everyone was shocked when the results came back negative,
indicating this particular individual was not responsible for
these two crimes. Indeed, many police officials and others
questioned the DNA analysis from our crime lab and felt that we
had made a mistake.
Due to the exact nature of the science surrounding DNA and,
I might add, all of the other evidence that we have talked
about, from fingerprints, to trace, to drug analysis, the crime
lab staff was certain that this was not the individual who had
committed these crimes.
The first rape victim recognized she had picked out the
wrong individual from this lineup and gave a second composite
sketch drawing to an artist. A correctional officer at the Utah
State Prison was walking down a hallway and noticed the sketch
of the suspect hanging on a bulletin board. She immediately
recognized the drawing as being very similar to an individual
who had been paroled from prison some 6 months earlier. She
immediately contacted the detective in charge of the
investigation.
The investigator contacted the crime lab, indicating he had
a solid lead. In a wonderful twist of fate, the crime lab had
received a blood standard from this suspect upon being paroled
from prison. States across the country, as you know, are taking
blood standards from convicted and paroled offenders in order
to place their DNA profiles into the CODIS system, or Combined
DNA Index System. I immediately authorized my staff overtime
pay to work on the DNA profile throughout the night. An
``attempt to locate'' was put out on the identified offender
because an exact match was made after the DNA profile was done.
This particular case captures all the essential elements of
DNA technology. First, DNA evidence tied two serious crimes
together. Second, DNA evidence exonerated an innocent
individual. Third, using DNA technology along with the
wonderful advantages of the combined DNA indexing system, a
multiply convicted and extremely dangerous individual was taken
off the streets of Salt Lake City. During his stay in prison,
this individual has confessed his incidents of terror had only
just begun.
The advantages of DNA evidence processing, along with all
the other issues that the distinguished first panel discussed,
are so vitally important to law enforcement. I commend this
Committee for the work that you are doing and hope that you
will continue on this path.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Townsend follows:]
Statement of Richard J. Townsend, Director, Utah Bureau of Forensic
Services
It is my distinct honor and privilege to appear before the Senate
Judiciary Committee to discuss a subject that has become a vital
component in criminal justice investigations. In July of 1999, two very
brutal crimes occurred in the western part of the Salt Lake Valley. The
first involved a sexual assault of a female victim during a home
invasion. After raping and terrorizing the victim for a lengthy period
of time, the suspect attempted to destroy bodily fluid evidence by
pouring ketsup and hand lotion into the victim's genitalia. When police
investigators were summoned to the crime scene, the victim underwent a
physical examination by a nurse practitioner in order to capture any
potential physical evidence left by the suspect. A rape investigation
kit was delivered to the State Criminalistics Laboratory. Scientific
analysis provided a DNA profile of the suspect, in spite of his attempt
to destroy the evidence.
Two weeks later, in the same general vicinity of the sexual
assault, a second victim was brutally raped and murdered. In this
particular case, the suspect set the dead victim's bed on fire and when
police investigators responded to the crime scene, only a burnt out
torso was left of the victim. The Medical Examiner was summoned to the
crime scene for the purposes of swabbing the victim for any potential
bodily fluid evidence. Although the victim's body had been mostly
consumed by the fire, bodily fluids were extracted from the victim
which ultimately led to a DNA profile of the suspect. In an instant,
the DNA profiles from both of these crime scenes were compared and an
exact match was made. The same suspect was responsible for these
atrocities. Sadly, the murder victim was a well-known stage actress who
had performed hundreds of times in front of Utah audiences.
The entire west side of Salt Lake County was traumatized by these
two incidents. Once it was discovered both of these crimes were
committed by the same individual, law enforcement was fearful of a
serial rapist and killer on the loose. Sheriff Aaron Kennard put his
entire police agency on high alert and ordered extra patrols in west
side neighborhoods. Approximately one week after the murder of the
second victim, a deputy sheriff stopped an individual who generally
matched the description provided to law enforcement by the first rape
victim. Although traumatized by this incident, the victim was able to
provide a composite drawing of the suspect which was broadly
distributed throughout Utah and surrounding states. The individual
stopped by the deputy had an extensive criminal history in property
crimes including robbery, burglary, et and several other thefts. The
deputy felt he had enough probable cause to arrest the subject. '
Within a few hours a police line-up was conducted and the rape victim
picked the individual out who the deputy had arrested. The Sheriff and
all police agencies throughout the Salt Lake Valley were greatly
relieved that a dangerous individual had been captured and taken off
the street. The Sheriff called a news conference in order to calm the
community's nerves. A Crime Lab staff member was sent to the jail in
order to extract a blood standard from the suspect to make a positive
DNA match from the evidence collected from the two crime scenes.
Everyone was shocked when the results came back negative, indicating
this particular. individual was not responsible for these two crimes.
Indeed, many police officials and others questioned the DNA analysis
from the Crime Lab and felt we had made a mistake. Due to the exact
nature of the science surrounding DNA, the Crime Lab staff was certain
this was not the individual who had committed the crimes. The Sheriff
was not convinced and continued to hold this subject in jail.
The first rape victim recognized she had picked the wrong
individual out from a police line-up and provided a second composite
drawing to a sketch artist, with finer details of the subject's eyes
and facial features. The second composite drawing was re-issued and
posted in law enforcement agencies throughout the west. A correctional
officer, at the Utah State Prison, was walking down a hallway and
noticed the sketch of the suspect hanging on a bulletin board. She
immediately recognized the drawing as being very similar to an
individual who had been paroled from Prison some six months before the
two crimes were committed. She immediately contacted the detective in
charge of the investigation. The investigator contacted the State Crime
Lab indicating he had a solid lead. In a wonderful twist of fate, the
Crime Lab had received a blood standard from this subj ect upon being
paroled from Prison. States from across the country are taking blood
standards from convicted and paroled offenders in order to place DNA
profiles into the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) database. I
immediately authorized overtime pay for the DNA analysts to examine
this particular blood standard. In less than 24 hours, an exact match
was made from the blood sample taken from the paroled offender and the
DNA evidence left at the two crime scenes. An Attempt To Locate was put
out on the identified offender and he was arrested by a local law
enforcement agency less than 24 hours after the identification was
made.
This particular case captures all of the essential elements of DNA
technology. First, DNA evidence tied two serious crime scenes together.
Second, DNA evidence exonerated an innocent individual. Third, using
DNA technology, along with the wonderful advantages of the Combined DNA
Indexing System, a multiply convicted and extremely dangerous
individual was taken off the streets of Salt Lake City, Utah. During
this last stay in Prison, this individual has confessed his incidents
of terror had only just begun.
Senators, the advantages of DNA technology cannot be overstated. It
has to be considered the most significant breakthrough science has made
to assist law enforcement in identifying perpetrators of crime. This is
only one case of numerous I could cite where DNA evidence has been the
key to solving serious crimes. DNA has far exceeded law enforcement
investigators expectations in identifying perpetrators of crime.
However, there are challenges to this technology which include staying
abreast of changing equipment and processes, along with funding this
expensive analysis and retaining highly qualified personnel. The
instruments involved in DNA are expensive but are essential in
decreasing the turnaround time in evidence analysis. The Committee can
have a profound influence on the direction this country is taking with
DNA technology. I recognize my testimony may be considered as only
anecdotal, but I assure you the funding of DNA technology and equipment
for laboratories across the country will be one of the most significant
criminal justice decisions this committee will make. The Utah Bureau of
Forensic Services and statewide law enforcement applaud your efforts
and encourages you to continue on this course of DNA funding.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. That is a great story, Mr.
Townsend. I think it is something that we do hear too often,
and I think sometimes eyewitnesses get shaky. Those things are
not perfect, but a good DNA analysis is hard to argue with.
Mr. Sheppo, we are delighted to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL G. SHEPPO, BUREAU CHIEF, ILLINOIS STATE
POLICE DIVISION OF FORENSIC SERVICES, FORENSIC SCIENCES
COMMAND, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS
Mr. Sheppo. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, Honorable Senators of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Michael G. Sheppo.
I am a Bureau Chief with the Illinois State Police Division of
Forensic Services, Forensic Sciences Command, the immediate
past president of the American Society of Crime Laboratory
Directors, and the president of the board of directors of the
National Forensic Science Technology Center.
Allow me to begin by first thanking the Committee for
passing last year the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences
Improvement Act. This important piece of legislation is a
tribute to Senator Coverdell, as well as a recognition of the
crucial need to support and improve forensic sciences
nationwide.
I began my career in forensic sciences in the early 1970's
in the Georgia laboratory system and was initially paid with
Federal funds from the Law Enforcement Assistance Act. At that
time, LEAA funding was used by some law enforcement agencies to
establish, expand, and sometimes improve crime laboratories.
Unfortunately, the LEAA and similar later programs did not
specifically address all of the critical needs of the Nation's
laboratories.
The NFSIA is the first comprehensive piece of legislation
which addresses all the aspects of our work--drug chemistry,
toxicology, post-mortem medical examinations, latent print and
firearms examinations, DNA analysis, trace evidence, and
microscopic and document examinations.
During my 30-year career, I have been fortunate to have
worked in two States that have supported their forensic science
laboratory systems. However, today, in Illinois and throughout
our Nation, we are facing a crisis, a crisis caused by a
shortage of forensic science resources.
In the 21st century, the criminal justice system relies
heavily upon the forensic sciences as an integral part of the
investigative and judicial process. While billions of Federal
dollars have been spent on virtually every aspect of the
criminal justice components, the highly technical and very
expensive forensic sciences have received very little Federal
support.
In most States and municipalities, funding has simply not
kept pace with the increasing demands for crime laboratory
usage. This neglect has resulted in severe backlogs in forensic
laboratories nationwide. For example, since 1990 the average
U.S. forensic laboratory has experienced an increase in
caseload of 23 percent, while budgets have grown only 10
percent and staff size by only 9 percent. This problem becomes
even more significant considering the fact that most
laboratories have long experienced resource shortages.
Further compounding the caseload growth, the backlogs and
the new technologies, the most important variable in crime
laboratory operations is quality assurance, and the cornerstone
of that is laboratory accreditation. It is the fundamental step
in the process of quality assurance.
But due mainly to the high costs of becoming accredited,
only 5 in 10 forensic laboratories have now reached the
accreditation mark. To meet accreditation standards,
laboratories must upgrade their facilities, purchase or improve
equipment, enhance analytical techniques, and add professional
and support staff. All of these standards and laws that have
been enacted in good faith by Federal and State governments
also exhaust some of the resources of the forensic sciences
laboratories.
The Illinois State Police forensic laboratory system is the
third largest system in the world. In 1982, we became the first
accredited laboratory system. We have an extensive training
program, a systemwide quality assurance program, and a research
and development program. However, backlogs and turnaround times
continue to increase. We find it necessary to implement service
reductions, and the implementation of new technologies
stretches our resources and challenges our ability to provide
timely services.
The Illinois State Policy has reviewed our ability to
provide quality services to the citizens of Illinois and has
determined that there are three organizational areas that we
must address over the next 5 years, the first being staffing.
In order to process our current caseload and maintain our
forensic data bases, an additional 160 scientists and support
personnel are required. The total cost for these personnel is
in excess of $41 million, and $17.5 million is needed in
operational funding to support them.
The second area is training. Due to the attrition and
retirement of individuals who began their career in Illinois in
the 1970's, we could lose potentially 190 personnel by the year
2005. In order to properly train their replacements, the
Illinois State Police is proposing a Forensic Science
Institute. The Institute would be centrally located in Illinois
and can potentially serve as an initial training site for
Illinois and the whole Midwest region of our Nation.
The initial training of forensic scientists is a
considerable challenge and the Illinois State Police has
developed and implemented a training program which has been
recognized for its excellence. Facility construction for the
Institute would cost approximately $42.3 million, with
additional monies for equipment in the neighborhood of $2.2
million and $6.2 million for staffing.
The last area of improvement in Illinois is in facilities.
Short-term renovation for expanded services is needed in all
nine of our laboratories. We estimate that to cost
approximately $20.5 million. Additionally, major facility
renovations in Chicago and new laboratory facilities in Joliet,
Springfield, the Metro-East and St. Louis area, and Carbondale
are also necessary.
Funding through the NFSIA certainly would help address our
budgetary shortfalls in Illinois. I know that forensic science
laboratories throughout our Nation are facing similar and
probably greater problems. I also know that our forensic
scientists can have a profound effect on the lives of all
Americans. Our highly discriminating technology and data bases
can identify perpetrators of crimes and stop them from
committing additional offenses. But the same wonderful
technology can also exonerate those individuals falsely accused
of a crime.
Your help is needed to enable our forensic scientists to
provide critical scientific information to the criminal justice
system. I want to thank the Committee for your support in the
passage of the NFSIA and respectfully request your support in
the appropriations process.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sheppo follows:]
Statement of Michael G. Sheppo, Bureau Chief, Illinois State Police,
Division of Forensic Services
Chairman Hatch, Senator Leahy, honorable members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to begin by first
thanking the committee for passing last year the Paul Coverdell
National Forensic Science Improvement Act (NFSIA). This important piece
of legislation is a tribute to Senator Coverdell as well as a
recognition of the crucial need to support and improve the forensic
sciences nationwide.
I began my career in the forensic sciences in the early 1970s in
the Georgia laboratory system, and was initially paid with federal
funds through the Law Enforcement Assistance Act (LEAA). At that time,
LEAH funding was used by some law enforcement agencies to establish,
expand, and improve crime laboratories. Unfortunately, the LEAH and
similar later programs did not specifically address all of the critical
needs of forensic science laboratories. The NFSIA is the first
comprehensive piece of legislation which addresses all aspects of our
work--drug analysis, toxicology, post-mortem medical examinations,
latent print examinations, firearms examinations, DNA analyses, trace
evidence and microscopic examinations, and document examinations.
During my thirty-year career, I have worked as a chemist and
serologist; served as the first director of the Augusta, Georgia crime
laboratory; and in 1985 began my career in Illinois as an Assistant
Bureau Chief in charge of the seven Illinois State Police operational
laboratories. I have been fortunate to have worked in two states that
have supported their forensic science laboratory systems. However,
today in Illinois and throughout our nation, we are facing a crisis--a
crisis caused by a shortage of forensic science resources.
In the 21th century, the criminal justice system relies
heavily upon forensic science services as an integral part of the
investigative and judicial process. While billions of federal dollars
have been spent on virtually every other criminal justice component--
police officers, the courts, prisons, and information technology--the
highly technical and expensive forensic sciences have received very
little federal support. In most states and municipalities, funding has
simply not kept pace with the increasing demand for crime laboratory
analyses. This neglect has resulted in severe backlogs in forensic
laboratories nationwide. For example, since 1990, the average U.S.
forensic laboratory has experienced an increase in caseload of 23
percent, while budgets have grown only 10 percent and staff size by
only 9 percent. This problem becomes even more significant considering
the fact that most laboratories have long experienced resource
shortages, and the demands by the criminal justice system to implement
new crime fighting technologies such as the Combined Offender DNA
Identification System (CODIS) stretch existing resources to intolerable
limits.
Further compounding the caseload growth, backlogs, and added new
technologies is the issue of quality--the most important variable in
the operation of forensic laboratories. Many forensic science
professionals are concerned that the growing demands on laboratories
have, or can have, a negative impact on the quality of the results
achieved. Laboratory accreditation (which is voluntary) is generally
accepted as the fundamental step in quality assurance and consistency
in forensic science processes. But, due mainly to the costs associated
with accreditation, only five in ten forensic laboratories are now
accredited. To meet or exceed the stringent standards and proficiency
testing requirements established by accreditation, most laboratories
must upgrade facilities, purchase or improve equipment, enhance
analytical processes, and add professional and support staff.
Additionally, federal and state governments have set and mandated
certain analytical standards and enacted laws which have fiscally
impacted the nation's forensic science laboratories. Examples of these
include the standards promulgated by the Department of Justice's DNA
Advisory Board (DAB), standards set by federally sponsored scientific
and technical working groups (SWGS/TWGS), state laws which require the
creation and/or expansion of forensic databases, and federal and state
laws which impact the analytical testing of controlled substances. All
of these standards and laws are enacted with good intentions and are
beneficial. However, their implementation often exhausts the limited
resources of our nation's forensic science laboratories. In Illinois an
amendment to the Criminal Code requiring that additional offenders be
included in the ISP CODIS would require approximately $0.5 million/year
in additional funding for us to analyze and enter these samples.
How Would NFSIA Funding Be Used In Illinois?
The Illinois State Police forensic science laboratory system is the
third largest forensic system in the world. In 1982, we became the
first accredited forensic laboratory system, and look forward to our
fourth reaccreditation in 2002. We have an extensive training program,
a systemwide quality assurance program, and a research and development
program. However, backlogs and turnaround times continue to increase;
we find it necessary to implement service reductions; and the
implementation of new technologies stretch our resources and challenge
our ability to provide timely services. In Illinois, there are two
additional forensic science laboratories, the DuPage County Sheriff s
Department Crime Laboratory and the Northern Illinois Police Crime
Laboratory. Both of these accredited laboratories face the same
resource challenges that we face.
The Illinois State Police has reviewed our ability to provide
quality and timely forensic science services to the criminal justice
system in Illinois. Three organizational areas have been identified
that will require significant additional monetary support during the
next five years:
1) Staffing--In order to process the current caseload, the increase
in CODIS database samples, and the increase in firearms submissions for
the Integrated Ballistic Identification System (IBIS), an additional
160 scientists and support personnel are required. The total cost for
these personnel over a five-year period is approximately $41 million.
To train these additional people, buy equipment and supplies, and fully
support the new and expanded techniques, approximately $17.5 million in
additional operating funds are needed over the next five years.
2) Training--Due to attrition and the retirement of individuals who
began their careers in the early 1970s, we could potentially lose as
many as 190 personnel by 2005. In order to properly train their
replacements and the additional personnel needed to meet operational
needs, the ISP is proposing the establishment of a Forensic Sciences
Institute (FSI). The FSI would be centrally located in Illinois and
could potentially serve as a training resource for Illinois, and the
whole midwest region of our nation. The initial training of forensic
scientists is a considerable challenge, and the Illinois State Police
has developed and implemented a training program which has been
recognized for its excellence. The proposed FSI would not only meet our
needs, but would provide trained forensic scientists for laboratories
outside of Illinois. The facility, administrative offices, dormitories,
and the training area construction costs for the FSI is approximately
$42.3 million. Equipment lease purchase costs are estimated at $2.2
million/year over a five-year period. Personnel costs at full operation
are estimated to be $6.2 million per year.
3) Facilities--The Illinois State Police forensic science
laboratory system is made up of eight operational laboratories and a
research and development laboratory. Short-term renovation for expanded
services is needed at each facility which would require $20.5 million
in funding. Additionally, major facility projects over the next five
years include an addition to the Chicago Laboratory (FSC-C) and new
laboratory facilities at Joliet, Springfield, Metro-East (St. Louis),
and Carbondale.
Funding obtained through the NFSIA would certainly help address the
Illinois State Police budgetary shortfalls cited in the above three
areas. I know that forensic science laboratories throughout our nation
are facing similar problems. I also know that the forensic sciences can
have a profound effect on the lives of all Americans. Our highly
discriminating technology and databases can identify perpetrators of
crimes and stop them from committing additional offenses. But the same
wonderful technology also can exonerate those individuals falsely
accused of a crime. Your help is needed to enable our nation's forensic
scientists to provide this critical scientific information to the
criminal justice system. I want to thank the committee for supporting
the passage of the NFSIA and respectfully request your support in the
appropriation process.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Sheppo. I understand you
have a flight that you are going to need to catch before long.
Senator Durbin, if you have any questions that you would
like to ask now, it is a little out of turn, but that would be
all right.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, just so Mr. Sheppo will have a
chance to catch his flight and get back to Illinois.
Can you give me an idea of how long it takes for your
division to process a typical forensics analysis request?
Mr. Sheppo. Yes, sir. It would depend upon the type of
analysis. Right now, it is taking somewhere in the neighborhood
of 8 to 10 months for a typical DNA case to get processed, as
an example. That has been improved actually through State and
Federal funding that we have received from at one point 16
months, although we are able to meet the needs of critical,
rush cases to the law enforcement community when necessary.
In other areas, it would depend on the discipline. In drug
chemistry, for example, we can turn cases over generally within
30 days. We have the staff to do that at the present time.
Senator Durbin. Are you able to give us any kind of an
estimate of the cost of each of these services that you
provide?
Mr. Sheppo. Yes, sir. I think overall, more or less for the
9 laboratories, our personnel services for 1 year is $28
million, $11 million in operational costs. In addition to that,
there are some funds that we utilize that also help us make it
through the year.
Senator Durbin. Specifically, let's say on DNA testing,
have you broken that out in terms of the equipment that is
dedicated to it and the individuals? Have you costed out what
each test would cost the taxpayers?
Mr. Sheppo. Depending upon the size of the case, a sample,
for example, could be anywhere from $350 to $500 when you are
looking at actually doing it. Of course, when you are doing
more and batching samples, that cost does come down.
Senator Durbin. I will just close with this comment on the
Forensic Institute that will be a source, we hope, of future
personnel, people who would be dedicated to this field. It
appears that this is going to be a growing field. My guess is
we are here today talking about DNA and a few years from now we
will be talking about something else, some other test that has
been devised that will test science and lead us, I think,
toward better appreciation of the truth.
I thank you very much for coming.
Mr. Sheppo. I thank you, sir.
Senator Sessions. Dr. Buel?
STATEMENT OF ERIC BUEL, DIRECTOR, VERMONT FORENSIC LABORATORY,
WATERBURY, VERMONT
Mr. Buel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very honored to be
here today to offer support for the Paul Coverdell National
Forensic Sciences Improvement Act. I thank you for the
opportunity to express my views on the need for such
legislation for our laboratory and for the forensic community
as a whole.
Forensic laboratories provide critical information to the
criminal justice system. Without analyses conducted by forensic
laboratories, many cases would go untried, many police
investigations would be stalled, innocent individuals may not
be exonerated, and criminals would be on the street victimizing
our citizens.
The criminal justice system is a puzzle. Forensic science
represents a significant piece to that puzzle that must be
appropriately supported. Supporting a greater police presence
to fight the drug problem must be balanced with additional
resources to the laboratories to provide the drug analysis
necessary for court action.
Vermont has seen a 130-percent increase in arrests for
heroin in just 3 years. The drug problem in Vermont is real and
demands across-the-board support. The forensic laboratory must
not be forgotten when the challenge of meeting the demands of
the criminal justice system are addressed.
The challenge of improving and expanding services comes
with a cost. Instrumentation is expensive and requires regular
maintenance. Many forensic analyses are complex and require
considerable training and experience. New techniques and
technologies continue to drive our science. We cannot sanction
the use of this new science without appropriate training, but
we are asked to provide the latest methods to the people we
serve.
We would not ask an engineer with minimal training or
outdated tools to design a bridge. We must not ask forensic
scientists to perform analyses without proper training and
instrumentation. We must do everything we can to supply the
training and tools necessary to provide the types of analysis
the people of our State and country expect and deserve.
The analytical tools and methods employed in the analysis
of evidence should be housed in facilities designed for 21st
century science. The establishment of well-designed forensic
laboratories in each State capable of supporting well-trained
staff should become a priority.
Vermont is a small, rural State with a population of about
600,000. The crime rate in Vermont is relatively low, but we
have seen an increase in the submission of sexual assault
cases, other violent cases and drug cases. Case submissions
requesting DNA analysis have nearly doubled in 3 years. Each
DNA case takes considerable time and effort. Additional staff
is required to keep up with current casework. Other forensic
disciplines have encountered similar staffing shortages as a
result of casework increases and changes in analytical
procedures.
As the Senator pointed out, we are housed on the third
floor of a building constructed in 1941 as part of a State
mental hospital. At times, it seems that we belong there. A
study conducted on our facility detailed many problems with our
building.
Our laboratory must often repeat DNA analytical testing as
a result of room temperature fluctuations which cause quality
control problems with our instrument. Basically, the
temperature goes up and down and the instrument doesn't run
properly. The laboratory has about half the space it needs.
Forensic science takes its ideas and techniques from other
fields and incorporates those that have merit within its own
complement of protocols. The field is constantly engaged in
finding new and better techniques to allow more information to
be obtained from smaller evidentiary items. This quest has
brought us to a point where the sweat from a hat band left at a
crime scene could reveal the identity of a rapist, or
fluorescent dyes used to locate fingerprints on old evidence,
and where small fragments of paint can identify a car from a
hit-and-run.
The field of forensic science has stepped up to the plate
to offer the methods and techniques required to analyze the
evidence found at crime scenes. We as a society need to make
this science a priority, to allow every citizen who is the
victim of a crime and every individual who is accused of a
crime the opportunity to have the evidence associated with that
crime analyzed by a well-trained, well-equipped team. It can
and should be done.
I am concerned about the quality of life in Vermont and
know it will diminish if crime is allowed to grow and impact
the citizens of the State. The Paul Coverdell National Forensic
Sciences Improvement Act will allow laboratories to improve the
quality and timeliness of the forensic sciences services
provided in that State.
The forensic laboratory does make a difference to the
quality of life, and with NFSIA our laboratory will do
everything it can to expand and improve its services to
ultimately bring the best possible forensic analysis to the
people of the State of Vermont, who should expect nothing else.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Buel follows:]
Statement of Eric Buel, Ph.D., Director, Vermont Forensic Laboratory,
Vermont Department of Public Safety, Waterbury, Vermont
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Eric Buel, Director of the Vermont
Forensic Laboratory. Our laboratory is the only forensic laboratory in
the State of Vermont. The forensic services we provide to the citizens
of Vermont include the traditional forensic disciplines such, as
fingerprints and drug analysis, and also modern DNA analysis. The
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors has accredited our
laboratory and we follow national standards in the analytical
procedures we perform.
I am here today to offer support for the Paul Coverdell National
Forensic Sciences Improvement Act and I thank you for the opportunity
to express my views on the need for such legislation for our laboratory
and for the forensic community as a whole.
Forensic laboratories provide critical information to the criminal
justice system. Without the analyses conducted by forensic laboratories
many cases would go untried, many police investigations would be
stalled, innocent individuals may not be exonerated, and criminals
would be on the street victimizing our citizens. The criminal justice
system is a puzzle with interlocking pieces. Any piece removed, and the
puzzle is incomplete. Forensic science represents a significant piece
to that puzzle that must be appropriately supported. Supporting a
greater police presence to fight the drug problem must be balanced with
additional resources to the laboratory to provide the drug analysis
necessary for court action. Vermont has seen a 130% increase in arrests
for heroin in just three years. The drug problem in Vermont is real,
and demands across-the-board support. The forensic laboratory must not
be forgotten when these issues are addressed.
I started my forensic career some twenty years ago as a bench
chemist performing drug and body fluid analyses. Instruments in those
days were unsophisticated, typically inexpensive, and many types of
analyses didn't require an instrumental approach. Our analysis of body
fluids led to courtroom testimony in which linking a suspect to a piece
of evidence with a statistic of 1 in 10 was considered powerful
testimony. Today methods for the analysis of body fluid evidence can,
in essence, uniquely link a suspect to a crime. Minute traces of
evidence that were considered analytically insignificant now yield
valuable information.
About 10 years ago DNA analysis became available and many forensic
laboratories across the country began to offer this service. The
ability to offer truly powerful testimony concerning the source of
biological stains put forensic science in the spotlight. Experts from
outside the forensic community critically appraised the analyses that
were performed. Other forensic disciplines soon found their work
evaluated and critiqued. The entire forensic community began to form
working groups that reviewed and made recommendations concerning
protocols and procedures. Laboratories with an eye towards improving
current services began to implement these recommendations and sought to
expand the services provided to the criminal justice system.
The challenge of improving and expanding services comes with a
cost. Much of the instrumentation now considered routine had not been
invented or perfected for forensic applications twenty years ago. This
instrumentation is expensive, requires regular maintenance, and must be
replaced after a certain defined lifetime. Many forensic analyses are
complex and require considerable training and experience. Forensic
fingerprint and firearms examiners require years of training to allow
them to proffer testimony in court. The ability to obtain a DNA profile
from a drop of blood the size of a pinhead and offer testimony in court
concerning the relevance of that result takes considerable training and
experience. New techniques and technologies continue to drive our
science. We cannot sanction the use of these new sciences without
appropriate training, but we are asked to provide the latest methods to
the people we serve. We would not ask an engineer with minimal training
or outdated tools to design a bridge. We must not ask forensic
scientists to perform analyses without proper training and
instrumentation. We must do everything we can to supply the training
and tools necessary to provide the types of analysis people of our
state and country expect and deserve.
The analytical tools and methods employed in the analysis of
evidence should be housed in facilities designed for 21 St century
science. These facilities must be constructed to address contamination
issues, instrument needs, variable analytical demands, and worker
safety. Old or poorly designed facilities may compromise proper
evidence analysis. Appropriate facilities should be constructed
specifically for forensic science with adequate space to perform the
wide variety of forensic examinations encountered in the field. Working
environments that allow for safe and healthy working conditions should
not be considered a luxury, but should be standard in all laboratories.
Support personnel should be available to allow highly trained
scientists to concentrate on casework analysis without ancillary
distractions. The establishment of well-designed forensic laboratories
in each state capable of supporting well-trained staff should become a
priority.
Vermont is a small rural state with a population of about 600,000.
The crime rate in Vermont is relatively low compared to that of the
nation. However, we have seen an increase in the submission of sexual
assault cases, other violent assaults, and drug cases. Case submissions
requesting DNA analysis have nearly doubled in three years. Each DNA
case takes considerable time and effort; and additional staff is
required to keep up with current casework and to expand into the
analysis of non-suspect DNA samples for inclusion into the national DNA
database known as CODIS. Other forensic disciplines have encountered
similar staffing shortages as the result of caseload increases and
changes in analytical procedures. Years ago a simple dusting with
powder sufficed to check a piece of evidence for latent fingerprints.
Now new technologies allow us to find prints that dusting cannot reveal
through the use of a superglue chamber and fluorescent dyes. Use of new
technologies throughout the laboratory results in better, more thorough
analysis, but requires additional examination time. Today we find that
an evidentiary item may undergo many examinations to provide the
forensic scientist with the most information possible. These additional
exams coupled with increases in caseload place additional demands upon
the forensic scientist, mandating that managers ask for increases in
staff and training to appropriately meet the growing demands for
service.
Vermont's forensic laboratory is housed on the third floor of a
building constructed in 1941 as part of a state mental hospital
designed to house mental health patients. A study conducted on our
facility published in the spring of 2000 detailed many problems with
our existing facility. In short the building was never designed to
house a laboratory and lacks, for instance, proper ventilation, space,
and environmentally controlled rooms for instrumentation. Our
laboratory often must repeat DNA analytical testing as room temperature
fluctuations cause quality assurance problems with our instrument. This
results in time delays for court-required casework, reduces the number
of total cases that may be completed, and increases the overall cost
per DNA analysis. Health and safety problems also exist. The laboratory
has about half the space it needs to do the work currently performed
let alone allowance for growth. The ASCLD accreditation team informed
us that our facility probably would not pass the expected inspection
standards in 2004, our reaccredidation date.
Forensic Science takes ideas and techniques from other fields and
incorporates those that have merit (after much evaluation) within its
own complement of protocols. The field is constantly engaged in finding
new and better techniques to allow more information to be obtained from
smaller evidentiary items. This quest has brought us to a point where
the sweat from a hatband left at a crime scene could reveal the
identity of a rapist, where fluorescent dyes are used to locate
fingerprints on old evidence, and where small fragments of paint can
identify a car from a hit and run. The field of forensic science has
stepped up to the plate to offer the methods and techniques required to
analyze the evidence found at crime scenes. We as a society need to
make this science a priority, to allow every citizen who is a victim of
crime and every individual accused of a crime the opportunity to have
the evidence associated with that crime analyzed by a welltrained,
wellequipped team. It can and should be done.
I am concerned about the quality of life in Vermont and know it
will diminish if crime is allowed to grow and impact the citizens of
the State. The Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement
Act will allow laboratories to make necessary progress towards facility
and instrumentation modernization. Together these enhancements will
improve the quality and timeliness of the forensic science services
provided in the State. The forensic laboratory works in conjunction
with police, state's attorneys, and the courts to assist the criminal
justice system fight crime. The forensic laboratory does make a
difference to the quality of life and, with NFSIA, our laboratory will
do everything it can to expand' and improve its services to ultimately
bring the best possible forensic analysis to the people of the state of
Vermont who should expect nothing less.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Dr. Downs, we are glad to have you. I have visited at least
two of your laboratories and I have seen that they are crowded
and busy.
STATEMENT OF JAMES CLAUDE UPSHAW DOWNS, M.D., DIRECTOR/CHIEF
MEDICAL EXAMINER, DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC SERVICES, STATE OF
ALABAMA, AUBURN, ALABAMA
Dr. Downs. Well, we very much appreciate your coming and
seeing our facilities, and thank you, Mr. Chairman and the
Committee, for allowing us the privilege of coming before you
today. I speak today on behalf of our Nation's medical
examiners and coroners, and please accept our sincere
appreciation and gratitude for this opportunity.
I think it is highly significant that members of the
forensic sciences community come before you today mere days
following the successful prosecution of the perpetrator of one
of the most cowardly acts on record; that is, the bombing
deaths of children in a church.
In a nutshell, the investigations conducted by forensic
scientists, medical examiners and coroners are targeted to
collecting sufficient evidence from the examination of crime
scenes and from the autopsy examination of broken and bloodied
bodies to provide the court with sufficient, credible
scientific evidence to ensure that justice is done. We are
impartial scientists and physicians charged with the awesome
responsibility of determining how and why someone met their
end.
Regrettably, due to limited resources, most medical
examiners and coroners do not have sufficient staff and
equipment to perform at an optimal level. This shortfall
adversely affects our criminal justice system because the lack
of needed materials and personnel hinders the pathologist's
ability to expedite reports in criminal cases. Such reports are
necessary for successful criminal prosecution.
Suspects, innocent until proven guilty, sit in jail
awaiting their day in court. In Alabama, that wait recently has
been as long as 30 months, this despite our Constitution's
guarantee of the right to a speedy trial.
While we oftentimes think of forensic matters as they
relate to high-profile cases--mass disaster, terrorism,
homicides and the like--I would like to speak for a moment on
other forensic pathology issues that might be underappreciated.
While perhaps less important at least to some than the
high-profile cases, overall most of the cases that medical
examiners deal with are those involve the sudden, unnatural,
suspicious death of an adult or child. In short, the medical
examiner/coroner investigation is the final word as to whether
or not a death is due to natural causes, foul play, or
preventable means. If the medical examiner can assist by
preventing even one additional death, then the resources
invested in the system are worth it.
In dealing with the victims of tragic, sudden death and
their families, the forensic pathologist plays a critically
important role in the lives of innumerable other people--the
surviving family members, friends, neighbors, the community at
large, the police, the courts; in short, all of us.
To illustrate a typical non-homicide investigation, allow
me to share a situation I was involved in just 2 weeks ago. The
case involved the untimely death of a 6-month-old baby who had
been born prematurely. The mother awoke one morning to find the
child dead in bed. Both parents were obviously distraught at
their loss, and yet they, as well as the investigators, wanted
to know what had happened.
The autopsy was performed, and 4 months later they still
had no answers. The reason for the delay was that the
toxicology lab--that is the area that looks for drugs and
poisons in the blood--was backlogged and could not analyze the
sample more quickly. Imagine the grief, frustration and anger
of not knowing why your baby had been taken away from you.
Imagine that feeling every day for a month, 2 months, 3 months,
4 months. Imagine in some areas where that analysis doesn't get
performed for a year simply because of lack of resources. This
is even more tragic when we realize that it only takes a week
to actually perform the analysis once we get around to working
the evidence.
In the end, the autopsy and scene analysis allowed us to
determine that the child did die from accidental suffocation,
that there was not foul play involved, and allowed us to
reassure the parents there was nothing that they could have
done, given the circumstances, to prevent their child's
untimely demise.
But this case affects law enforcement agencies that are
involved in the investigation. They can then target their
resources, which are also limited, to investigate the
homicides, the important cases that they need to spend their
resources on.
It is not at all uncommon for us as medical examiners to
get calls from families requesting insurance payments for
burials; they need a death certificate expedited. It is
shameful that the answer to these problems is merely a matter
of resources, money.
Different systems need different things, depending on the
particular concerns of the area. Some might need an adequate
building, others modern, efficient equipment, others more
personnel. The real strength of the Paul Coverdell National
Forensic Sciences Improvement Act is that it allows different
forensic systems to establish a plan in deciding how their
particular population would be best served.
We were reminded of the medical examiner component of this
law by the untimely and tragic death of the bill's namesake,
Senator Coverdell, who was called home far too soon. His
passion was for justice and truth. Those core principles are
the essence of this law. Providing the resources so that
forensic examinations and autopsy reports can be completed in a
timely manner will allow more efficient use of all of our
resources.
By fully funding the Paul Coverdell National Forensic
Sciences Improvement Act, the Pledge of Allegiance's assurance
of justice for all can be fulfilled--justice for those suspects
awaiting a speedy trial, those loved ones awaiting closure, and
those in financial need awaiting insurance benefits. Most
importantly, it will help ensure the rights of those who did
not choose or desire to become homicide victims whose lifeless
bodies cry out from their graves for a swift resolution to
their cases so that their attacker can be put behind bars and
so that their families can begin the healing process. That
surely is justice for all.
Mr. Chairman, Committee members, I thank you very much for
your interest in this matter and appreciate your past and
continued support.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Downs follows:]
[Additional material is being retained in the Committee
files.]
Statement of James Claude Upshaw Downs, M.D., Director/Chief Medical
Examiner, Department of Forensic Sciences, State of Alabama
Thank you Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the committee
for the privilege of coming before you to address this distinguished
body. I come before you today on behalf of our nation's Medical
Examiner and Coroner community; please accept our sincere gratitude and
appreciation for this opportunity.
As you are no doubt aware from the many important and pressing
matters that come before the committee on a regular basis, there is a
tremendous interest in all the forensic sciences, including medical
examiner/coroner activities. I think it highly significant that members
of the forensic sciences community come before you today, just a few
days following the successful prosecution of the perpetrator of one of
the single most cowardly acts on record--the bombing murder of children
in a church. In a nutshell, the investigations conducted by all
forensic scientists, medical examiners, and coroners is targeted to
collecting sufficient evidence--from the examination of the crime
scenes and from the autopsy examination of the broken and bloodied
bodies--to provide the courts with sufficient credible scientific
evidence to ensure that justice is done. We are impartial scientists
and physicians charged with the awesome responsibility of explaining
how and why a fellow human being's life has been taken away.
Regrettably, due to limited resources, most medical examiners and
coroners do not have sufficient staff and equipment to perform at an
optimal level. This shortfall adversely affects our criminal justice
system because the lack of needed materials and personnel hinders the
pathologist's ability to expedite reports in criminal cases. That
report is necessary for successful criminal prosecution. A suspect--
innocent until proven guilty sits in jail awaiting their day in court.
In Alabama, that wait recently has been as long as thirty months. This
despite our constitution's assurance of the right to a speedy trial.
While we oftentimes think of forensic matters as they relate to
high profile cases--mass disasters, acts of terrorism, homicides and
the like--I would like to speak on other forensic pathology issues that
might be underappreciated. While perhaps less important, at least to
some, than high profile cases, overall most of our cases involve
investigations involve sudden, unnatural, and suspicious deaths of
adults and children. In short, the medical examiner/coroner
investigation is the final word as to whether or not a death is due to
natural causes, foul play, or preventable means. If the medical
examiner can assist by preventing even one additional death, the
funding invested in the office has been wellspent. In dealing with the
victims of tragic sudden death and their families, the forensic
pathologist plays a critically important role in the lives of
innumerable other people--the surviving family members, friends,
neighbors, the community at large, the police, the courts, . . . .
To illustrate a typical non-homicide investigation, allow me to
share a situation I was involved in just two weeks ago. This case
involves the death of a 6-month-old baby, born prematurely. The child
was healthy and had been doing well until one morning when the mother
awoke to discover her lifeless child's body. Both parents were
obviously distraught at their loss. And yet they--as well as the
investigators--wanted to know what had happened. The autopsy was
performed and four months later, they had no answers. The reason for
the delay is that the toxicology lab, that area that looks for drugs
and poisons in the blood, was backlogged and could not analyze the
sample any more quickly. Imagine the grief, frustration, and anger of
not knowing why your baby had been taken from you. Imagine that feeling
every day for a month. . .two months. . .three months. . .four months.
Imagine in some areas where that analysis takes over a year simply
because the medical examiner laboratory does not have the resources
available to perform the test more quickly. This is even more tragic
given that in most cases it takes less than a week to actually perform
the test. Eventually, four months after the fact, and only because they
called to request assistance, the toxicology testing was completed. In
the end, the autopsy and scene investigation allowed determination that
the child had died from an accidental suffocation and that no foul play
was involved. This is vitally important to the parents in reassuring
them that there was nothing they could have done differently, given the
circumstances.
This case then affects the law enforcement agencies involved, who
can then save their resources to investigate homicides and suspicious
deaths. It also affects any insurance benefits that might be pending
the results of the autopsy. It is not at all uncommon to have urgent
calls from families pleading for an autopsy report for insurance
purposes so that they can pay for the burial expenses or make the
payment on their home. Another area of public concern is death due to
infectious disease, such as meningitis. The community at large needs to
know if there is a potential concern for transmission of this
potentially lethal disease. Likewise, the medical examiner may be able
to determine through autopsy, toxicology, and drug analysis if a ``bad
batch'' of drugs is circulating in the community.
It is shameful that the answer to the problem is simply a matter of
providing adequate resources. Different systems need different things,
depending upon the particular needs of the area served. Some might need
an adequate building. Others perhaps modern and more efficient
equipment. Still others may require additional personnel. The real
strength of the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement
Act is that it allows different forensic systems to establish a plan in
deciding how their particular population would best be served in
allocating new resources.
We are reminded of the medical examiner component of this law by
the untimely and tragic death of the bill's namesake, Senator
Coverdell, who was called home far too soon. His passion was for
justice and truth. Those core principles are the essence of this law.
Providing the resources so that forensic examinations and autopsy
reports can be completed in a timely manner will allow more efficient
use of all our resources. By fully funding the Paul Coverdell National
Forensic Sciences Improvement Act, the pledge of allegience's assurance
of ``justice for all'' can be fulfilled--justice for those suspects
awaiting a speedy trial, those loved ones awaiting closure, and those
in financial need awaiting insurance benefits. Most importantly, it
will help ensure the rights of those who did not choose or desire to
become homicide victims--whose lifeless bodies ciy out from their
graves for a swift resolution to their case so that their attacker can
be put behind bars and their families can begin the healing process.
That is surely justice for all.
I thank you for you kind consideration of this matter and your
interest in trying to help our nation's crime laboratories and medical
examiners.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Dr. Downs. Well said, and it
is good to be reminded that medical examinations and other
aspects--that it is more than just crime. There are families
and personalities and lives at stake.
Mr. Nix, it is good to see you again. We are delighted to
hear from you.
STATEMENT OF MILTON E. NIX, JR., DIRECTOR, GEORGIA BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, DECATUR, GEORGIA
Mr. Nix. Thank you, Senator Sessions, and thank you so much
for your visionary leadership. I think we all recognize that we
would not be here today absent your hard work and the research
that you have done on this problem.
I am honored to be on this distinguished panel. I am not a
scientist, I am not a doctor. I don't have a Ph.D. in chemistry
or biology, but I can tell you that it didn't take me very long
after I was appointed by then Governor Zell Miller to realize
the greatest problem facing the Georgia Bureau of Investigation
and our agency was providing adequate crime lab resources for
the State of Georgia.
For all practical purposes, we are the sole provider of
forensic services to 159 sheriffs' offices and over 500 police
departments in Georgia that service a total population of about
8 million. We provide medical examiner services for 143 of
Georgia's 159 counties.
What I discovered when I came back to Georgia after 23
years with the FBI was a State and local criminal justice
system that was absolutely dependent on the work being done by
a State crime lab that was not adequately funded or staffed.
With increasing demands for quality, productivity and
timeliness, but faced with inadequate resources, what I saw was
an absolute formula for disaster. I saw a system that was not
accredited. We had no structured quality system in our
laboratory.
As a result of what I saw, we looked for solutions outside
the State of Georgia. I turned to my counterparts in other
States. In 1997, under the leadership of Commissioner Tim
Moore, with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, 11 State
law enforcement representatives formed the States Coalition to
discuss common challenges that we were facing.
What we determined is that we were all facing the same
problem, and that was a problem with inadequate resources in
our crime labs, and I can tell you that this issue has been the
priority of the Coalition ever since. We developed and fought
for the concept of Federal funding for our crime labs because
this is a national issue and it clearly affects the timely
delivery of justice in our country.
Please remember that 95 percent of all crime lab services
that are delivered in this country are delivered at the State
and local level, not by the FBI, not by DEA, ATF, the Secret
Service, but by State and local crime labs across the country.
Currently, the lack of resources is causing laboratories
across the country to be serious bottlenecks for justice. Now,
through organizations such as the International Association of
Chiefs of Police, the Association of State Criminal
Investigative Agencies, the States Coalition, and certainly the
Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations, efforts have been
made to address the resource problem in our labs at the Federal
level.
You ask why is Federal support so critical in solving the
crime laboratory crisis. No. 1, crime labs have never played a
more critical role in the administration of justice in our
country. Because of the new technological advances and
computerized ballistics identification and imaging, DNA,
automated fingerprint identification system and many other
areas, we are looking at resource potential that can solve
crimes, can identify offenders as well as the innocent, and
literally prevent our citizens from suffering at the hands of
society's most dangerous criminals. Our crime labs can provide
timely leads that solve crimes, and we must develop and take
full advantage of that potential.
Having spent 37 years on the law enforcement side of our
Nation's criminal justice system, you may find this an unusual
statement from me, but I am in absolute, total agreement with
the National Association of Defense Attorneys when it comes to
quality and accuracy of crime lab examinations and analysis. It
is imperative that absolutely accurate and quality examination
standards must be applied to each and every piece of evidence
analyzed. No corners can be cut, regardless of backlogs.
Just remember that without a strong sense of quality,
public confidence in our labs is undermined, and in turn so is
justice. Because of GBI's emphasis on quality and a hundred
percent peer review of all cases, in 1999 our caseload expanded
to a backlog of over 35,000 cases. Some of these cases were
taking 6 to 8 months to complete. Suspects were waiting in jail
because crime lab reports had not been submitted. However, we
could not, we would not and we did not compromise quality for
expediency. Quality is the cost of doing business in forensics,
and the citizens of our country deserve nothing else.
Why is this a Federal issue? The timely administration of
justice demands it. The work being done by crime lab scientists
everyday can have the impact of opening or closing a cell door
forever. The work has to be done in each and every case with
perfection. There is no room for error.
Victims of violent crime deserve the timely application of
appropriate and most technologically advanced forensic
resources. Until that happens, the closure they seek to the
horror of being victimized is unfairly delayed. Falsely accused
suspects deserve to be cleared with all due speed. Just imagine
the horror of being accused of a rape, of sexually violating a
child or perhaps a murder, knowing full well that there was
evidence that had been submitted to the crime lab that if it
was timely analyzed the results would be there and an innocent
person could be set free.
Because the Federal Government has made a commitment to
strong drug enforcement, Federal monies pour into State and
local drug enforcement programs. But who works that evidence?
Who does the work that those multi-jurisdictional task forces
submit? Remember that 40 to 50 percent of crime lab analysis
relates to drug identification.
The Federal Government has recognized the importance of
such programs as DNA by supporting the CODIS program through
the FBI and creating a DNA data base available for nationwide
access. The CODIS program is a wonderful program and it is
paying dividends everyday in solving crimes. Enormous amounts
of Federal dollars have been spent on the law enforcement side,
providing more police officers. We have got 100,000 new police
officers out there that are being trained and they are
submitting evidence to our crime labs everyday. Somebody has
got to do that work.
The funding will support areas that are tailored for State
and local crime labs for equipment, for forensic education
training, laboratory information management systems that can
increase productivity by 20 to 25 percent, accreditation and
quality assurance programs, laboratory facility improvements,
and personnel enhancements. I can assure you that full funding
for this bill will return a tremendous investment.
In closing, I look back to the words in our Constitution
that calls for Government's role in ensuring the domestic
tranquility. In forensic science and our crime laboratories, we
can have the tools to ensure that justice is properly served,
that the innocent are set free, and that the guilty are
identified and convicted.
Never before have we been able to offer so much return for
such a small investment, and I encourage you to support full
funding for the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences
Improvement Act. It was an honor and privilege for me to sit
side by side with him and talk about the needs of the criminal
justice system. He was a student of the system and he was a
student of identifying problems and identifying solutions, and
I thank you for taking up his vision and moving forward with it
in such an effective way.
I apologize for going over.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nix follows:]
Statement of Milton E. Nix, Jr., Director, Georgia Bureau of
Investigation
In 1993, after being appointed as Director of the Georgia Bureau of
Investigation by then Governor Zell Miller, it quickly became clear to
me that the greatest challenge we faced as an agency was providing
adequate resources for the GBI Crime Lab.
What I discovered when I came back to Georgia after 23 years with
the FBI was a local criminal justice system that was absolutely
dependent on the work done by a state crime lab that was neither
adequately funded nor staffed.
With increasing demands for quality, productivity, and timeliness
but faced with inadequate resources to work with, I saw a formula for
disaster. As a result, we set out to try to fix the problem in Georgia.
In the process, we looked outside of our state for solutions.
In 1997, 11 state law enforcement agency representatives formed the
State's Coalition to discuss common challenges we were facing. Quickly,
one common problem came to the forefront--the lack of resources in our
crime labs. This issue has been the priority of this coalition ever
since. We developed and fought for the concept of federal funding for
our crime labs because this is a national issue and clearly affects the
delivery of justice in our country. Ninety-five percent of all crime
laboratory casework in this country is done at the state or local
level. Currently, lack of resources is causing crime laboratories
across the country to be bottlenecks for justice.
Now through organizations such as the International Association of
Chiefs of Police, Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies,
the States' Coalition and the Consortium of Forensic Science
Organizations, efforts have been made to address the resource problem
in our labs at the federal level. Why is federal support so critical in
solving the Crime Laboratory Crisis?
Crime labs have never played a more critical role in the
administration of justice in our country. Because of new technological
advances in ballistics identification and imaging, DNA, and many other
areas, we are looking at a resource that can solve crimes, identify the
offenders as well as the innocent and literally prevent our citizens
from suffering at the hands of society's most dangerous criminals. Our
crime labs can provide timely leads that solve crimes every day. We
must develop and take full advantage of that potential.
You may find this an unusual statement, but I am in total agreement
with the National Association of Defense Attorneys when it comes to
quality and accuracy of crime lab examinations and analysis. It is
imperative that absolute accurate and quality examination standards
must be applied to every piece of evidence analyzed. No corners can be
cut regardless of backlogs. Without a strong sense of quality, public
confidence in our labs is undermined and, in turn, so is justice.
Because of GBI's emphasis on quality, peer review of cases and
assurance that the work is right, our case backlog exploded to over
35,000 cases in 1999. Some cases were taking as much as 6--8 months to
complete. Because some suspects waited in jails for lab reports to
complete, justice could not be served; however, we could not compromise
quality for expediency. Quality is a cost of doing business in
forensics and the citizens of our country deserve nothing less.
why is this a federal issue?
The timely administration of justice demands it.
The work being done by crime lab scientists everyday can have
the impact of opening or closing a cell door forever. This work
must be done with perfection each and every time.
Victims of violent crime deserve the timely application of
appropriate forensic resources. Until that happens, the closure
they seek to the horror of being victimized is unfairly
delayed.
Falsely accused suspects deserve to be cleared with all due
speed. Imagine the horror of falsely being accused of a rape or
other sexual offense while at the same time knowing you could
be cleared if evidence submitted to a crime lab was
expeditiously processed.
Because the federal government has made a commitment to strong
drug enforcement. Federal moneys pour into state and local drug
enforcement programs but who works the evidence in those cases?
Forty to fifty percent of crime analyses relates to drug
identification.
The federal government has recognized the importance of such
programs as DNA by supporting the CODIS program through the
FBI--creating a DNA database available for nationwide access.
Large amounts of federal money have been spent on the law
enforcement side, providing more police officers for local
agencies. We totally agree that this is vital but you must also
consider who works the increasing numbers of cases submitted by
these additional police officers.
The funding will provide support in areas that tailor to the
needs of state and local laboratories:
Equipment
Forensic Education/Training
Laboratory Information Management Systems
Accreditation/Quality Assurance Programs
Laboratory Facility Improvements
Personnel Enhancements
For the dollars spent, the return is tremendous. Justice is
better served; officers have the tools to identify, arrest and
convict suspects; and the innocent are set free in a timely
manner.
In closing, we look back at the words of our Constitution that
calls for government's role in insuring domestic tranquillity. In
forensic science and our crime laboratories, you have the tools to
insure that justice is properly served; that the innocent are set free
and the guilty identified and convicted. Never before have we been able
to offer so much return from such a small investment. I encourage your
support of full funding of the National Forensics Sciences Improvement
Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue today.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Nix. Those were excellent
comments, and I thank you for recalling for us Paul Coverdell's
leadership. It was a good bill and something that I had known
for a long time that we needed to do better about crime lab
support, and it was an opportunity for this Congress to do
something. I think we responded well and now we need to get it
funded.
Dr. Yura, we are delighted to have you with us from West
Virginia.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL T. YURA, DIRECTOR, FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION
PROGRAM, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, MORGANTOWN, WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. Yura. I really appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I greatly
appreciate the opportunity to speak to you concerning the
funding of the National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act of
2000. As you know, this piece of legislation was passed and
sign into law last year, but it was not included in this year's
budget to support this critical piece of legislation. We would
greatly appreciate your support in providing the appropriate
funding for this activity.
I am currently the Director of the Forensic Identification
Program at West Virginia University, in Morgantown, West
Virginia. The primary impetus for the development of our
forensic identification program was that there was a great need
for educational programs not only within the State of West
Virginia, but the United States and throughout the world that
specifically trains people and individuals and grants degrees
in the area of forensic identification.
The FBI, in response to a major training and educational
void, requested that West Virginia University develop these
degree programs in forensic identification, with academic
concentrations in latent fingerprints examiner, forensic
chemistry, biology and toxicology within our forensic
investigative science major, and within our biometrics,
including DNA and molecular biology.
Therefore, this program was created in December 1998 and
graduated its first class last Sunday, May 13, 2001. We
currently have 140 students who have come to our campus and
enrolled in this program. These new programs address the
current and future needs of individuals with increased
scientific expertise in identification technologies and
forensic science. They will be employed in the domestic law
enforcement community, forensic laboratories, the FBI and other
Federal agencies, as well as the biometrics industry.
The use of advanced identification technologies and
forensic science technology within the forensic community and
security industry has created a significant need for
scientifically trained persons with technical skills in the
forensic disciplines, computer science, engineering,
biometrics, natural sciences and criminalistics.
Educational recommendations from technical working groups
from the National Institute of Justice have required that
identification specialists hired in the new millennium have the
appropriate college background. The combination of these
educational recommendations and significant advances in
forensic identification and forensic science has created a
significant demand for well-trained forensic specialists.
But another issue we are helping to solve is that of rural
States having access to forensic science. Small States like
West Virginia have unique problems in the development of our
forensic laboratory capacity. The State of West Virginia has
only one crime lab under the West Virginia State Police.
Because of the geography of our State, bringing evidence to
the crime lab involves considerable loss of time and manpower
because of the significant travel distances necessary to get
evidence to laboratory personnel. Because there is only one
crime lab, cases have been handled on the basis of time
submitted and nature of the case, therefore causing significant
delays in the processing of other cases in need of speed and
professional resolution.
We are currently developing plans for a major renovation
and development in our current law in South Charleston, West
Virginia, as well as the creation of a regional crime lab in
north central West Virginia. This would allow the State to be
divided into two major portions, providing quality and speedy
response to evidence from our law enforcement community.
Development of these facilities can only be accomplished
through this type of legislation. The State of West Virginia
cannot manage the creation and upgrade of these forensic
facilities under current State economics. There are many small,
rural States like West Virginia which need the support of this
type of legislation to keep up with new technology and develop
crime labs and forensic facilities comparable to the larger
States, as well as facilities similar to the expansion
currently going on at the FBI in the creation of their new
crime lab in Quantico, Virginia.
Like the Federal Government, demands for processing
scientific forensic evidence has grown and will continue to
grow geometrically. As technology has been developed for the
processing of evidence such as fingerprints and DNA, crime labs
have not been able to keep up with all the innovations
necessary to provide the public with timely and professional
analysis of forensic evidence.
We would greatly appreciate your support in providing the
broad forensic community, including various disciplines such as
medical examiners and other forensic specialists, with the most
updated tools and facilities available. This will help convict
the guilty and also provide swift exoneration of those persons
wrongly accused.
Scientists in the forensic community take a neutral stand
in the processing of evidence gathered by the State and local
police agencies. They provide the highest-quality, impartial
forensic processing which will greatly benefit the community at
large.
This piece of legislation is critical for all forensic
laboratories that provide the necessary technical processing,
from latent fingerprints to the expanded emphasis on digital
evidence. Funding of this legislation will provide support for
these activities, as well as upgrading and development of
professional forensic experts to help them maintain the highest
quality of academic and scientific knowledge.
I thank you for your time and support. The funding of the
National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act will have a
monumental impact on the forensic community and law enforcement
agencies for years to come.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yura follows:]
Statement of Michael T. Yura, Ph.D., West Virginia University, Forensic
Identification Program
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I greatly appreciate the
opportunity to speak with you concerning the funding of the National
Forensic Science Improvement Act 2000. As you know, this piece of
legislation was passed and signed into law last year but this year's
budget does not include the appropriate sum of funding to support this
critical piece of legislation. We would greatly appreciate your support
in providing the appropriate funding for this activity. I am currently
the Director of the Forensic Identification Program at West Virginia
University in Morgantown, West Virginia. The primary impetus for the
development of the forensic Identification program was that there is
currently no program within the State of West Virginia, the United
States, or throughout the world that specifically trains individuals
and grants degrees in the area of forensic identification.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in response to this major
training and educational void requested that West Virginia University
(WVU) develop degree programs in Forensic Identification with areas of
academic concentration in Latent Forensic Examiner, Forensic Chemistry,
Forensic Biology, and Forensic Toxicology within the major of Forensic
and Investigative Science and within the Biometric major include DNA/
Molecular Biology. Therefore this program was created in December 1998
and graduated its first class on May 13, 2001.
These new programs address the current and future need for
individuals with increased scientific expertise in identification
technologies and forensic science. They will be employed within the
domestic law enforcement community, forensic laboratories, the FBI, and
other federal agencies, as well as the biometric industry. The use of
advanced identification and forensic science technology within the
forensic community and security industry has created a significant need
for scientifically trained persons with technical skills in the
forensic discipline, computer science, engineering, biometrics, natural
sciences, and criminalistics. Educational recommendations from a
National Institute of Justice Technical Working Group (TWG) have been
made requiring that identification specialists hired in the new
millennium have the appropriate college background. The combination of
these new educational recommendations and the significant advances in
forensic identification and forensic science has created a significant
demand for well-educated forensic specialists. Another issue that we
are helping to solve is that of rural and small state's justice system
having access to forensic science. Small states like West Virginia have
some unique problems in the development of our forensic laboratory
capacity.
The State of West Virginia has only one crime laboratory under the
West Virginia State Police. Because of the geography of our state,
bringing evidence to the crime lab involves considerable loss of time
and manpower because of the significant travel distances necessary to
get the evidence to our laboratory personnel. Because there is only one
crime lab, cases have to be handled on the basis of time submitted and
nature of the case, therefore, causing significant delays in the
processing of other cases in need of speedy and professional
resolution. We are currently developing plans for a major renovation
and development of our current crime lab in South Charleston, West
Virginia as well as the creation of a regional crime laboratory in
North-central West Virginia. This would allow the state to be divided
into two major portions providing quality and speedy response of
evidence from the law enforcement community. The development of these
facilities can only be accomplished through this type of legislation.
The State of West Virginia cannot manage the creation and upgrade of
our forensic facilities under the current state economics. There are
many smaller rural states like West Virginia who need the support of
this type of legislation to keep up with new technology and to develop
crime lab and forensic facilities comparable to some larger states as
well as facilities similar to the expansion currently underway by the
FBI in the creation of their new crime laboratory in Quantico,
Virginia. Like the federal government, the demands for processing
scientific forensic evidence has grown and will continue to grow
geometrically.
As technology has been developed for the processing of evidence,
such as fingerprint and DNA evidence, crime labs have not been able to
keep up with all of the innovations necessary to provide the public
with timely and professional analysis of forensic evidence. We would
greatly appreciate your support in providing the broad forensic
community, including various disciplines such as medical examiners and
various forensic specialists, with the most updated tools and
facilities available. This will help convict the guilty and also
provide swift exoneration of those persons wrongly accused. Scientists
in the forensic community take a neutral stand in processing evidence
gathered by state and local police agencies. They provide the highest
quality impartial forensic processing which will greatly benefit the
community at-large. This piece of legislation is critical to all
forensic laboratories that provide the necessary technical processing
from latent fingerprints to an expanded emphasis on digital evidence.
Funding of this legislation will provide the support for these
activities as well as the upgrading and development of professional
forensic experts to help them maintain the highest quality of academic
and scientific knowledge.
I thank you for your time and your support. This funding in support
of the National Forensic Science Improvement Act will have a monumental
impact on the forensic community and law enforcement for many years to
come.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Dr. Yura, and thank you, all
of you. I appreciate very much your coming and sharing your
time and expertise and background on this important subject.
You know that the Federal Government is not going to fund
all the forensic laboratory demands in America. They really
should not. The States have undertaken that and done that
pretty well, but we do spend a lot of money on law enforcement
in Washington. I think there is a growing concern that
sometimes it is used to take over criminal justice rather than
support it.
To me, there is no takeover, there is nothing but a real
form of assistance. So I think that is what good public policy
should be about. We analyze the needs in criminal justice and
we see what we can do consistent with good public policy and
respect for States' roles and responsibilities. I think we are
on the right track here.
Mr. Nix, you head the GBI and the laboratory is a part of
the GBI?
Mr. Nix. It is one of our three divisions.
Senator Sessions. Three divisions?
Mr. Nix. Yes, sir.
Senator Sessions. That is the Georgia Bureau of
Investigation which, by the way, is an outstanding
investigative agency, of which I know you are quite proud. You
have an investigator and they go out and make a case. Maybe
there is ballistics analysis that needs to be done on a weapon,
or maybe there is a drug analysis that needs to be done.
How does it impact an investigator when he submits that
evidence off to a laboratory and months go by before he
receives an answer?
Mr. Nix. Well, the more timely the evidence can be
analyzed, the better lead value that is to the investigator.
There is just so much that the investigator cannot do until
that work has been done. You know, in the DNA area there may
very well be a focus of one individual, that circumstantial
evidence is pointing to that person. But if that DNA evidence
can be accurately analyzed, you are going to know whether or
not you are heading down the right road or whether or not you
need to redirect resources. The same thing is true in the
ballistics area.
We have talked about the DNA and some of these areas, but
we haven't even given any attention to some of the very basic
things that we do in the lab. There has been so much Federal
attention given to DUI and deaths on our highways. Just a
simple DUI case can't go forward until we have done our work in
the crime lab. That is a big part of what we do.
Senator Sessions. My observation is it has got to be
demoralizing to an officer's enthusiasm if he is ready to make
a breakthrough in a case and take the case for prosecution, but
he can't get his analysis back to see if it is drugs or see if
the hair was a match or something like that. Do you agree with
that?
Mr. Nix. Yes, Senator. In Georgia, I have been very
privileged to work for two visionary Governors. I was appointed
by Governor Miller and reappointed by Governor Roy Barnes, and
both of them were students of the criminal justice system and
they realized the direction that we were headed in. And as we
were able to educate our legislature, we have made vast
improvements in our delivery of crime lab services. I know what
dollars can do in providing a solution.
And you say, well, why are you here if, in Georgia, so much
progress has been made? Well, last year the legislature passed
legislation that requires us to take DNA samples for our data
base for all convicted felons. We will have anywhere from
35,000 to 50,000 new DNA cases this year. I think every crime
lab and every law enforcement agency such as GBI is being faced
with cyber crimes. There are very few crime laboratories in the
country that have the capability of dealing with cyber crimes.
In a lot of places, law enforcement and prosecutors are
turning their backs on some very serious crimes in that area
because there isn't anybody in the crime lab who can do the
work.
Senator Sessions. Does anyone else want to comment on that?
Mr. Sheppo or Mr. Townsend, what is it like for the prosecutor
or for the investigator if there is a delay at the laboratory?
Mr. Townsend. Well, I absolutely concur with Director Nix'
statement. In the State of Utah, our prosecutors are demanding
less than a 30-day turnaround time, which makes it an extremely
difficult brick wall that we face. If we don't meet that, then
many times charges are dismissed. In fact, we had a significant
case dismissed just last week for this very reason. We just
simply could not meet the demands and so the prosecutor
dismissed the case.
Senator Sessions. Well, I know that is true in Alabama. I
know Dr. Downs has been working to get more funding, but we are
in a funding crisis, a proration in the State, so the funding
that we would like to see increased may not be as great as he
would like to see.
I do know that when you are waiting 60, 90 days on a
routine drug case, in my view, to get the maximum impact on a
routine, not a large drug case, you need prompt turnaround. The
individual needs to be arrested. If he is guilty, he needs to
be brought into court promptly and something done. He doesn't
have to be sent away for 25 years, perhaps, but he needs to be
brought in and confronted.
But if you are talking 60, 90, 120 days before you get the
lab back and then the next trial docket is another 4 or 5
months down the road, then you have gone a year before this
case is processed effectively. I think that undermines law and
justice.
Dr. Buel?
Mr. Buel. We have found a rippling effect to this on the
police officer. If he submits fingerprint evidence to us and we
don't get a chance to analyze that, he may go to another scene
and not collect the fingerprint evidence that he should because
he knows that it is not going to come back in a timely fashion.
So it compounds, too. Some of the evidence may not come in
because they are not getting the reports back. So that affects
the citizen, the homeowner who expects us to go there and
collect the evidence and bring it in and find the B and E,
which affects us all to some extent at some point. When
somebody breaks in and we see the ``CSI'' folks going in with
their magic wands, they expect us to find the fingerprints and
analyze those and make the hits. But with an overburdened crime
lab, it becomes hard to do that.
Senator Sessions. That is a good observation.
Do any of you sense that State legislators that you deal
with or your friends and colleagues do are becoming better
informed on the need for improving funding for laboratories? I
think we are behind the curve there, or the politicians were
for some time.
Dr. Downs?
Dr. Downs. In Alabama, we certainly have been in the
forefront of trying to educate our State legislators. Through
the assistance of Attorney General Bill Pryor and our Governor,
we have tried to get the word out there. Our legislators do
understand, but as you pointed out, we are in a serious funding
situation within the State and try to be all things to all
people simply can't be done. We have made strides. We have a
long way to go and this will put us over the top, the full
funding for the Paul Coverdell bill.
Senator Sessions. Any other comments? Mr. Sheppo?
Mr. Sheppo. Also, in Illinois, I would echo exactly what
Dr. Downs has said. We have had our laboratory directors work
with our State legislators and it has helped. Of course, there
is still a long way to go.
Senator Sessions. Well, this is not going to solve all your
funding problems. As one of you has said, it is just not enough
to solve the crisis you are facing. In a way, it provides some
quick-fix money, an infusion of money for 5 years, enough money
to make a difference, if not solve all your problems.
Perhaps it can be part of a highlighting of this issue that
gets the attention of our State and local officials, because in
my experience if we can't keep our laboratories at the highest
possible quality level where an examiner has the time to do a
complete and accurate analysis and still get it back to the
investigating agency in a short period of time, then the system
really isn't working well.
For the amount of money we spend in all of law enforcement,
from jails to police and everything in between, you are still a
very small part of that budget. You could double your budget
and it wouldn't really impact the criminal justice budget in
most States.
Any other comments?
Mr. Yura. I would like to make one comment echoing the same
thing. In the State of West Virginia, Governor Wise and our new
Superintendent of the State Police, Colonel Hill, have the same
thing. They are acutely aware of these issues. They came into
office with the idea of trying to solve it.
I think everyone is so sensitive to these issues. It is a
critical time for all of us because of the awareness level, and
you see television shows that highlight it and the expectation
of truth. Everyone wants that, and it is just providing that
support system so we can actually go out and both train those
individuals to work as well as provide the services, as
laboratories are supposed to.
Mr. Nix. Senator, there is just an acute need for training
facilities. About a year-and-a-half ago, we could not hire
enough firearms examiners and we couldn't find anyplace that we
could send scientists to become firearms examiners. I was able
to partner with Tim Moore of the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement and both of us kicked in about $150,000 to train
firearms examiners. But there is a real need for training
facilities that we can send our scientists to.
I think that there is a place here for the FBI. The FBI has
done such a good job through the years with the FBI National
Academy. I think there is a need on the national level for a
national academy of forensics, a place that we can send our
crime lab scientists for advanced training. There is always
going to be a need for continuous training as new innovations
come down the line, and we want to cross-train scientists from
one discipline to another. I think this really be a wonderful
legacy for a new administration coming in to take a strong look
at that as a possibility. But in the meantime, we have got to
have the funds on the State and local level to get the work in
the door and out so that there is not a bottleneck to our
system.
Senator Sessions. That was a good suggestion, Mr. Nix. I
have often felt that there is a healthy role. The FBI Academy
is a very good model, but it takes only a very few people for
specialized matters, and maybe expanding that would be a good
contribution.
Do all of you see that if you were able to expand your
labs--who was that who said we need 9,000?
Dr. Downs. Nationwide.
Senator Sessions. Nationwide. Are there 9,000 people out
there? Is there enough training and salaries sufficient to
attract enough people?
Mr. Sheppo. Yes, sir, I think there probably are enough
scientists out there, but they would have to be trained. That
is why exactly what Director Nix has said is so applicable. It
is important to find these scientists and then have them
properly trained so that they can come into a laboratory and we
don't have to spend years training them. That down time in
training really hurts as far as case productivity.
Mr. Yura. That is why the FBI came to us because they
recognize exactly what Mr. Nix is saying. There was an
incredible need that they saw out there not just for the FBI;
it is at the State and local level. They asked us to begin
those kinds of programs because they could just see the near
future, let alone the distant future, and the demand for these
types of highly qualified personnel.
Senator Sessions. I want to thank each of you. This has
been a very worthwhile hearing. I believe that we will receive
some fruit from it.
On behalf of Senator Hatch, I want to make clear that the
record will be kept open for 2 weeks so interested persons can
submit additional material, any of you or any of the Senators
could.
I also want to offer into the record a letter that Senator
Jon Kyl has asked that we make part of the record from the city
of Phoenix Police Department talking about technology and the
matters that we are dealing with today. Senator Kyl has been a
strong advocate of good, effective law enforcement.
If there is nothing else on our agenda, I will say again
how much we appreciate your testimony, and we will be
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow:]
[Additional material is being retained in the Committee
files.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Questions submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary
questions for panel ii witnesses
1. What is the laboratory accreditation process for your states and
what other types of external reviews do your laboratories undergo?
2. What is your method for resolving disagreements among examiners
over forensic methods or the interpretation of results?
3. What is your work assigned, is terms of principal and auxiliary
examiners, and who is responsible for the preparation of reports?
4. What are the training requirements for your personnel?
5. How do you guard against prosecutoria1 bias?
6. Brain Fingerprinting is the use of computer-based technology to
identify the perpetrator of a crime by measuring brain-wave responses
to crime relevant words or pictures (memory and encoding related
multificated electroencephalographic responses), which are elicited
when the brain processes noteworthy information that it recognizes.
According to the technology's proponents, when details of the crime
that only the perpetrator would know are presented, a MERMER is emitted
by the brain of the perpetrator. The brain of an innocent suspect would
not emit a MERMER because these would be not be a recognition of the
information presented.
A. Are you familiar with the Brain Fingerprinting technology?
If you are, do you have an opinion on the validity of this
technology?
B. Is this technology being used in your laboratories, and if
so, how successful has it been?
7. How do your crime labs maintain the integrity of the chain of
custody, so that evidence is not compromised?
8.How do you preserve evidence containing DNA for use in later
testing and for how long do you keep such evidence?
Questions submitted by Senator Feingold
Questions for David Boyd (Panel I) Keith Coonrod (Panel I) and All
Panel II Witnesses
Question 1: On May 11, 2001, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld of the
Innocence Project wrote in the New York Times that ``Conventional hair
analysis. . . is subjective junk science. . . .Unsound techniques
survive because forensic science has been woven into the culture of
prosecution and insulated from routine quality assurance standards we
impose on medical testing labs. . . .Too often, forensic laboratories
are run by law enforcement officers in lab coats.'' Scheck and Neufeld
conclude, in part, by suggesting that forensic labs should be
independent agencies, serving as independent fact finders for both the
prosecution and the defense. Do you agree with this suggestion? Why or
why not?
Questions for Keith Coonrod (Panel I) and All Panel II Witnesses
Question 1: The Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences
Improvement Act contains a provision that expresses the sense of the
Congress that states that receive these grants should agree to ensure
post-conviction DNA testing in appropriate cases. When we are talking
about the possibility of an innocent person sitting in prison, even
death row, fairness and justice demand that we allow post-conviction
access to DNA testing.
(a) What is the current status of post-conviction access to DNA
testing in your state?
(b) What role have you played in urging this important reform
in your state?
Question 2: One problem sometimes faced by people seeking to prove
their innocence is that the biological evidence has not been stored
properly or, even worse, has been discarded by the state.
(a) What procedures do you have in place in your lab to store
biological evidence?
(b) Once a conviction has been obtained, how do you maintain
the integrity of the biological evidence and store it?
(c) In your state, how long is the state crime lab required to
store biological evidence of a convicted offender?
(d) What are the procedures that your state crime lab follows
in the event that the defense seeks access to the biological
evidence and needs it transferred to a forensic lab retained by
the defense?
Responses of Eric Buel to questions submitted by the Committee on the
Judiciary
Answer 1: We follow the ASCLD accreditation process. ASCLD sets
standards, for training of personnel, quality assurance programs,
documentation and security of evidence. Part of the ASCLD process is to
ensure that laboratories have written procedures, which are followed in
all of the areas of testutb performed. The DNA unit follows DNA
Advisory Board (DAB) guidelines. External proficiency testing occurs in
each discipline followed by blind proficiency testing yearly in each
discipline. In addition, external review of the DNA unit occurs every
other year
Answer 2: There are seldom disagreement, about methods, in that
procedures are described in the standard operating protocols.
Concerning the interpretation of a result, examiners must review the
material and if the examiners do not reach an agreement the supervisor
is consulted. More testing may then be suggested. If there is still
doubt/nonagreement the test may be called inconclusive or the
supervisor may consult with additional examiners from outside agencies.
Our procedures require that a number of tests have two ``readers'',
where two trained analysts must agree on the conclusions
Answer 3: Examiners work only within his/her discipline and work
the oldest cases first unless the supervisor assigns a priority, based
on court or investigative needs. The examiner prepares a report, which
is peer reviewed and administratively reviewed before it is released.
Answer 4: Training requirements are detailed in training manuals
and were reviewed during the accreditation process. The trainee must
undergo training in the specific methods used in the forensic community
and in the laboratory. This includes passing a competency test prior to
undertaking casework. The DAB specifies that DNA analysts have specific
areas of training including biochemistry, genetics, statistics and
molecular biology.
Answer 5: The analyst examines evidence and provides the data
obtained from that analysis. The procedures used are well established
and the results must be supported by worksheets showing the test
results. The worksheets and notes are available for review by the
defense. Our policy provides that we try to maintain a portion of the
evidence for future testing by the defense if they have reason to
question our work.
Answer 6: Brain fingerprinting:
i. About a year ago I read some material on this subject. At
that time, I felt that insufficient research had been conducted
to prove the technique scientifically reliable. It may have
promise, but I was not convinced at the time.
ii. Not used in our laboratory
Answer 7: Chain of custody of evidence is maintained through a
paper record that records each transfer of evidence. We have secure and
appropriate storage spaces for evidence and employ handling procedures
that minimize the possibility of contamination or sample mix up
Answer 8: Biological evidence is dried and placed into a plastic
bag with desiccant. The package is heat sealed and maintained at -20 C
for at least one year. After that time it is returned in a sealed state
to the submitting agency. In a dried and sealed condition it should be
useful and available for future testing for years.
Responses of Eric Buel to questions submitted by Senator Feingold
Answer 1: Many forensic laboratories are under agencies such as a
department of public safety or other criminal justice type
organization. Some laboratories have managers who are police officers
or civilian managers who report to a police officer. In Vermont we have
a civilian director who reports to a civilian director of Criminal
Justice Services who in turn reports to a civilian commissioner. Our
laboratory employs one sworn officer in the capacity as a liaison
between the laboratory and police departments. All examiners in our
laboratory are civilians. These examiners perform the examinations and
report what they find. Most forensic laboratories have civilian
examiners who are scientists. These scientists are trained to report
their bindings, without prejudice. The accreditation process reviews
protocols, training and quality assurance issues. The National Forensic
science Improvement Act will force laboratories to become accredited or
they will not be able to receive the funds. This will be a very
motivating force to drive laboratories towards accreditation.
Concerning conventional hair analysis, this must be performed by only
well trained examiners whose work is peer reviewed. Improper training
will lead to an improper analysis in any field. In the medical field,
cancer cells are misdiagnosed in 1 out of 71 cases, and are
misclassified in 1 out of 5 cases. Training is imperative in any field
and NFSIA will assist labs get appropriate training
post conviction testing:
a) No law currently exists in the state. If a request were made for
this, we would honor the request.
b) We have discussed this issue with the Vermont Defender General's
office and are currently seeking model legislation to offer for the
next legislative session.
storage of evidence:
a) Biological evidence is dried and placed into a plastic bag with
desiccant. The package is heat sealed and maintained at -20 C for at
least one year. After that time it is returned in a sealed state to the
submitting agency. In a dried and sealed condition it should be useful
and available for future testing for years.
b) We usually do not know when a conviction has been obtained. As
described above after about one year, the evidence is returned in a
sealed pouch, which will maintain DNA evidence for a considerable
length of time.
c) No Vennont statues exist for the length of time required to
store biological evidence.
d) The evidence does not belong to the laboratory but belongs to
the submitting agency. Once the submitting agency is informed of the
request from the defense, we obtain a written release from the
submitting agency and a written request from the defense concerning the
samples that need to be transferred and the laboratory that will be
receiving the samples. We then will transfer a portion of the sample to
the forensic laboratory retained by the defense. The defense may ask
the court to order such a transfer and then we would only require a
letter from the defense directing us as to which samples need external
testing and the forensic laboratory retained for the external analysis.
Responses of J.C. Upshaw Downs, M.D. to questions submitted by the
Committee of the Judiciary
1. The National Forensic Sciences Training Center (NFSTC) accredits
our DNA Labs (4). In the past, the National Association of Medical
Examiners (NAME) bas accredited our Forensic Pathology (medical Ewer)
Labs (4). The NAME accreditation was dropped several years ago due to a
lack of resources necessary for compliance with accreditation
guidelines, viz, most toxicology reports should be completed within 30
days per NAME guidelines while in Alabama the delay is routinely 3 to 6
mouths and in some areas, over 12 months.
None of the other laboratory disciplirm are accredited.
External reviews have included the examination and analysis of
quality control samples submitted by Collaborative Testing Service and
Check Samples.
2. Methods for resolving disagreements among examiners include:
a) Review by peers within the same lab or between labs in the state
system. This is accomplished under the auspices of the Discip Chief ,
[technical leader--the state system's senior scientist in a particular
area of the forensic sciences (DNA, fmearmshoolmarks, illicit drugs,
toxicology, trace evidence)] for the respective scientific discipline.
This method is used in over 95% of all cases.
b) Review by recognized peers from a laboratory outside the state's
system.
In, all cases the Discipline Chief reports the findings and
recommendations to a Deputy Director who reports same, with recommended
course of action, to the Director. Tire Director decides if further
action is required. The Discipline Chief makes the technical decision
and determines the appropriate method of reporting after the Director
is satisfied that all pertinent issues have been addressed.
3. Work is assigned through the Laboratory Director to each
laboratory's Section Chief (the individual lab's senior scientist in a
particular area of the forensic sciences). In all disciplines except
Toxicology, the work is assigned to each qualified examiner who
performs the examination/analysis, prepares the report and testifies in
court. The trainees in, each section are supervised by the Section
Chief and qualified examiners.
In order to maxinize the throughput of casework, the toxicology
sections operate differently. In each of the Toxicology Sections (3)
the Section CWef assigns work to the other examiners, supervises their
work, prepares all reports and testifies in all court cases.
4. The training requirements include a mbttum of on-the-job
training, attendance at various schools and sennanars and other
activities that follow a protocol set by the respective Discipline
Chief The protocols follow national standards set by the Technical
Working Groups of the various disciplines. In order to verify
scientific veracity and impartiality in testimony, this training also
includes courtroom procedures and testimony in a moot court setting.
5. Prosecutorial bias is avoided in the same manner as is defewe
bias. Our agency is a separate entity of state gont that is not
attached to any law enforcement agency. The department of Forensic
Sciences is a separate agency in the executive branch, answering to the
Governor. The Director's position is apolitical--the Director can only
be removed from ofce for an impeachable offense.
Departmental reports are public record and contain a scientific
description of evidence examined with a clearly demarcated Werpretation
of said evidence. Personnel are trained to be open and unbiased to both
prosecution and defense. Department personnel meet individually with
either or both sides in an adversarial criminal proceeding to review
findings and interpretations of evidence.
No fees or benefits come to the Department as a direct result of
the reports and examinations conducted by the agency.
Evidence analyses, including post conviction DNA analyses, are
available on request and at no fee, to either side in a criminal proms.
In order to ensure that limited samples are not consumed in testing and
that the results will. have some bearing on the outcome of the case,
this testing is coordinated with both parties in such an instance.
Responses of J.C. Upshaw Downs, M.D. to questions submitted by Senator
Feingold
Question 1: Should forensic labs be independent agencies serving as
independent fact finders for both the prosecution and defense
Answer: The Department of Forensic Sciences of the State of Alabama
is proud to act as such an independent agency. In so doing, we believe
we provide an ideal model fox the operation of a state forensic
laboratory system. The Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences has been
independent since its inception in 1935. The creation of state's
forensic system, was tied, in large part, to a tragic miscarriage of
justice related to evidence--biological (DNA) evidence. The cases of
nine young Black men (known as ``the Scottsboro Boys'') unjustly
convicted of rape pointed out the absence of a competent impartial
evidence collecting and interpreting agency within the state.
Our scientists are certified as peace officers and have the power
to enter any crime scene for the purpose of securing evidence. All
reports of our investigations, both on the scene and in the lab, are
public record. Departmental reports of analyses clearly indicate
factual results and scientific expert opinions based on those results.
It has always been our policy to entertain any request by the defense
to examine evidence in, a case in which we are involved by virtue of an
initial request by an investigating law enforcement agency.
Consultation with counsel for prosecution and defense is another
area of our scientific neutrality- On request, department scientists
will meet privately with representatives for either or both sides,
separately or together. During these sessions, the scientist way be
requested to provide scientific commentary and/or observations to prove
or disprove certain theories proffered by counsel. Attorneys for either
side may review all scientific data used in formulating reports arid
opinions during these consultations. The content of such meetings is
held in strict confidence, unless counsel requests or agrees to release
of information.
The same spirit affects courtroom testimony by Departmental
employees. Impartial scientists are not ethically allowed to ``shade
the results'' or to take sides in any adversarial action. Scientific
truth is scientific truth. Our reputation is one of true impartiality.
Both prosecution and defense have complimented The Alabama Department
of Forensic Sciences for being truly independent finders of scientific
fact, no matter to whom the benefit.
Question 1a: What is the current status of post-conviction DNA
testing?
Answer: Post-conviction DNA testing is available, just as is pre-
conviction testing, on request. It has always been our policy to
entertain any request by the defense to examine evidence in a case in
which we are involved by virtue of an initial request by an
investigating law enforcement agency.
Question b: What role have you played in urging this reform?
Answer: We have not taken a pro-active role in national reform on
availability of post conviction DNA testing, primarily because
Alabama's Department of Forensic Sciences DNA laboratories have an
active case backlog of over 20 months. Put another way, if Alabama's
labs were to receive no new evidence at all, we already have almost 2
years worth of evidence in criminal cases awaiting analysis,
Fundamentally, we agree that DNA cars provide powerful evidence in
criminal proceedings. It should be given the same weight in exonerating
suspects as in implicating the guilty. One must remember that DNA is
only one item of evidence considered in a criminal case. Other evidence
and testimony is often presented
Rarely, court. Rarely, DNA evidence has shown a convict was not the
donor of a sample in a particular case. This result has been used to
free those falsely convicted fox a crime they did not commit. The
Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences applauds those who have helped
secure freedom for those unfortunate few who have been wrongly
imprisoned.
One must understand why DNA evidence was not available and/or was
not used in such cases. Most instances where an individual has been
freed based on post-conviction. DNA evidence involve old cases. The
injustice of today is based on the inadequacy of the past. In short,
just a few years ago, the power of DNA evidence--for inclusion and
exclusion of suspects--was not recognized. This lack of knowledge was a
significant factor in the failure to secure DNA testing in many of
these older cases.
Ignorance of the significance of DNA and other scientific evidence
is no longer the issue. Of far greater concern to scientists is the
failure to sufficiently fund crime laboratories and medical examiners
to deal with evidentiary issues today. We now know the value of DNA
arid forensic evidence. It is not only recognized by the courts but
often is expected by juries. As a society, it is unconscionable to have
the ability to perform such a specific test--one that can literally
mean the difference between life and death--and to not perform a
competent analysis in a timely manner. The answer simply comes down to
a lack of available resources.
The constitution of these United States guarantees the right to a
speedy trial and assures justice for all. Sufficient funding to staff
and accredit forensic laboratories is in the national interest if we
truly value these core principles.
the inadequacies of today must be addressed before they become the
injustices of tomorrow.
Question 2a: What are your procedures for store biological
evidence?
Answer: Generally, biological evidence is stored in secure,
climate-controlled environments following guidelines mandated by
national standards. Some items are stored as dry stains in paper
containers at room temperature, others are stored under refrigeration,
and others are frozen.
Question b: How is the host-conviction evidence stored and its
integrity maintained?
Answer: If any evidence remains in our custody after conviction, it
is stored much the same as described in 2(a) above. The integrity is
maintained at all times in secure, limited-access areas; the chain of
custody is documented through the use of written receipts housed in the
respective case files. Evidence that passes through our system is
usually returned to the submitting agency upon completion of the
examination/analysis, along with any special instructions for long-
terra storage.
Question c: How long are convicted offender biological stains
stored?
Answer: Blood samples from convicted offenders (prisoners,
parolees, probationers, and those seeking pardons) are stored in dried
stain form in a secure area for an indefinite period of time.
Question d: What procedures must be followed by the defense in
order to obtain biological evidence for testing by another lab?
Answer: Normally a defense attorney obtains a court order outlining
the items to be released and the conditions under which they are to be
released, viz. directly to the attorney or transferred by our lab to
another (defense) lab. We make the transfer utilizing normal chain of
custody procedures documented by written receipts and shipping
documents. The reports concerning our analysis of evidence are public
record and the defense lab has access to them in that manner or through
the defense attorney.
Response of National Institute of Justice to a question submitted by
Senator Schumer
Question: How many unexamined rape kits remain in storage awaiting
DNA testing nationally and in New York State?
Answer: Nationally, there are approximately 180,000 unexamined rape
kits. At this time, there are approximately 2,000 unexamined rape kits
in the State of New York. In New York State, there are approximately
6,000 rape kits collected annually.
Responses of Milton E. Nix, Jr. to questions submitted by Senator
Feingold
questions for panel 11 witness:
Answer 1: On May II, 2001, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld of the
Innocence Project wrote in the New York Times that ``Conventional hair
analysis. . .is subjective junk science. . .Unsound techniques survive
because forensic science has been woven into the culture of prosecution
and insulated from routine quality assurance standards we impose on
medical testing labs. . .Too often, forensic laboratories are run by
law enforcement officers in lab coats. ``Scheck and Neufeld conclude,
in part, by suggesting that forensic labs should be independent
agencies, serving as independent fact finders for both the prosecution
and the defense. Do you agree with this suggestion? Why or why not?
Most crime laboratories perform extensive scientific testing on
hair evidence. A conclusion on hair evidence that is as definitive as
that obtained from DNA is not possible. However, the use of properly
scientific analyzed hair evidence can add valuable information for the
judicial system. Forensic sciences has been evolving just as other
sciences continue to evolve as new technologies and techniques are
discovered and developed. Forensic science laboratories have always
been after the truth through science. Their function is in criminal
justice system is to provide independent scientific fact. There have
been countless reports issued by crime laboratories across the county
that have led law enforcement to the guilty person while exoernating
the innocent. In most cases, the public only hears about the crime
laboratory when an individual is prosecuted. The public does not hear
about the scientific reports that do not support prosecution of an
individual.
Almost all forensic scientists are scientists. Today, there are
very few individuals practicing forensic science that do not have a
science type degree. Accreditation programs such as ASCLDLAB support
standardization and quality assurance. Such groups as the American
Board of Criminalistics (ABC) support individual certifications.
Forensic laboratories prove the identity of a drug compound beyond any
scientific reasonable doubt. Medical testing laboratories do not.
Forensic crime laboratories are fact finders of the truth. Their
reports are used by both the prosecution and the defense.
In Georgia, the defense has the ability to question any results
reported by the state's crime laboratory through a policy of
independent examinations using, in many cases, the very same scientific
instrumentation used by the state.
The next question is who pays for a defense crime laboratory? In
has been the practice and custom in the United States that defense
counsel is not provided by the public except in special needy case
situations. As crime laboratories are the fact finders of truth, their
reports are used by the criminal justice system by both the prosecution
and the defense.
Answer 2: The Paul Coverdell NFSIA contains a provision that
expresses the sense of the Congress that states that receive these
grants should agree to ensure post-conviction DNA testing in
appropriate cases. When we are talking about the possibility of an
innocent person sitting in prison, even death row, fairness and justice
demand that we allow post-conviction access to DNA testing.
(a) What is the current status of post-conviction access to DNA
testing in your state?
In the State of Georgia, post-conviction access to DNA testing
can by granted by court order as outlined in Georgia law.
(b) What role have you played in urging this important reform
in your state?
Georgia Bureau of Investigation has supported this reform and
assisted in the passage of the bill containing this provision.
Answer 3: One problem sometimes faced by people seeking to prove
their innocence is that the biological evidence has not been stored
properly, or, even worse, has been discarded by the state.
(a) What procedures do you have in place in your lab to store
biological evidence?
The GBI Division of Forensic Sciences crime laboratory retains
blood samples for one year after the year of submission. All
other evidence is returned to the submitting law enforcement
agency after DNA analysis is completed. If the only remaining
DNA is what was used in the testing, the testing sample is
retained indefinitely at the laboratory.
(b) Once a conviction has been obtained, how do you maintain
the integrity of the biological evidence and store it?
Following DNA analysis, evidence is returned to the submitting
agency. If the only remaining DNA evidence is what was used for
testing, then the laboratory retains the sample in a freezer
indefinitely.
(c) In your state, how long is the state crime lab required to
store biological evidence of a convicted offender?
The GBI Division of Forensic Sciences crime laboratory stores
convicted offender DNA samples indefinitely.
(d) What are the procedures that your state crime lab follows
in the event that the defense seeks access to the biological
evidence and needs it transferred to a forensic lab retained by
the defense?
If the laboratory were still in possession of the evidence, it
would be transferred as per court order and Rules and
Regulation of the Board of Public Safety for Independent
Examinations.
Responses of Michael G. Sheppo to questions submitted by the Committee
on the Judiciary
questions for panel ii witnesses:
Question 1: What is the laboratory accreditation process for your
states and what other types of external reviews do your laboratories
undergo?
Answer: The Illinois State Police forensic science laboratory
system was first accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory
Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) in 1982 and has
subsequently received re-accreditation every five years. External DNA
audits are conducted every other year. We additionally require that
each laboratory director inspect their laboratory each year using
ASCLD/LAB and internal criteria. Also, each laboratory is inspected
annually by an Illinois State Police, Division of Forensic Services,
Forensic Sciences Command inspection team. Included on the inspection
team are external auditors who we believe add a different perspective
in evaluating our laboratory operations.
Question 2: What is your method for resolving disagreements among
examiners over forensic methods or the interpretation of results?
Answer: Disagreements may be resolved by discussions between the
examiners to come to a common decision--if that is not possible, then a
peer review board is formed to review the disagreement and resolve the
issue. The peer review board is made up of the quality review
coordinator for the section, two analysts chosen by the examiner who do
not work in the examiner's laboratory, the training coordinator for the
section, and one analyst chosen by the quality assurance program
administrator. This board meets and reviews the issue and renders a
decision, which is final upon approval by the commander.
For a case already reported to an agency, if no agreement can be
reached between the analysts, separate reports may be issued which
explain/cover the individual merits or reasons made for the conclusions
reached. This would also require the commander's approval.
Forensic Science Command Policy EVH 9--Case Analysis and Reporting
Errors and Situation Reports is attached. Specifically paragraph
III.D.2. addresses the Quality Assurance Review Board process. The
Quality Manual QM 7--Quality Assurance Measures also addresses quality
measures for situations in which there is a disagreement with a
technical review of reports.
Question 3: How is your work assigned, in terms of principal and
auxiliary examiners, and who is responsible for the preparation of
reports?
Answer: The Illinois State Police's forensic science laboratory
system employs both forensic scientists and evidence technicians. The
forensic scientists are responsible for all analytical work and report
preparation. Evidence technicians may handle evidence and prepare
reagents, but are not involved in critical analysis, analytical
interpretation, nor do they issue reports.
Question 4: What are the training requirements for your personnel?
Answer: Applicants for forensic scientist positions must have, as a
minimum, a bachelor's degree in a science such as chemistry or biology.
Each applicant is required to pass a pre-employment written test in the
targeted specialty area of interest (e.g., drug chemistry, forensic
biology/DNA, patterned evidence such as latent prints and firearms). An
oral interview is conducted, and if selected for hiring, the individual
is pre-screened for any additional criteria such as DNA Advisory Board
course work requirements.
Upon hiring, new employees enter a structured formal training
program under the leadership of a training coordinator in the specialty
area in which they will work. The training program consists of modules
with specific goals and objectives. Each module requires the student to
pass criteria tests that can be written and/or practical in nature,
demonstrating theory, practical knowledge and analytical skills.
Students must successfully pass a module before beginning another
module. Modules include: theoretical information, demonstration of
analytical techniques on practice cases and/or non probative cases, 100
percent passage of a final set of unknowns before beginning supervised
casework, final mock trails and/or oral boards, and a specified period
of supervised casework. Each training program has a specific length of
time for completion. Written academic criteria, which establishes
grading guidelines as well as student continuation in a program, are
strictly followed. Appropriate modifications to the training program
are made for individuals we hire with experience at another forensic
science laboratory and for individuals within the Forensic Sciences
Command who wish to change specialties and if the command has an
operational need to permit cross-training. Academic criteria for that
program is also attached.
Question 5: How do you guard against prosecutorial bias?
Answer: Prosecutorial bias is something that all forensic
scientists need to be aware of and ever vigilant to avoid. All forensic
scientists must strive to report all the scientific facts in an
understandable manner so that the information can then be used by the
judicial system to determine an individual's guilt or innocence. The
Illinois State Police starts stressing the importance of impartiality
with novice forensic scientists. All of our forensic scientists attend
a week long Courtroom Demeanor Training that teaches them their role in
the judicial process. The scientists also attend an ethics seminar
which stresses the need to accurately report all scientific findings.
These basic principles are stressed throughout the forensic scientist's
career. To ensure all scientific findings are reported accurately and
completely, the Illinois State Police has a thorough quality assurance
program that includes case file reviews, random reanalysis of already
reported cases and court room testimony monitoring by supervisors. Part
of the quality assurance program also includes the use of court cards
which are given to the prosecutor, defense attorney and the judge by
each forensic scientist who testifies so that those individuals can
evaluate and comment on the testimony given by our scientists.
Question 6: Brain Fingerprinting is the use of computer-based
technology to identify the perpetrator of a crime by measuring brain
wave responses to crime-relevant words or pictures presented on a
computer screen. These brain wave responses are called MERMERs (Memory
and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalograph icResponses),
which are elicited when the brain processes noteworthy information that
it recognizes. According to tile technology's proponents, when details
of the crime that only the perpetrator would know are presented, a
MERMER is emitted by the brain of the perpetrator. The brain of an
innocent suspect would not emit a MERMER because there would not be a
recognition of the information presented.
A. Are you familiar with the Brain Fingerprinting technology? If
you are, do you have an opinion on the validity of this technology?
Answer: I am not familiar with Brain Fingerprinting technology.
B. Is this technology being used in your laboratories, and if so,
how successful has it been?
Answer: We are not using Brain Fingerprinting technology in the
Illinois State Police laboratory system.
Question 7: How do your crime labs maintain the integrity of the
chain of custody, so that evidence is not compromised?
Answer: The Illinois State Police laboratory system has in place a
number of evidence handling policies which guide personnel in the
proper receipt, handling, analysis, storage and ultimate disposition of
evidence submitted. Policies include: receiving evidence in a sealed
condition, maintaining evidence seals while in vault storage, limited
vault access, limited access to analytical work areas, chain of custody
records are maintained, clean techniques are observed, buildings and
work areas have security plans and devices, employees undergo extensive
background checks including drug screening, protocols are in place to
detect extraneous DNA and for the running of blanks between samples to
ensure no carry over from a previous analysis occurs. A representative
sampling of these policies are included as attachments.
The Illinois State Police laboratory system regularly monitors
evidence handling through a number of mechanisms such as internal
inspections, both announced and unannounced, external inspections,
employee observation and performance reviews, quality assurance reviews
such as case file reviews and random reanalysis.
Question 8: How do you preserve evidence containing DNA for use in
later testing and for how long do you keep such evidence?
Answer: Evidence received in criminal cases is kept in the
laboratory evidence vault under proper storage conditions (room
temperature, refrigerator, or freezer, depending upon the type of
evidence) until the case is analyzed and the case questions are
answered. The evidence is then returned, along with any pertinent
directions concerning evidence storage conditions, to the original
submitting law enforcement agencies for appropriate evidence
disposition.
Responses of Michael G. Sheppo to questions submitted by Senator
Feingold
Question 1: On May 11, 2001, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld of the
Innocence Project wrote in the New York Times that ``Conventional hair
analysis . . . is subjective junk science . . . Unsound techniques
survive because forensic science has been woven into the culture of
prosecution and insulated from routine quality assurance standards we
impose on medical testing labs. . . To often, forensic laboratories are
run by law enforcement officers in lab coats.'' Scheck and Neufeld
conclude, in part, by suggesting that forensic labs should be
independent agencies, serving as independent fact finders for both the
prosecution and the defense. Do you agree with this suggestion? Why or
why not?
Answer: I do not agree with the suggestion that forensic
laboratories should be independent agencies. I have had the opportunity
to work for two law enforcement agencies during my thirty-year career
as a forensic scientist and forensic science administrator. These
agencies, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) and the Illinois
State Police (ISP) both provide the vast majority of forensic science
services to their respective state's criminal justice systems. My
experience in both agencies allow me to emphatically state that I have
never known of a situation where scientific evidence was withheld,
misinterpreted, or compromised to enhance the prosecution of a case. In
fact, I am pleased to inform the committee that I have had experiences
in both agencies in which law enforcement officials have relentlessly
pursued scientific evidence that resulted in not substantiating the
investigatory leads made by law enforcement personnel. I know that both
the ISP and GBI advocate and practice unbiased investigations to
include those scientific analyses performed in their forensic
laboratories.
In the ISP, for example, we strive to report all the scientific
facts in an understandable manner so that the information can then be
used by the judicial system to determine an individual's guilt or
innocence. The Illinois State Police starts stressing the importance of
impartiality with novice forensic scientists. All of our forensic
scientists attend a week-long Courtroom Demeanor Training that teaches
them their role in the judicial process. The scientists also attend an
ethics seminar which stresses the need to accurately report all
scientific findings. These basic principles are stressed throughout the
forensic scientist's career. To ensure all scientific findings are
reported accurately and completely, the ISP has a thorough quality
assurance program that includes case file reviews, random reanalysis of
already reported cases and courtroom testimony monitoring by
supervisors. Part of the quality assurance program also includes the
use of court cards which are given to the prosecutor, defense attorney
and the judge by each forensic scientist who testifies so that those
individuals can evaluate and comment on the testimony given by our
scientists. Additionally, both the ISP and GBI laboratory systems are
headed by individuals who are scientists who have worked in a forensic
science laboratory. Finally, I believe that forensic science
laboratories need the support of large organizations that are able to
provide the necessary resources to adequately provide these expensive
scientific services. As an independent forensic science agency, we
would not have the political leverage to compete with other large state
agencies. Even though we have needs in the ISP laboratory system, our
laboratories have been a priority in our agency and have received
resources on par with other department divisions.
Question 2: The Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences
Improvement Act contains a provision that expresses the sense of the
Congress that states that receive these grants should agree to ensure
post-conviction DNA testing inappropriate cases. When we are talking
about the possibility of an innocent person sitting in prison, even
death row, fairness and justice demand that we allow post-conviction
access to DNA testing.
(a) What is the current status of post-conviction DNA testing in
your state?
Answer: Since 1998, section 116-3 of the Illinois Code of Criminal
Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/116-3) has allowed a defendant to have
physical evidence subjected to forensic DNA testing that was not
available at the time of trial, if certain requirements are met (see
attachment). To obtain DNA testing, a defendant must present a prima
facie case that identity was the issue at trial, and that the evidence
to be tested has been under a secure chain of custody. Testing is
permitted if (1) the method of DNA testing requested is generally
accepted within the relevant scientific community, and (2) ``the
results of the testing has the scientific potential to produce new,
noncumulative evidence materially relevant to the defendant's assertion
of actual innocence.''
On May 24, 2001, in People v. Savory (Docket No. 88786), the
Illinois Supreme Court addressed the meaning of this criminal code
requirement for what the results of DNA testing must have the potential
to produce (see attachment). The case defendant, Johnny Lee Savory, had
been convicted of the stabbing deaths of a Peoria, Illinois brother and
sister in 1977. The evidence Savory wanted tested was blood stained
trousers taken from his home by the police. At trial, the State had
introduced the trousers as evidence; had contended Savory was wearing
the trousers at the time of the murders; and had established the
trousers had been stained with blood of the same type as the murdered
sister. Savory alleged new DNA tests available since his conviction
would establish the trouser blood was not the murdered sister's.
The State argued, and had won in lower Illinois courts, taking the
position Savory was not entitled to the new DNA tests he sought. In the
Illinois Supreme Court, the State contended the Criminal Code only
allowed defendants to seek a new DNA test on old evidence when the
tests results would completely vindicate them. The State pointed out
that even if the new DNA tests Savory wanted established the blood
stain on the trousers was not the dead sister's, this did not mean
Savory had not stabbed her to death.
Writing for a unanimous seven justice Illinois Supreme Court,
Justice Mary Ann McMorrow explained evidence which is ``materially
relevant'' to a defendant's claim of actual innocence is simply
evidence which tends to advance the claim significantly. Justice
McMorrow wrote, ``Accordingly, we hold that section 116-3 is not
limited to situations in which scientific testing of a certain piece of
evidence would completely exonerate a defendant.'' Justice McMorrow
then moved on to rule that even given this fact, Savory was not
entitled to the new DNA tests he requested. The bloodstained trousers,
Justice McMorrow noted, were essentially a collateral issue at trial
and were not central to the State's evidence of Savory's guilt.
The consequence of the People v. Savory decision for justice in
Illinois will be large. First, while past judges receiving prima facie
case petitions might have been inclined to accept them at face value,
in the future they should be more likely to look behind the defendant's
claims for what the evidence really will show. Second, lawyers
representing prisoners alleging innocence regularly confront situations
where information from evidence analysis may produce important facts,
but will not totally exonerate their clients. These lawyers now have a
ruling supporting ongoing, stepby-step attempts to collect facts that
will accumulate and could be beneficial to people alleging wrongful
convictions.
(b) What role have you played in urging this important reform in
your state?
In 1998, the ISP, Division of Forensic Services, Forensic Sciences
Command (DFS, FSC), supported the legislation that became section 116-3
of the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963. With ISP backing,
this legislation passed the Illinois General Assembly and was signed by
then Governor Jim Edgar. The ISP, DFS, FSC top command's position on
this legislation was that anyone wrongfully convicted would want the
opportunities this proposal provided to prove their innocence. At that
time, the ISP, DFS, FSC top command understood the proposal would put
additional demands on the ISP laboratory system's personnel and
equipment. The ISP provided the proposal's sponsors and the governor
with ``best estimate'' costs for these new analysis services, and
followed with an explanation that what was really at issue was not
costs, but was a matter of the fundamental fairness everyone had a
right to expect from our criminal justice system.
Question 3: One problem sometimes faced by people seeking to prove
their innocence is that the biological evidence has not been stored
properly or, even worse, has been discarded by the state.
(a) What procedures do you have in place in your lab to store
biological evidence?
Answer: Evidence received in criminal cases is kept in a sealed
condition in the laboratory evidence vault under proper storage
conditions (room temperature, refrigerator, or freezer, depending upon
the type of biological evidence) until the case is analyzed and the
case questions are answered.
(b) Once a conviction has been obtained, how do you maintain the
integrity of the biological evidence and store it?
In most cases, the evidence has been introduced into court and
therefore is no longer at the laboratory. If the evidence is not turned
over to the court, the evidence is then returned in a sealed condition,
along with any pertinent directions concerning evidence storage
conditions, to the original submitting law enforcement agencies for
appropriate evidence disposition.
(c) In your state, how long is the state crime lab required to
store biological evidence of a convicted offender?
On June 23, 2000, Governor Ryan signed a bill (House Bill 4593)
creating a uniform statewide evidence retention policy after the trial
and conviction of a defendant. Responsibility to retain the evidence
rests with the submitting law enforcement agency, not the crime
laboratory. Retention times for the evidence vary depending upon the
crime, from seven years following a conviction for a felony which
requires the defendant's genetic profile to be taken for comparison
with a forensic DNA database of unsolved offenses, up to permanent
retention for other specific convictions.
(e) What are the procedures that your state crime lab follows in
the event that the defense seeks access to the biological evidence and
needs it transferred to a forensic lab retained by the
When the defense seeks access to biological evidence, the ISP
forensic science laboratories will, working through the state's
attorney's office, either send the evidence directly to the defense
forensic laboratory if all parties agree, or return the evidence to the
submitting law enforcement agency where the defense can obtain the
evidence to send it to a laboratory of their choice.
Responses of Richard J. Townsend to questions submitted by the
Committee on the Judiciary
answers to questions for panel ii witnesses
Answer 1: In the state of Utah, Bureau of Forensic Services, in an
accredited laboratory with the American Society of Crime Lab
Directors--Laboratory Advisory Board. We became accredited in 1996 and
are being inspected in July of 2001 (for reaccreditation during the
next five years). Our laboratory system undergoes yearly internal and
external reviews by AS CLDLAB approved auditors and we must present
evidence of internal and external reviews on a yearly basis to ASCLD-
LAB.
Answer 2: One hundred percent of our case analyses are technically
and administratively reviewed. The peer review is generally conducted
by a trained analyst in the discipline of the case. An administrative
review is typically conducted by a peer or supervisor. Disagreements
are resolved at the peer review level and, if necessary, a supervisor
can interject his/her opinion on the results of the analysis.
Answer 3: All cases are assigned to principle criminaiists in each
discipline, i.e., DNA cases to DNA criminalists, drug cases to
chemistry criminalists, fingerprint cases to latent fingerprint
examiners, etc. Each criminalist is responsible for his/her case
reports which are logged into the Utah Evidence Tracking System.
Answer 4: Each new employee who will be doing case work undergoes
an extensive training process in the discipline he/she is hired for. In
drug chemistry, the typical training period is approximately one year,
while it takes two years for a DNA analyst to become qualified and
certified. There is a set training protocol for each discipline and
every must undergo a certification process and pass proficiency
examinations on a yearly basis.
Answer 5: Although the Bureau of Forensic Services is a section of
the Utah Department of Public Safety, there is a pledge of mutual
science in this laboratory system. We testify to scientific fact as
determined by training, experience, instrumentation and education.
Under no circumstances, are employees allowed to be persuaded or biased
by the prosecution. By state statute, we are also obligated to perform
analyses for the defense.
Answer 6a: I have never heard of Brain Fingerprinting technology.
Answer 6b: No.
Answer 7: In Utah, we have developed a software program called the
Utah Evidence Tracking System (VETS). Any piece of evidence brought to
the Laboratory for analysis is bar coded prior to being accepted into
the Laboratory system. All evidence must be properly sealed and labeled
prior to being accepted by the evidence technicians.. Each time the
evidence changes hands, a signature must be made on an evidence
tracking sheet and the evidence is bar coded to the next examiner, who
is assigned a personal bar code.
Answer 8: Biological fluids containing DNA evidence are preserved
by freezing. If the sample being analyzed contains enough fluid for
future analysis (either for reanalysis or defense analysis), the
residual evidence is frozen. We store DNA profiles and DNA evidence
indefinitely.
Responses of Richard J. Townsend to questions submitted by Senator
Feingold
answers to questions for panel ii witnesses
Answer 1: . To make a statement that ``too often, forensic
laboratories are run by law enforcement officers in lab coats'' is both
erroneous and offensive. As a law enforcement officer myself, one of
the aspects I have admired most about the scientists who work in our
forensic laboratory system is standing up for ``the neutrality of the
analysis'' and going to the wall in defense of their analysis. It is a
fact that at certain times police officers make an attempt to interject
their opinions or persuade the analysis to go a certain direction. In
my four years of being the Lab Administrator, I cannot cite one single
case where that has been a factor in determining the results of the
analysis.
Answer 1a: This Laboratory System strongly supports post-conviction
DNA analysis and is supported by Utah Senate Bill 172 which passed the
2001 general session of the Utah Legislature and is entitled ``Post-
Conviction DNA Testing''.
Answer 1b: I personally testified in favor in the passage of SB172
and the Bureau of Forensic Services currently has a board member
serving on. the ``Innocence Project'' to screen any and all potential
post-conviction DNA cases.
Answer 2a: This Laboratory System does everything in its power to
preserve DNA evidence in freezers. Many times, however, there is not
enough of an evidentiary sample to preserve evidence after the analysis
is completed. In certain cases, there is not even enough evidence
preserved in order for it to be tested by a defense expert.
Answer 2b: We continue to maintain the evidence by keeping it in a
freezer.
Answer 2c: There is no statutory mandate for the retention of
biological evidence of a convicted offender in the state of Utah.
However, we keep the evidence anyhow.
Answer 2d : If enough of the evidence is present for defense expert
examination, we will release the evidence to the defense in the very
same way we release the analysis back to law enforcement and
prosecutors.
Responses of Michael T. Yura to questions submitted by the Committee on
the Judiciary
Question 1: What is the laboratory accreditation for your states
and what other types of external reviews do your laboratories undergo?
Answer: The West Virginia State Police Forensic Laboratory is an
accredited Laboratory through the American Society of Crime Laboratory
Directors (ASCLD). ASCLD accreditation is a voluntary process in which
the lab demonstrates that its management, operations. personnel,
procedures, equipment, physical plant, security, and health and safety
procedures comply with established standards.
According to ASCLD, the accreditation is part of the laboratory's
quality assurance program, which includes proficiency testing,
continuing education, and other programs to help the laboratory provide
better overall service to the criminal justice system. Accreditation is
granted for a period of five years provided that a laboratory continues
to meet ASCLD standards, including completion of the annual
Accreditation Review Report and participation in proficiency testing
programs as prescribed In order to maintain accreditation, a laboratory
must submit a new Application for Accreditation every fifth year, and
undergo another on-site inspection. Also, each section of the
laboratory is required each year to undergo . proficiency testing
conducted by ate outside source.
Question 2: What is your method for resolving disagreements among
examiners over forensic methods or the interpretation of results?
Answer: Currently, the West Virginia State Police Forensic
Laboratory has no policy on resolving conflicts or disagreements of
interpretations of results. However, efforts are in progress to address
this with the intention of implementing a policy that will set a
procedure for the handling of the types of matters.
Question 3: How is your work assigned, in terms of principle and
auxiliary analysts, and who is responsible for the preparation of
reports?
Answer: Cases are assigned to qualified analysts as they are
submitted to the laboratory. The Section Head of each laboratory
department is responsible in overseeing that the work of each qualified
analyst is completed as well as verified. As for the writing of the
reports, analysts are responsible for writing up reports for the
evidence that they analyzed Afterwards, each written report is
subjected to both as administrative and technical review.
Question 4: What are the training requirements for you personnel?
Answer: The West Virginia State Police Forensic Laboratory is
composed of seven sections. Due to the differences in each section, the
type of training required is also different; however, each person is
required to meet a certain criteria through training in order fin meet
the standards of a qualified analyst. Each person is subject rigorous
on-the-job training, must regularly participate in specialized schools
related to their field, undergo proficiency testing on a regular basis,
and participate in continuing education in laboratory standards and
procedures. Also the length of the training varies from section to
section as the entry-level educational requirements.
Question 5: How do you guard against prosecutorial bias?
Answer: Analysts within the West Virginia State Police Forensic
Laboratory act as an interpreter of the evidence, not as an advocate of
the prosecution or the defense. In court, the job of the analyst is to
help the jury and other members of the court understand only what can
be determined from the evidence- This philosophy is instilled into
analysts during their training process and is continually strengthened
during their career.
Question 6: Brain fingerprinting is the use of a computer-based
tecnology to identify the perpetrator of a crime by measuring brain-
wave responses to crime-relevant words or pictures presented on a
computer screen. These brain wave responses are called MERMERs (memory
and encoding related multifaceted electronencephalographic responses),
which are elicited when the brain processes noteworthy information that
it recognizes. According to the technology's proponents, when details
of the crime that only the perpetrator would know are presented, a
MERMER is emitted by the brain of the prepetrator. The brain of an
innocent suspect would not emit a MERMER because there would not be
recognition of the information presented.
A. Are you familiar with the Brain Fingerprinting technology? If
you are, do you have an opinion on the validity of this technology?
B. Is this technology being used in your laboratories, and if so,
how sucessful has it been?
Answer A: Yes, members of the West Virginia State Police Forensic
Laboratory are familiar with the new technology of Brain
Fingerprinting. As mentioned in the statement above, it is a type of
program developed by Dr. Lawrence Farwell of the Harvard Medical School
that fingerprints brain waves of a suspect as they relate to crime-
related information. According to the results of studies conducted,
Brain Fingerprinting appears to be a new valid technology in the
criminal justice system. According to results, Farwell Brain
Fingerprinting has proven 100% accurate in 100 tests conducted,
including tests done on FBI agents, US intelligence agents, and for the
US Navy. Also Brain Fingerprinting was presented in an Iowa court and
was found admissible by the judge. Three science utilized by the
Farwell technique was evaluated under the Daubed standard and passed
all four aspects of tie standard.
Answer B: This technology is currently not being conducted in our
laboratories. The Farwell Brain Fingerprinting technique is a new
technology, and unfortunately, is only being used in a handful of
laboratories across the nation.
Question 7: How do your crime labs maintain the integrity of the
chain of custody, so that evidence is not compromised?
Answer: The West Virginia State Police Forensic Laboratory operates
under a strict guideline for chain-of-custody. As evidence is received,
it is checked for proper packaging, which includes appropriate seals.
An inventory is made of the evidence and it is resealed by the analyst
and placed in a secure storage locker until processed. After
processing, it is resealed until such time that it is returned in
person or sent by certified mail. If the evidence is transferred to
another section for examination, the appropriate documentation is made
and follows the evidence. The packaging, the actual evidence, and any
labels will be marked with the analyst's case number and initials.
Question 8: How do you preserve evidence containing DNA for use in
later testing and for how long do you keep such evidence?
Answer: As is standard procedure, DNA evidence is kept in secure
freezes at a constant temperature of -76 deg. C. The West Virginia
State Police Forensic Laboratory Biochemistry Section houses all DNA
evidence indefinitely.
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Laboratory, Washington, DC
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is very abundant in most human cells.
Each cell literally has thousands of copies of MtDNA. This is
contrasted to the two copies (maternal and paternal) of nuclear DNA
present in most human cells such as semen, blood, and skin. The
multitude of mtDNA copies present in tissue samples, however, increases
the likelihood that some will persist intact in samples where nuclear
DNA has been degraded by bacteria, sunlight, or other insults.
Consequently, certain tissues (e.g., hair, bones, teeth) having little
nuclear DNA often can be successfully analyzed for mtDNA when
conventional DNA analysis would not be effective.
MtDNA is passed to each generation through the maternal line and is
most useful in abduction and assault cases (in which hairs may be
recovered) and identification of human remains. Biological evidence
recovered in missing persons cases is often in advanced stages of
decomposition (with little or no nuclear DNA remaining intact). In such
cases, mtDNA may be the only form of DNA testing possible. Because
mtDNA is inherited through the maternal line, reference samples for
comparison purposes can be collected from the mother or other living
maternal relatives of the putative victim. Although it provides less
statistically significant results than conventional DNA when matches
are found, mtDNA is often the only means of analyzing degraded tissue
and has proven to be a very powerful investigative tool in recent
years.
The FBI Laboratory began forensic mtDNA analysis in June 1996 after
four years of research and validation. To date, nearly 700 cases have
been completed and testimony has been provided in 26 states, Canada and
Australia. As its success has grown, demand for mtDNA testing far
outstrips the FBI Laboratory's current or likely future capacity.
Anticipating the need for other crime laboratories to develop their own
mtDNA capabilities, in 1998, the FBI Laboratory began training forensic
scientists in mtDNA analysis in a two-week course at the FBI Academy in
Quantico, Virginia. So far, personnel have been trained from sixteen
state and local crime laboratories, and three foreign countries.
The FBI's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) includes a Missing
Persons Index which matches DNA profiles resulting from analysis of
tissue samples containing nuclear DNA or mtDNA. Unfortunately, none of
the 123 state and local laboratories currently participating in CODIS
can take full advantage of the Missing Persons Index because they do
not conduct mtDNA analysis required to enter mtDNA profiles in the
Index. For CODIS to reach its full potential as an investigative tool,
and if all the nation's criminal justice system is to benefit from
mtDNA testing, capacity must be expanded to provide nationwide
coverage.
The FBI Laboratory remains the only public crime laboratory
conducting mtDNA testing--mostly for reasons related to funding.
Although laboratory equipment required for mtDNA analysis is similar to
other current methods for DNA analysis, three major factors
significantly increase the cost and difficulty of establishing mtDNA
analysis, even in crime laboratories with well-established DNA
programs. First, and most significant, stringent quality assurance
standards require dedication of separate rooms and laboratory
equipment--which is expensive, consumes precious laboratory space, and
cannot be used for other purposes. Second, supplies and laboratory
reagents required for mtDNA are more expensive than for any other
routine forensic analysis technique, including conventional DNA
analysis. And, Third, mdDNA requires special software for data analysis
which is relatively expensive.
The FBI Laboratory proposes to establish a nationwide mtDNA
laboratory network. As envisioned, the FBI Laboratory would administer
a network of six to eight state and local crime laboratories that are
Federally funded to provide mtDNA testing services to state and local
criminal justice agencies. With new appropriations for program
expenditures, the FBI will be responsible for selecting laboratories in
the network, training personnel, providing annual funding, and
assessing adherence to standards for quality assurance.
To carry out program management responsibilities, including
training and quality assurance for regional laboratories conducting
forensic mtDNA analysis, the FBI Laboratory will require one GS-14
Program Manager, two GS-13/14 Examiners, two GS-11/12 Biologists and
two GS-13/14 Quality Assurance Specialists. Funding for additional
training equipment and related supply and reagent costs associated with
mtDNA testing would also be required that would be similar to start up
costs for a regional laboratory (i.e., approximately $1 million).
Current equipment in the FBI Laboratory used for casework would be
inappropriate for quality assurance testing necessary for monitoring
the network laboratories.
With appropriate support, several public crime laboratories in the
U.S. could successfully conduct mtDNA in forensic casework. Such
laboratories have already established testing programs for nuclear DNA
and, with additional equipment and supply budgets, could provide mtDNA
analysis within specified regions of the U.S. That way, all crime
laboratories would have access to service that is close to home while
avoiding duplication of mtDNA capabilities because mtDNA laboratories
would be of sufficient size to operate efficiently. Thus, access to
mtDNA would expand while minimizing overall costs to the nation.The FBI
Laboratory estimates that the average start-up cost for each laboratory
to prepare for mtDNA testing is approximately $1 million. This estimate
is based on laboratory building enhancements, equipment needs, supply
purchases, and training requirements. In addition to start-up costs,
each laboratory will need an additional $100,000 - $200,000 annually
for supplies and reagent related to mtDNA analysis.
2 genetic analyzers (sequencing, i.e., ABI 3100, ABI 377).. 270,000
4 luminometers (mtDNA quantitation)........................ 100,000
2 to 4 Taqman or Beckman CEs (post-PCR quantitation)....... 300,000
thermal cyclers, dedicated sampling equipment.............. 130,000
dedicated extraction, PCR and sequencing reagents.......... 200,000
Estimated TOTAL........................................ 1,000,000
prospective sites for mtdna laboratories
The following state and local crime laboratories are recognized
leaders in nuclear DNA testing and have the potential and desire to
develop a mtDNA testing capability. Some have begun making laboratory
renovations required for mtDNA testing. Many have sent analysts to the
FBI Laboratory mtDNA school. This list is not inclusive of potentially
qualified sites, but highlights possible participants in the program.
Albuquerque Police Department Crime Laboratory
400 Rorna Northwest, Albuquerque, NM 87102
Phoenix Police Department Crime Laboratory
620 Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003
Arkansas State Crime Lab
#3 Natural Resources Drive, Little Rock, AR 72215
Illinois State Police Research and Development Laboratory
2060 Hill Meadows Drive, Springfield, IL 62702
Harris County Texas Medical Examiner's Office
1885 Old Spanish Trail, Houston, TX 77035
New York City Medical Examiner's Office
520 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Georgia Bureau of Investigation(GBI) Crime Laboratory
Post Office Box 370808, Decatur, GA 30037
New York State Police Crime Laboratory
1220 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12226
California Department of Justice
626 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, CA 94710
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
4211-A North Lois Avenue, Tampa, FL 33614
Virginia Division of Forensic Science
1501 East Franklin Street, Richmond, VA 23219
Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory
2102 West Encanto Boulevard, Phoenix, AZ 85009
Ohio BCI and Crime Laboratories
P.O. Box 365, London, OH 43140
Statement of Terry W. Fenger, Marshall University, Forensic Science
Program
As director of the Forensic Science Program and the West Virginia,
CODIS laboratory at Marshall University in Huntington, WV., I would
like to congratulate Senators Hatch, Sessions, Leahy and Feingold on
your efforts to fund the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences
Improvement Act. The hearing on May 15, 2001 emphasized urgent needs of
the forensic science community and how delayed testing of crime
evidence is directly related to understaffed and minimally funded
forensic laboratories. As many forensic scientists near retirement, it
is even more imperative that a new generation of forensic specialists
be trained in this technologically oriented field.
With this objective in mind the Master's degree granting program in
Forensic Science at Marshall University has been working in close
association with the West Virginia State Police. Under a Memorandum of
Understanding Marshall's Program has provided continuing education
courses, in addition to courses that allowed 5 State Police forensic
scientists to graduate with Master's degrees. Our relationship is
unique and dates back to 1992. In addition, over the last 5 years 70
forensic scientists have graduated from the program and have been
eagerly recruited by the forensic community.
Marshall University's Forensic Science Center is also responsible
for performing the State's DNA profiling for the state's offender
database under the authority of the WV State Police. Through the use of
bar coding of offender samples and other secure methods, we are able to
maintain confidentiality and meet standards issued by the DNA Advisory
Board.
As many new and exiting technologies become available for use in
forensic science, the courts and the communities that we serve, expect
that sophisticated instruments will be used to solve cases. The price
tags on many instruments can be daunting and at the present time most
local and even some state labs lack these capabilities. Furthermore,
once the instruments are acquired extensive training and validations
studies are necessary. Higher education can provide instrument
training, which will allow crime laboratories to concentrate on
casework and testifying in court.
It is my opinion that Marshall University and the WV State Police
have developed a beneficial association, which serves as a model for
similar collaborations, nationally. We are maximizing the use of our
limited resources, but we look to your leadership to for enhanced
funding for forensic laboratories as we move into the next millennium.
This statement is given on behalf of the May 15', 2001 US Senate
Judiciary Committee hearings on the Paul Coverdell National Forensic
Science Improvement Act. We thank the Members of the Committee for this
chance to explain the need for an increase in support for forensic
science research and education.
Forensic science is relatively young, with its roots stretching
back only 150 years. Modern forensics and criminalistics is even
younger, having emerged as a valid and accepted format of investigation
during the early Twentieth Century, very much in parallel with Quantum
Theory. Just as Newtonian Theory changed to Quantum Theory, so has
forensics undergone an evolution, from looking at the large to the
microscopically tiny. However, the importance of forensic science is in
no way microscopic. Simply put, forensic science solves cases and
catches criminals. It exonerates the innocent and convicts the guilty,
even years after the crime has been committed and without the need for
witnesses.
``The most tangible way in which science, especially chemistry, can
be concerned with the well-being of society is its use in the
maintenance of the fabric of society as expressed in constant vigil
against crime.''
British Forensic Society Journal
Forensic science is the tool that allows the justice system to
increase security through order, thus establishing peace in society.
Order means fewer redundant arrests via the removal of recidivist
criminals, and speedy and efficient trials without excess appeals due
to the improper collection, handling, storage and analysis of evidence.
It will be imperative, using the Coverdell Bill, to increase
funding for the field of forensic science in general, and the National
Institute of Justice in particular. There are several vital reasons for
the advent of increased funding. First, there is a titanic backlog of
unsolved and uninvestigated cases in the United States. Because of this
backlog, there are a great number of repeat offenders that haven't been
caught and jailed. Second, there is also a need to develop new forensic
science technologies. Criminals continue to gain access to better
technology for use in their crimes, and so the justice system must
endeavor to advance its own technology in order to capture them. More
advanced technology will help deal with the escalating amount of
scientific analysis casework. It will also help to deal with the
increase of technology-related crimes including cyber-crimes. However,
creating new forensic science technology will take time. Many labs lack
equipment or have equipment that is outdated. These labs need access to
current forensic technology simply to make them viable and accredited.
Finally, investigators and scientists in the justice system need
continuing education and the justice system, itself, needs more
investigators and scientists.
Large sums of money are currently being allocated for the creation
of new police officers (including community policing), and new courts
and community-based non-police justice efforts. By diverting a small
percentage of these funds, combined with a modest increase in the
general fund allocation for the Coverdell Bill, an estimated $50-100
million in new money could be raised for forensic science. These funds
would allow forensic science to help the justice system solve and
investigate more criminal cases, train personnel, and replace outdated
equipment. Such benefits would make a large increase in new police
officers unnecessary, allowing currently allocated funding to be
distributed among existing police officers, thereby increasing
salaries, and health and retirement benefits.
Four specific groups will immediately benefit from increased
forensic science funding: law enforcement personnel, courts, taxpayers,
and government officials. Law enforcement personnel will see a decrease
in the backlog of criminal cases as they gain the tools they need to
investigate and solve crime. This also means an enhanced ability to
catch and convict repeat offenders. Funding for forensic sciences means
greater physical safety and less job-related stress to law enforcement
personnel. These things combined will result in lower healthcare and
worker's compensation costs and increased job satisfaction. Courts will
be able handle trials with speed and efficiency, leading to a larger
throughput with lowered court costs, and ultimately fewer hearings and
appeals. These substantially lowered court costs will mean that
taxpayers will have less tax to pay for a more efficient and just legal
system. In addition, this more efficient and just legal system will
reduce crime dramatically. Reduced crime means reduced associated costs
on society. These costs include healthcare, insurance, item replacement
(due to theft and fire), and more. These benefits mean more satisfied
taxpayers. More satisfied taxpayers mean an increase in political
support and participation by satisfied constituents. With satisfied
constituents government officials will be able to continue to enact
programs and policies that advance health, education, and welfare in
society.
Once again, we thank the Members of the Committee for having had
this chance to explain the need for an increase in support for forensic
science research and education, including the National Institute of
Justice, through the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science
Improvement Act.
James Kirchoff, Jonathan Lucke, Frank McManus, Francis Nottke
Pima Community College, the University of Arizona, Opto-Forensic
Technologies
Statement of the Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, D.C.
overview
In August and September 1999, the Police Executive Research Forum
(PERF) and The Justice and Safety Center, Eastern Kentucky University
(EKL1), conducted a survey of law enforcement agencies on behalf of the
National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence. The purpose of the
survey was to estimate the number of rape or sexual assault cases with
possible DNA evidence that have not been submitted for DNA examination
and the reasons why that evidence was not submitted for testing.
Eastern Kentucky University conducted a survey of smaller law
enforcement agencies, while PERF examined the larger police and law
enforcement organizations. The scope of inquiry was restricted to the
examination of rape and sexual assault cases, based on the notion that
DNA evidence was regularly considered in the course of those
investigations.
methodology
For the purpose of analysis, a distinction was made between larger
and smaller law enforcement agencies, since an agency's size, resource
base, and investigative experiences influenced how cases with DNA
evidence were addressed. As a result, EKU examined a total of 153
organizations where the population in the jurisdiction did not exceed
50,000 and the department employed ten officers or less. PERF conducted
a survey of 1221aw enforcement agencies in which each department served
a population of 50,000 or more or employed more than one hundred full
time sworn and civilian personnel. While a final report related to
smaller organizations has been prepared by EKU, results from their
survey have been incorporated into this document for comparative
purposes.
A survey target list of larger polis agencies was drawn from the
PERF membership directores, specifically from the category of ``General
Member.'' General Members must meet the following criteria:
a. The executive head of a municipal, county or state-funded
agency that provides general and basic police services;
b. The agency must have at least 100 full-time employees, or
serve a population of 50,000 or more people; and
c. The executive head must have at least a baccalaureate degree
from an accredited college or university.
Although the PERF membership list includes a number of
international and national organizations, the agencies asked to
participate in the survey were based in the United States, and having
the authority to engage in criminal investigations where there existed
a potential to examine evidence containing DNA. Organizations selected
under the above criteria were divided into two groups. A minimum of 50
agencies would supply answers to an in-depth telephone survey and the
remaining qualifying agencies would be asked to respond through a
shorter fax survey.
The telephone survey consisted of a series of questions in a three-
page format. The agencies were contacted by telphone and arrangements
were made to send copies of the three page questionnaire for
completion. Respondents would transmit their results by telephone to a
PERF reqpresentative. This process was adopted because some of the
survey questions required an examination of records that would involve
research by the respondent. To ensure a minimum response quota of 50, a
total of 73 agencies received copies of the telephone survey. Within
the allotted time period of August 23 to September 17, 1999, 50 out of
a possible 73 responses were received.
The fax survey was sent to 125 agencies and 72 were received within
the allotted time period of September 2 to 22, 1999. The fax format
incorporated a truncated version of the telephone survey, comprising
two pages of questions that looked at the number of rape kits in
storage, the percentage of rape kits with potential DNA evidence that
are tested, and factors which the agencies perceived to be barriers to
submissions for DNA testing.
Results
demographics
Combining the EKU and PERF surveys resulted in a total of 275
responses. Table 1 illustrates the originating states of the individual
survey respondents, organized into the regional categories used in this
study. Table 1 also shows the proportionate groupings by region along
with the total number of responses. Representation across regions is
roughly equal apart from the Southwestern states since this region is
composed of fewer states than other regions.
Table 1: State and Regional Groupings
Southeast Northeast West Southwest Midwest
Alabama Connecticut Alaska Arizona Illinois
Arkansas Delaware California New Mexico Indiana
Florida Maine Colorado Oklahoma Iowa
Georgia Maryland Hawaii Texas Kansas
Kentucky Massachusetts Idaho Michigan
Louisiana New Hampshire Montana Minnesota
Mississippi New Jersey Nevada Missouri
North Carolina New York Oregon Nebraska
South Carolina Pennsylvania Utah North Dakota
Tennessee Rhode Island Washington Ohio
Virginia Vermont Wyoming South Dakota
West Virginia Wisconsin
79 56 52 24 64
28.7% 20.4% 18.9% 8.7% 23.3%
Municipal police agencies represented the largest number of survey
respondents, with 76.4% reporting results. The second largest group,
county sheriffs, represented 18.9% of the total, or 52 agencies. County
police, other agencies, state police, and university police agencies
comprised the remaining agencies. Urban, rural and suburban
organizations were included in the study. In terms of agency size,
agencies with two to fifteen sworn personnel made up 35.6% of the total
number, with the next highest proportion in the one hundred to four
hundred sworn member agencies at 25.8% . Organizations of one thousand
or more sworn members represented 6.2% of the survey population. Tables
2 and 3 present the distribution between agency types and the
compositions of the agencies by sworn and civilian personnel.
Table 2: Agency Distribution
Agency Type Number Percent
County Police 8 2.9
County Sheriff 52 18.9
Municipal Police 210 76.4
Other 3 1.1
State 1 .4
University 1 .4
Total 275 100
Table 3: Sworn and Civilian Personnel Distribution
Number of
Sworn Personnel Departments Percentage
2-8 49 17.8
9-15 49 17.8
16-22 27 9.8
23-29 10 3.6
30-50 18 6.5
51-100 15 5.5
101-200 39 14.2
201-400 32 11.6
401-1000 19 6.9
1000+ 17 6.2
Total 275 100
Number of
Civilian Personnel Departments Percentage
0-6 106 38.5
7-13 33 12.0
14-20 12 4.4
21-27 10 3.6
28-75 48 17.5
76-200 41 14.9
201-500 13 4.7
500+ 12 4.4
Total 275 100
Population distribution values revealed that 62.2% of the agencies
surveyed provided policing services to areas of 1,000 to 100,000
people, 12% of the survey group worked in areas with populations of
100,000 to 500,000, and 5.4% of the agencies were responsible for areas
of 500,000 or more people. One agency failed to provide service
population data. Table 4 presents the population variations and agency
distributions between population groups.
Table 4: Population Distribution
Population Number Percent
1,000-13,000 104 37.8
14,000-26,000 30 10.9
27,000-39,000 14 5.1
40,000-50,000 15 5.5
50,001-100,000 63 22.9
100,001-250,000 22 8.0
250,001-500,000 11 4.0
500,001-1,000,000 8 2.9
1,000,000+ 7 2.5
Missing Data 1 .4
Total 275 100
The 275 agencies responding to the survey accounted for
approximately 118,000 employees, sworn and civilian, and a service
population of nearly 46,000,000 people.
DNA PROCESSING DATA
The agencies were asked to respond to a series of questions related
to their experiences with evidence and DNA testing and evaluation. In
the first series, respondents were asked if their department assessed
evidence to determine whether potential DNA samples could be present.
In the overall analysis, 70.2% of all agencies surveyed revealed that
they did assess evidence for potential DNA samples, 29.8%, indicated
they did not make such assessments. Marked differences were seen when
the practices of larger departments were measured against the practices
of smaller organizations. The data revealed that within the group of
larger organizations, 86.9% would examine evidence with an eye to the
potential of DNA analysis, while in the smaller agencies, only 56.9%
would assess evidence for potential DNA. These differences can be
attributed to the likelihood that more serious criminal offenses, those
that could generate requests for DNA analysis, would be prevalent in
the jurisdictions of the larger agencies. Additionally, training
opportunities and a corresponding increased general awareness on the
part of individuals in larger organizations may prove to explain the
marked differences in practices. Table 5 illustrates the proportional
variances.
Table 5: Assessment of Evidence for Potential DNA
Total Number Total Percent Large Depts. Percent Small Depts. Percent
No 82 29.8 16 13.1 66 43.1
Yes 193 70.2 106 86.9 87 56.9
Total 275 100 122 100 153 100
Many of the agencies (64%) indicated that they submitted evidence
to the state laboratory for analysis. A large number (27.3%) either
failed to respond to the question, or did not know where samples were
sent. Six respondents, or 2.2%, used county laboratories, and private
laboratories were used by an equivalent number of agencies at 2.5%. In
2.9% of the responses, samples went to combinations of state and
private laboratories, or state and county laboratories. Where funds
existed, some jurisdictions developed in-house laboratories. Three of
the jurisdictions surveyed reported having or developing in-house
laboratories: the Albuquerque Police Department, the Los Angeles County
Sheriff, and the Phoenix Police Department. The data illustrated,
however, the predominance of the state laboratories as DNA testing
centers.
Table 6: Laboratory Frequencies
Laboratory Type Number Percent
County Lab 6 2.2
Private Lab 7 2.5
State Lab 176 64.0
Private & State Labs 6 2.2
In-house Lab 3 1.1
State & County Labs 2 .7
Unknown 3 1.1
No Response 72 26.2
Total 275 100
When asked if their respective departments had policies regarding
submissions of samples to laboratories, the data showed that nearly
three quarters of the survey group have no specific policies (74.5%).
Variations between larger and smaller departments showed that the
larger departments were more likely to have a policy than the smaller
departments. Table 7 illustrates the variations between larger and
smaller departments.
Table 7: Policies Governing DNA Submissions
Total Number Total Percent Large Depts. Percent Small Depts. Percent
No 205 74.5 85 69.7 120 78.4
Yes 70 25.5 37 30.3 33 21.6
Total 275 100 122 100 153 100
Potentials for DNA evidence arising from reported rape or sexual
assault incidents, and the number of cases that actually end up being
analyzed for DNA, were explored through two specific questions. The
first question sought to estimate the percentage of reported rape and
sexual assault cases that have the potential for DNA evidence. An
analysis of the total number of responses showed that most departments
felt that DNA was potentially available in 25% or more of their cases.
The real differences were seen in the breakdowns between larger and
smaller departments. Within the group of larger departments, 78.7% felt
that more than 25% of their rape and sexual assault cases had potential
DNA evidence. Only 9% of the larger departments did not know how many
cases could have DNA evidence. An analysis of the responses from
smaller departments showed that only 47.6% of the departments felt that
more than 25% of their rape and sexual assault cases had potential DNA
evidence. A total of 30.1 % of the smaller departments, however, did
not know how many cases could have DNA evidence. Table 8 presents the
data obtained in relation to the first question.
Table 8: Percentage of Reported Rape and Sexual Assault Offenses That Have the Potential For DNA Evidence
Total Number Total Percent Large Depts. Percent Small Depts. Percent
No Resp. 1 .4 1 .7
0-10% 22 8.0 3 2.5 19 12.4
11-25% 26 9.5 12 9.8 14 9.2
26-50% 56 20.4 31 25.4 25 16.3
51-75% 55 20.0 30 24.6 25 16.3
76-100% 58 21.1 35 28.7 23 15.0
Unknown 57 20.7 11 9.0 46 30.1
Total 275 100 122 100 153 100
The second question considered the number of reported rape and
sexual assault cases with potential DNA evidence against the number
that are actually analyzed for DNA. With the larger departments, 45.1%
saw 76-100% of their cases analyzed for DNA, while 34.6% of the smaller
departments had 76-100% of their cases tested. Real differences
surfaced under the "Unknown" category. Of the larger departments, 14.8%
did not know how many of their cases were actually analyzed. The
smaller departments showed a higher percentage, with 34.6% not knowing
how many of their cases were analyzed. Table 9 illustrates these
values.
Table 9: Percentage of Reported Rape and Sexual Assault Offenses That Are Analyzed For DNA Evidence
Total Number Total Percent Large Depts. Percent Small Depts. Percent
0-10 34 12.4 10 8.2 24 15.7
11-25 29 10.5 23 18.9 6 3.9
26-50 23 8.4 12 9.8 11 7.2
51-75 9 3.3 3 2.5 6 3.9
76-100 108 393 55 45.1 53 34.6
Unknown 71 25.8 18 14.8 53 34.6
Missing 1 .4 1 .8
Total 275 100 122 100 153 100
Differences were also noted when the survey respondents were asked
if they submitted DNA samples to the state offender database. The
larger departments were more likely to submit DNA samples to a state
offender database, with 85 or 69.7% responding in the affirmative. Of
the smaller departments, 58 or 37.9% indicated that they make
submissions to their state database. It should be noted that the survey
of the smaller departments also included a question on submissions to a
national database. Of those smaller departments that responded, 67%
stated they did not make submissions, 7% indicated that they did make
submissions, and 26% failed to answer the question. Table 10 presents
the breakdown of submissions to the state database.
Table 10: Submissions to State's Offender Database
Total Number Total Percent Large Depts. Percent Small Depts. Percent
No 1121 44.0 34 27.9 87 56.9
Yes 143 52.0 85 69.7 58 37.9
Missing 11 4.0 3 2.5 8 5.2
Total 275 100 122 100 153 100
The fifty larger agencies responding to the telephone survey were
asked an additional question about laboratory acceptance guidelines. A
larger number (62%) indicated that the laboratories have acceptance
guidelines which may include stipulations such as requiring an offender
or suspect profile, limitations onthe types of tests that could be
performed, specific packaging procedures, or testing only for a
specific group of offenses. In general, the more serious offenses would
receive first consideration by the laboratories, supplanted only by
cases with impending court dates. Cases with tight court-related time
limits would be pushed forward in the queue of cases waiting for
testing, creating the conditions for a backlog. Table t I illustrates
the proportional responses.
Table 11: Laboratories With Acceptance Guidelines: Large Agency
Telephone Survey
Total Number Total Percent
No 13 26
Yes 31 62
Unknown 6 12
Total 50 100
The survey process addressed the issue of case backlogs and the
relationship to police perceptions of why DNA evidence may not be
processed. One indicator of case backlogs is the number of rape kits
remaining in storage, or left unprocessed for DNA testing. Two
qualifiers must be attached to any examination of the number of
unprocessed rape kits and relationships to backlogs in conducting DNA
tests. First, in many jurisdictions, some rape kits are not processed
for DNA testing because of cases categorized as unfounded, or where the
victim failed or refused to attend court. Further, in some
jurisdictions, approval to forward a sample for analysis rests with the
prosecutor because of these court-related issues. Secondly, the total
number of rape kits must be regarded as preliminary because of the
various protocols around the storage and the accounting of the rape
kits. Some jurisdictions store rape kits in laboratories and police
property facilities, and others in area hospitals where the respective
examinations occurred. In some instances, police agencies were only
able to provide estimations because they had no accurate account of the
number of kits in storage. Notwithstanding these issues, the number of
stored rape kits still serves as a reasonable estimation of the
magnitude of backlogged cases (restricted to rape and sexual assault
offenses) relating to DNA analysis. Of the 232 agencies that responded
to the question, 14 or 5.4% of the total sample retained the largest
number''' of rape kits, a total of 24,943 kits.
Table 12: Rape Kits Not Submitted For Processing
Number of Rape Kits Not Total Number of Unprocessed Rape
Processed Number of Depts. Percent of Sample Kits
0 113 41.1 0
1-10 47 17.1 177
11-50 32 12 943
51-100 15 5.7 1183
201-500 11 4.2 4262
501+ 14 5.4 24,943
Totals 232 31,508
The survey subsequently examined the reasons why cases would not be
submitted for DNA testing. The respondents were asked to consider a
list of reasons, or commonly held beliefs, around the difficulties of
having samples sent for DNA analysis. These reasons included: Cost/
Financial Restrictions, Lack of Technology at the Designated Crime
Laboratory, Backlog at the Laboratory, Laboratory Guidelines Restrict
DNA Processing, Departmental Limitations to Cases with a High
Likelihood of Prosecution, Department Awaiting New Technology that
Would Enable Searches of CODIS, and Other Factors. Those completing the
surveys were then asked to rate each of the reasons along a scale from
1 to 6, with 1 signifying the most important consideration and 6 being
the least important consideration. The ``Other Factors'' category was
included for commentary in the event none of the primary reasons
applied in a department's considerations. The exercise proved useful in
terms of identifying the important issues, either experienced or
perceived, facing law enforcement agencies when they consider
submission of evidence for DNA analysis. The results were averaged,
thus, the data portrayed in Tables 13 and 14, illustrate the most
important considerations as lower values, the less important
considerations as higher values. Table 13 compares the responses
between the large (those with 50,000 or more population or more than
100 full time employees) departments and the smaller agencies (with
less than 50,000 populations). Table 14 illustrates the distinctions
between departments with large backlogs (50 or more rape kits
unprocessed) and departments with smaller backlogs (under 50
unprocessed kits).
Table 13: Reasons For Non-Submission--Large vs. Small Departments
Reasons Large Depts. Small Depts. All
Financial restrictions 3.73 3.88 3.80
Lack of laboratory technology 4.39 4.46 4.42
Backlog at laboratory 3.39 4.52 3.89
Lab guideline restrictions 3.43 4.89 4.09
Department limits cases 3.54 4.53 4.00
Department waiting for new technology 5.05 5.08 5.05
Table 14: Reasons For Non-Submission--Large Backlogs vs. Small Backlogs
Reasons 50 & Over Under 50
Financial Restrictions 3.22 4.26
Lack of laboratory technology 4.42 4.61
Backlog at laboratory 2.87 4.28
Lab guideline restrictions 3.44 4.46
Department limits cases 3.63 4.26
Department waiting for new technology 4.88 5.07
The responses showed that backlogs at the laboratory and
restrictions imposed at the laboratory or at departmental levels were
cited as the predominant reasons for non-submissions. Backlogs and
restrictions, moreover, were noted as important factors more frequently
with the larger departments than the smaller agencies. Those with 50 or
more rape kits in storage saw the laboratory backlogs as a problem more
frequently than those with less than 50 rape kits in storage. For the
agencies with 50 or more rape kits in storage, moreover, backlogs at
laboratories stand significantly apart from the other reasons with an
average of 2.87. Financial restrictions are seen to occupy the second
most important category, with laboratory and departmental guidelines as
being the third and fourth most perceived or experienced impediments to
DNA submissions.
results from the expanded telephone survey
From the telephone surveys of the larger agencies, it was revealed
that in most cases, detectives in charge of the individual cases and
secondly, their supervisors, would decide if evidence was suitable for
DNA analysis. Many agencies relied on standard evidence collection
techniques in reference to DNA samples. The survey revealed little
formal training for investigators charged with the responsibility of
collecting DNA samples, and national training standards for
investigators were not evident. Crime Scene Technicians are more likely
to have formal training in collection techniques and often made
decisions on the viability of samples for DNA analysis, notwithstanding
the detectives were officially recognized as the ones making the
decision. In the absence of Crime Scene Technicians, investigating
detectives would often consult with a supervisor when making decisions
on evidence to be forwarded for DNA analysis.
Table 16: Who Decides What Evidence Will Be Submitted For DNA Analysis
Position Number Percent
Crime Laboratory Technic4an 8
Crime Scene Technician 2 4
Investigating Detective 35 70
District Attorney 2 4
Detective Supervisor 7 14
Totals 50 100
The group of larger agencies responding to the telephone survey was
asked to identify the offenses for which DNA analysis would be
considered if evidence were found. Of the 50 respondents, 6 agencies
considered the possibility of DNA evidence when investigating all
felonies, and 34 agencies considered DNA evidence only when
investigating rapes and homicides. Indeed, agency representatives often
advised that policies of their respective departments did not preclude
DNA analysis for all qualified offenses, they merely acknowledged that
submission of samples from an unrestricted list of crimes would
unnecessarily burden the laboratory and delay the analysis of all
samples, including those from serious crimes. Further complicating the
issue of submissions for DNA analysis, 22 of the agencies stated that
they do not submit DNA samples unless they have a suspect profile
against which a comparison can be made from existing records, 25 stated
that they submit samples in all cases, and 3 respondents did not know
if their submissions were limited to those with suspect profiles.
Costs are generally not assessed against the submitting police
agency if a state or county laboratory conducts DNA testing. In some
jurisdictions, county or district prosecutors would be responsible for
the costs ofDNA testing after arraignment or if they wanted the sample
to be tested at a private laboratory. If backlogs prevented samples
from being tested with expediency, police agencies would often send the
samples to private laboratories and assume the costs of the tests.
Costs billed to police agencies from the private laboratories ranged
from $1000.00 to $5000.00 per sample. Table 17 illustrates a breakdown
of estimated costs as provided by survey respondents.
Table 17: Summary of Cost Estimates
Illinois State Crime Lab $450 to $1000
North Carolina State Crime Lab $50 to $2500
Oklahoma State Crime Lab $50 to $100
Texas State Crime Lab $50 to $150
Johnson County Kansas Crime Lab $550
Georgia State Crime Lab $600
Massachusetts State Crime Lab $600 to $800
New Jersey State Crime Lab $1500
Colorado State Crime Lab $130
Westchester County Crime Lab (NY$250 (paid by
D.A.)
Michigan State Crime Lab $50
MiamiDade County Crime Lab $50
South Carolina State Crime Lab $100
Washington State Crime Lab $900
Arizona State Crime Lab $50
New York State Police Lab $1400 to $1500
Hamilton County Coroner's Lab $480 (by police)
Erie County Central Police Lab (NY) $3000
(Data provided by survey respondents)..........
A comparison was made between the number of reported forcible rapes
against the total number of untested: rape kits in storage from data
supplied by the 50 agencies that submitted responses to the telephone
survey and Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) of the latest year, 1997. During
1997, forty-two of the fifty agencies reported 3133 incidents of
forcible rape. The fifty agencies collectively had 8487 untested rape
kits in storage over varying periods of time. Reported rapes for 1997,
therefore, represent 36.9% of the total number ofrape kits in storage--
The percentages remain relatively consistent when we considered the
entire group (n = 122) of PERF respondents. In 1997, a total of 12,472
forcible rapes were reported in the UCR, and the 122 agencies indicated
that they were collectively storing 31,292 untested rape kits. Reported
rapes for the entire group represented 39.8% of the total number of
stored and untested rape kits. The data show that reported rapes for a
given year represent slightly over one third of the total number of
rape kits in storage.
conclusions
Results of the surveys show that the predominant issue facing the
national DNA analysis infrastructure is the perception or experience
ofundercapacity. As the benefits of DNA analysl?, become known on a bi
oader scale, further pressures will be directed to laboratories to
increase their capacities. At the present time, case backlogs and
policy guidelines are generally limiting DNA analysis to only the major
crimes like homicide and sexual assault. The potential for DNA analysis
to regularly assist in the clearance of other offenses is acknowledged,
but the data and interviews suggest the need for more laboratories and
qualified personnel to conduct the tests.
The state crime laboratory system handles the bulk of DNA testing
requests. In nearly 50% of cases for some of the larger agencies, DNA
testing will be conducted only when a suspect profile is available.
Submissions and comparisons of unknown suspect samples are not being
done or are falling behind in priority. Generally, private laboratories
are seldom used to assist with backlogs. The higher cost of sending
samples to privately run laboratories limits the number of cases to
those which are serious, only if a process is not available at a state
laboratory or if expediency in testing is required. Given the higher
costs for tests, the private laboratory system does not appear to be a
viable adjunct to the state system in reducing the backlog.
Remarkable differences exist between the larger and smaller
agencies in their understanding of the potential for DNA analysis.
Nearly 78% of the larger departments felt that more than 25% of their
cases have DNA evidence, while only 48% of the smaller departments held
a similar view. Additionally, only 9% of the larger departments had no
knowledge of the potential for DNA evidence to their respective cases,
while 30% of the smaller departments could not indicate the extent to
which they felt DNA had an impact on cases. In reference to submissions
to an offender database, 69.7% of the larger departments made
submissions, compared to 37.9% of the smaller departments. As such, the
data suggests a higher level of awareness and practice with DNA
evidence with the larger law enforcement agencies. The value of DNA
analysis to a broader spectrum of offenses is becoming widely accepted.
As knowledge about the benefits of DNA analysis increases, especially
to the smaller law enforcement agencies, so too will the requests for
testing in other than the more serious cases.
This survey suggests two key barriers must be overcome before the
potential for the widespread use of DNA evidence in crime solution is
realized. The first barrier is the perception on the part of law
enforcement agencies that analysis capacity is limited. This study was
not intended to determine the validity of this perception. If capacity
is in fact limited, then capacity should be increased. If capacity is
adequate, then an educational campaign needs to be conducted for law
enforcement agencies.
The second barrier is a result of perceptions of limited analysis
capacity. The survey discovered that many agencies limit their
submissions of DNA evidence only to cases with known suspects or
offender profiles. Such policies and practices will change as
perceptions of capacity limitations change.
-