U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

56–520 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–455 

ENSURING THE EFFECTIVE USE OF DNA EVIDENCE 

TO SOLVE RAPE CASES NATIONWIDE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 15, 2009 

Serial No. J–111–67 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MATT MINER, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Howley, Susan Smith, Public Policy Director, National Center for Victims 

of Crime, Washington, DC ................................................................................... 10 

Redding, Steve, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Violent Crimes Division, 

DNA prosecutions and Forensics, Hennepin County, Minnesota .................... 7 

Sepich, Jayann, Victims’ Advocate, Carlsbad, New Mexico ................................. 14 

Smith, Debbie, CEO, H-E-A-R-T, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia ........................... 4 

Stoiloff, Stephanie, Commander, Crime Laboratory Bureau, Miami-Dade Police Department, and Board Member, American Society of Crime Laboratory 

Directors, Miami, Florida .................................................................................... 12 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Civil Liberties Union, Michael W. Macleod-Ball, Acting Director, 

Washington, Legislative Office and Jennifer Bellamy, Legislative Counsel, 

Washington, DC, statement ................................................................................ 32 

Boschwitz, Dr. Jeff, Vice President and Executive Officer, Orchid Cellmark 

Inc., Princeton, Jew Jersey, letter ...................................................................... 36 

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., statement .......................................... 43 

Howley, Susan Smith, Public Policy Director, National Center for Victims 

of Crime, Washington, DC, statement ................................................................ 50 

Innocence Project, Stephen Saloom, ESQ, Director, New York, New York, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 56 

Redding, Steve, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Violent Crimes Division, 

DNA prosecutions and Forensics, Hennepin County, Minnesota, statement . 63 

Sepich, Jayann, Victims’ Advocate, Carlsbad, New Mexico: 

Statement .......................................................................................................... 71 

Declaration ........................................................................................................ 75 

Picture of Jayann’s daughter, Katie ............................................................... 81 

Smith, Debbie, CEO, H-E-A-R-T, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia, statement ........ 82 

Stoiloff, Stephanie, Commander, Crime Laboratory Bureau, Miami-Dade Police Department, and Board Member, American Society of Crime Laboratory 

Directors, Miami, Florida, statement ................................................................. 87 

(1) 

ENSURING THE EFFECTIVE USE OF DNA EVIDENCE TO SOLVE RAPE CASES NATIONWIDE 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2009, 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, Sessions, and Grassley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning, everyone. Today the Judiciary 

Committee is holding its second hearing on the reauthorization of 

the ground-breaking Justice for All Act, and the Justice for All Act 

included the Debbie Smith Rape Kit Backlog Reduction Act. This 

authorized significant funding to reduce the backlog of untested 

rape kits so that victims need not live in fear while kits languish 

in storage, and we have seen that happen around the country. 

Now we are going to examine some disturbing reports that, despite the important progress we have made to ensure justice for 

rape victims, in too many jurisdictions large numbers of kits continue to sit untested. When DNA evidence taken from rape victims 

that could be used to find and convict criminals instead sits on a 

shelf, rape victims are victimized once again, but also our communities become more dangerous rather than safer. That is unacceptable, and we have to fix that problem. 

Since we passed this important law in 2004, the Debbie Smith 

Act has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars going to States 

for the testing of DNA samples to reduce backlogs. And I have 

worked with Senators of both parties to ensure full funding for the 

Debbie Smith Act each year, and I compliment those Senators in 

both parties who joined with me to get that funding. 

Of course, I welcome Debbie Smith and her husband to the Committee once again. She lived in fear for years after being attacked 

before her kit was tested and the perpetrator was caught. Debbie 

and her husband, Rob, have worked tirelessly to ensure that others 

need not experience her ordeal. 

2 

On a personal basis, let me just mention, Debbie, you and Rob 

and I have talked so many times, and I will see you again. Thank 

you for being here. 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. And, Rob, thank you for being here. The two 

of you, in my orbit of friends I put you right there, right at the very 

first line, two people I admire greatly. 

As I have researched this problem of untested rape kits, there is 

one thing that I have heard again and again which should be of 

great comfort both to Debbie and Rob and to all of us here: the 

Debbie Smith program is working and it has made tremendous 

gains across the country. I have heard from the Justice Department, the States, law enforcement, and victims’ advocates that 

Debbie Smith grants have led to significant and meaningful backlog reduction, and to justice for victims, in jurisdictions across the 

country. 

Eric Buel, the Director of the Vermont Forensic Laboratory, described to me how Federal funding for testing and a case manager 

position has resulted in the elimination of all backlogs in Vermont 

and in the efficient use of DNA evidence to solve cases. I hope our 

little State of Vermont will be an example for other jurisdictions, 

but I also note that Eric was very clear in saying that Vermont’s 

success would not be possible without the Federal funding through 

the Debbie Smith program. 

Now, having said all that, it is clear we would not be here today 

if there were not still a problem. Despite the good strides we have 

made and the significant Federal funding for backlog reduction, we 

have seen alarming reports of continuing backlogs. A study last 

year found 12,500 untested rape kits in the Los Angeles area alone, 

and while Los Angeles has since made progress in addressing the 

problem, other cities have now reported backlogs almost as severe. 

The Justice Department released a report last month finding that 

in 18 percent of open, unsolved rape cases, evidence had not even 

been submitted to a crime lab. 

That Justice Department study gets to one key component of this 

problem. No matter how much money we send to crime labs for 

testing, if samples that could help make cases instead sit on the 

shelf in police evidence rooms and never make it to the lab, then 

the money does no good. Police officers have to understand the importance of testing this vital evidence; they must learn when testing is appropriate and necessary. In too many jurisdictions, rape 

kits taken from victims who put themselves through further hardship to take these samples—rape kits that could help law enforcement get criminals off the street—are just sitting untested. That is 

unacceptable in any jurisdiction. 

In another way, the backlog problem in some jurisdictions shows 

that we are the victims of our own success. The effectiveness of 

DNA testing and the availability of substantial funding for testing 

have led to more and more samples in more and more cases being 

sent to forensic labs. Labs and law enforcement also face difficult 

questions of priorities when there are limited resources. 

So we are beginning to learn of possible solutions to these different dynamics. There must be national standards, protocols, and 

best practices giving clear guidance to police officers about when 

3 

kits and other relevant DNA should go to labs. Every jurisdiction 

must have real incentives to provide comprehensive training and 

put into place these standards for the officers who handle DNA evidence. We have to ensure good communication and compatible 

technology among labs, prosecutors, and law enforcement. We also 

should reexamine regulations requiring that samples sent out to 

good private laboratories then be retested in Government laboratories, something that costs time and money and slows our ability 

to reduce backlogs. 

I thank Senator Klobuchar, also a former prosecutor, for her help 

in putting this hearing together and her leadership on this issue, 

as well as the many other Committee members on both sides of the 

aisle who are committed to fixing this. It was Senator Kyl from Arizona who worked closely with me to get the Debbie Smith Act 

passed. Now let us get to the bottom of the problem that we still 

have, but we can solve that. There is no question in my mind we 

can solve it. There is no question in my mind that we will solve 

it. We will. 

Senator Sessions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Chairman Leahy. I am firmly of 

the view that we are not as a Nation investing enough money into 

the kind of forensic evidence-gathering capabilities that can help us 

reach the best way to fight crime, particularly crime like rape, 

which tends to be repetitive. People tend to be repeat offenders. 

And I really believe we should do a lot more about that. 

I am not happy, frankly, with our State and local governments. 

It has always been frustrating to me that we have increases in law 

enforcement for this or that, but not enough for forensics. And it 

is not just DNA. I mean, there are fingerprints, there are forensics 

for the guns and firearm cases and all kinds of other scientific evidence that are often backlogged, leaving cases unsolved and not 

going forward. Even simple drug analysis cases that often delay 

prosecutions for months, many months, are simply waiting on a 

chemist’s report to determine the substance the individual had was 

illegal. So I guess, Mr. Chairman, I really think that we are on to 

something that is important. 

I also believe the Department of Justice should be taking the 

lead in studying DNA and how it could be better applied just as 

you said. What kind of protocols and best practices should be out 

there? What kind of new techniques are developing now in DNA 

that can help local officials identify repeat criminals much earlier 

in their processes and stop victimization and actually reduce crime? 

So I think there are a lot of things we need to do. I do not think 

that this Federal Government should be bearing the responsibility 

of paying for every rape kit in America. It just does not strike me 

as a smart thing. So we need to be figuring a way to get our local 

law enforcement up to where they need to be. And if we can help 

creating the data base, the infrastructure, the protocols, the research, that would be our first choice. And I have supported and 

will continue to support additional Federal resources to accelerate 

4 

and improve our State and local forensics capability. I think that 

is an important matter. 

I look forward to this excellent panel. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, and why don’t we begin 

with Debbie Smith, who has been a leading national advocate for 

the elimination of rape kit testing backlogs since she was kidnapped and raped near her home in 1989. More than 6 years later, 

her assailant was finally caught and linked to the crime through 

the use of DNA evidence. She has worked tirelessly, along with her 

husband, Rob, to raise awareness of the importance of DNA evidence contained in rape kits. She worked closely with me and other 

Members of the Congress to address the problem of rape kit testing 

backlogs. She has lent her name to the Debbie Smith Rape Kit 

Backlog Reduction Act, which passed as part of the Justice for All 

Act of 2004. 

I remember that phone call I made to you—I think I caught you 

at an airport or somewhere—— 

Ms. SMITH. You did. 

Chairman LEAHY [continuing]. To tell you the good news, and as 

I recall, both of us were pretty emotional on that phone call. And 

it was reauthorized in 2008. 

If you would please go ahead, and then I am going to ask Senator Klobuchar to introduce the next witness. Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF DEBBIE SMITH, CEO, H-E-A-R-T, INC., 

WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA 

Ms. SMITH. Let me say how honored I am to have been included 

in this panel before you today. As a surviving victim of sexual assault, I understand the great importance of the work to be done. 

I do not bring any kind of professional perspective to this table 

seated with some the top professionals in their field, but what I can 

offer you is firsthand knowledge of the importance of timely testing 

of DNA evidence and the elimination of the current backlog of both 

suspect and victim kits. 

For the next few minutes, I would like to ask each of you to remove your political hats, and I would like to ask you to take your 

place as a husband, father, or brother, or as a mother, sister, or 

friend. You have just received the news that your loved one was abducted from her home and taken to the woods, where she was 

robbed and raped. He entered her home in the middle of the afternoon through a door that was left unlocked for a matter of moments. This masked man repeatedly said that he would return and 

kill her if she told anyone. She believes him. She cries hysterically, 

pleading with you not to call the police. But in your heart you 

know that it is the right thing to do. You call the police, and your 

loved one sits in shock as she is asked countless questions. Your 

heart is breaking as you watch her trying to hold on to her sanity. 

Watching her trying to struggle and make sense out of what has 

just changed her life so completely hurts beyond measure. You feel 

helpless wanting to take away the pain that is just so very evident 

in her eyes. Within your heart and mind, a search begins because 

surely there has to be something that you can do to make it better 

or somehow easier. But you find that that search is in vain. 

5 

You convince her now that she needs to go to the hospital to have 

the only physical evidence taken. This person that you love is begging you not to make her go, but you know that you have to deny 

these pleas, just as you denied her cries not to call the police. Your 

prayer is that you are helping her to do the things that she would 

do, make the right decisions—ones that she would make herself, if 

only she could. It is what you have been taught is the right thing 

to do, the next step. 

As the two of you walk into the hospital, you try to make her 

understand that this really is necessary. It is the only way that we 

can catch this man and prevent him from hurting anyone else. She 

walks like a frightened child, terrified and confused. She hears you 

tell the receptionist that she was raped. Now her mind begins to 

reel, ‘‘No, because it just can’t be true. Rape just doesn’t happen 

to people like me.’’ The nurse then leads the two of you to a room 

where the questions begin all over again. Questions, questions, and 

still more questions. You begin to wonder if you really have helped 

her to do the right thing after all. The look in her eyes conveys the 

sheer desperation she is feeling, needing to know that someone is 

on her side, that someone truly believes her. 

But her nightmare continues as she is asked to lie down on the 

table, to put her feet in the stirrups and to spread her legs. A male 

doctor then appears and begins this invasive procedure by probing, 

plucking, scraping, and swabbing her just hours after being attacked by another man. Her face reveals her humiliation. She is 

crushed and feeling even more vulnerable. What was left of her 

self-esteem has now completely vanished from her limp body. Simply put, she has been violated all over again. You only hope that 

one day this very procedure will bring justice. 

As you leave the hospital, you trust things are going to be better 

now. But it doesn’t take long before the vacant stares give away 

that she has been robbed of any joy in life. Her fear is very apparent as you watch her struggle to leave her house or to even allow 

the children out of her sight, as her rapist’s threats will not leave 

her mind. ‘‘Remember, I know where you live and I will come back 

to kill you if you tell anyone.’’ Because you know her so very well, 

you fear that one day you will find that she has taken her own life. 

All she wants is her freedom, peace of mind. She wants to feel safe. 

She wants justice. But she waits. My husband and I lived this 

nightmare. 

When a rape victim submits to this very intrusive 4-hour evidence collection process, she at least knows that she has done her 

part; she has done everything that has been asked of her to keep 

this man from hurting anyone else. Unfortunately, there is a very 

good chance that this vital evidence will sit on a shelf with thousands of other kits. Each box holds within it vital evidence that is 

crucial to the safety of women everywhere. Statistics prove that the 

average rapist will rape 8 to 12 times before he is caught. How 

many of these rapes could be prevented? I merely existed for 61⁄2

years waiting for my rapist to be identified, trying my best to deafen the sound of his voice in my ears. But fear for my family and 

myself held my heart and soul within its grip. I became suicidal 

seeking peace and rest from the pictures that played in my mind 

constantly. But, finally, DNA revealed the identity of my rapist, 

6 

giving me the sweet breath of validation and promised justice. I 

want every victim of sexual assault to experience this gift of renewed life, and I am here today on behalf of those thousands of victims whose cases continue to sit on those shelves. I am here for 

those future victims and for those who sit in a prison cell who have 

been wrongly accused. I speak today for victims like Amy, who was 

attacked in 1996. She had no hope that her rapist would be identified because the rape kit collected yielded very little DNA evidence. 

Amy tried to find peace from her memories through therapy, 

antidepressants, and alcohol. By 2004, though, DNA technology 

had changed; her evidence was retested and revealed the DNA profile of her attacker and has linked him to at least two other cases. 

Amy says in her own words, ‘‘Today I have hope. He still haunts 

me. I still have fear. But I also have hope and a new purpose.’’ 

I am also here for those who can no longer speak for themselves. 

A lab scientist in Florida related the story of a rape victim who 

waited until she could no longer wait anymore. This was evidently 

a case that they had worked on for some time, for the day that a 

DNA match was made, the scientist went to deliver the news in 

person to the detective working the case. The detective looked at 

her with a very solemn face and said, ‘‘That is great news, but the 

victim committed suicide last night.’’ Unfortunately this is not an 

isolated case. 

It is now time that I would ask you to put your political hats 

back on, because by doing this it empowers you with the ability to 

make a real difference. It is within your capacity as a legislator to 

make sure these kits are taken off the shelf and reviewed to ascertain if there is any viable forensic evidence within. Can you imagine going through this horrible examination only to have the results sit behind locked doors? 

When someone is robbed, everything possible is done to find this 

person who has taken what does not belong to him. Prosecution is 

pursued and the guilty is made to return what was stolen to its 

rightful owner. But you are powerless to return to a rape victim 

what was taken from her because you cannot restore her dignity, 

her innocence, or her peace of mind. You cannot remove those pictures from her mind that appear without warning. You just cannot. 

But you can give her justice by making her rapist pay for his 

crime. 

Lady Liberty stands proudly in the New York harbor offering 

freedom for all within our borders. ‘‘Equal Justice Under Law’’ is 

etched in stone across our Supreme Court building, and our flags 

are raised high, symbolic of our pledge of liberty and justice for all. 

Sexual assault victims across our country wait for that pledged 

freedom from the chains of fear and guilt her attacker would have 

constrain her. She anticipates the promised justice to be imparted 

for the crime committed against her. I ask that you use your power 

to award her what is promised to all Americans: Liberty and justice for all. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Smith appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I think, Ms. Smith, or Debbie, because I have 

gotten to know you and Rob so well, I think listening to your testimony, I think people can understand why when I called you a few 

7 

minutes after we passed the bill, why that was such an emotional 

phone call for both of us. I thank you for being here. 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. And, Rob, I thank you, too. 

Senator Klobuchar, the next witness is someone you know well. 

Could I ask you to please introduce him? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you, Ms. Smith, for that moving story and your courage, not 

only for telling your own story but also for being the voice for so 

many victims out there. 

And on behalf of Senator Franken and myself, we welcome Steve 

Redding, who is our next witness and a Minnesotan. When I became Hennepin county attorney, which is about over a million people, Minneapolis, 45 suburbs, I came in there from the outside 

without a lot of criminal experience, and I wanted to put someone 

in charge of the Violent Crimes Division that had the trust of the 

people in the office, and that was Steve Redding. He served well 

in that role, but most importantly for our hearing today, he is one 

of the national experts on DNA, and this means not only being a 

tough, smart trial lawyer and being able to convince a jury, like so 

many good prosecutors do; it also means having the willingness 

and the determination and the intellect to learn the science of 

DNA, which is not that easy for so many lawyers to dig in and read 

all those scientific articles, because we have to be as sophisticated 

as the science and the people on the other side. And he is someone—his wife, Suzanne, is here as well—who believes, Mr. Chairman, that you can use this new-found science not only to convict 

the guilty but also to protect the innocent. 

Steve Redding. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE REDDING, SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY 

ATTORNEY, VIOLENT CRIMES DIVISION, DNA PROSECUTIONS AND FORENSICS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 

Mr. REDDING. My name is Steve Redding, and I am a Senior Assistant County Attorney in Hennepin County, Minnesota. I supervise the sexual assault unit in our office. Hennepin County encompasses Minneapolis and its 45 surrounding suburbs. Our office 

serves, as Senator Klobuchar said, approximately 1.1 million people. 

I want to thank the members of the Judiciary Committee for inviting me here and providing me with a brief respite from the Minnesota winter. I especially want to thank Senator Klobuchar, of 

course, who, as you all know, was county attorney for 8 years. 

From the moment she was elected county attorney, she fully understood the power of DNA testing to protect women and children and 

to assist prosecutors like myself in carrying out our duty to convict 

the guilty and to protect the innocent. 

I also want to thank Mike Freeman, my present boss at Hennepin County—he is the Hennepin County Attorney—for his unwavering support in DNA issues, both now and for the 8 years that 

he was county attorney prior to Senator Klobuchar’s election. 

DNA testing has solved many cold cases in the United States. I 

had the good fortune to prosecute the first two cold cases in the 

United States in 1992 and 1993. One was the rape-homicide of a 

8 

recent college graduate; the second was the sexual assault of a 

young woman by a serial rapist. Neither of those men, I am happy 

to say, will ever be released from prison. 

These successes were not the result of anything special that I did 

but, rather, due to the foresight of the Minnesota State Legislature 

which began funding the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’s DNA lab in the late 1980’s. The BCA became what it is 

today, an excellent DNA testing lab and a pioneer in DNA testing 

practices. 

As a recent CBS News special documented, there are large numbers of untested sexual assault kits. There are also significant disparities between State and local labs in their ability to timely process DNA kits. 

While it should be remembered that this issue is not as severe 

as it might seem at first blush for the reasons that I detail in my 

written submission to this Committee, many stranger rape kits remain untested. Approximately 21⁄2 years ago, we were able to obtain a list of 99 cases where the victim reported that she was raped 

by a stranger. From those 99, I identified 33 where the kit had not 

been tested and that it appeared that if DNA testing was to identify a suspect, a prosecution might be possible. 

The results were as follows: In seven of those cases, there was 

not a sufficient amount of biological material to test. Thirteen of 

those cases produced John Doe profiles. Thirteen of those cases produced a hit to a convicted offender. Ten of those hits were to convicted offenders with previous sex histories; three were to offenders 

without a sex history. 

Of those 13, three have been convicted, five have been charged 

by my office. In two cases, we are still looking for the victim. One 

is still under investigation. And two of those cases, it turned out 

the DNA was from a consensual partner. 

These results clearly demonstrate how fruitful it can be to test 

this group of cases and this type of case. Additional grant funding 

similar to the project that I am working on now can yield similar 

results. 

One year ago, it became mandatory in Minneapolis to test all 

cases where the victim has identified her perpetrator and indicated 

that he was, in fact, a stranger. We need more training for police, 

for evidence gatherers, and for prosecutors. Years ago, prosecutors 

with DNA experience such as myself provided training to inexperienced prosecutors. That training was crucial; however, it in most 

cases is no longer available. 

In sexual assault cases, evidence collection is most often performed these days by a specially trained nurse. Perpetrators know 

about DNA, and they are taking steps to avoid leaving their DNA 

at a crime scene. One perpetrator carjacked and raped his victim 

and then ejaculated on her pants. As he was leaving, he took her 

pants, and she yelled for him to bring her pants back. His response: ‘‘I’m taking these for DNA purposes.’’ He thought that he 

had taken the only evidence which could tie him to the sexual assault that he had just committed on this woman. However, the 

nurse who was taking the evidence from her in a careful interview 

revealed that he had talked on her cell phone. She obtained her cell 

phone. She swabbed the receiver of the cell phone. That DNA proVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:30 Jun 07, 2010 Jkt 056520 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56520.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
9 

file was entered into the convicted offender data base, and it hit 

to this man. Her training and innovation made that arrest possible. 

He is charged and is awaiting trial in Hennepin County. For similar reasons, police and prosecutor training would enhance investigations. 

There needs to be more cooperation between police and prosecutors. If there is anything I have learned in my 32 years as a prosecutor, it is that when police and prosecutors work together, we improve outcomes significantly. Teamwork on cold cases is especially 

crucial. In many places, a roadblock exists to this cooperation, and 

I have detailed what that is in my submissions and suggested solutions to overcome it. 

The crime-solving ability of our national databases is amazing. In 

September 1989, a young woman was stabbed to death in South 

Minneapolis. As part of an NIH-funded cold case homicide project, 

Minneapolis Police Sergeant Barbara Moe found evidence, and that 

evidence was submitted for DNA testing. That evidence hit to a 

man whose only felony conviction was for felony drunk driving. 

Senator Klobuchar was largely responsible for the Minnesota law 

which made repeat drunk driving offenses a felony. I charged that 

man and he is now doing 25 years in prison for a crime that never 

would have been solved but for the fact that he was placed into the 

convicted offender database. This is a magnificent example where 

the law of unintended consequences led to a terrific outcome. 

I am fortunate to have been a part of this revolution in DNA evidence. I have made several observations and suggestions in my 

written submissions to the Committee. I believe the use of DNA 

typing to identify rapists can be further enhanced and additional 

rapists can be brought to justice. I outline in my submissions a 

number of areas that I think could help this. 

I want to thank you for inviting me to testify before you today, 

and I look forward to continuing my work on maximizing the use 

of DNA technology in this area. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Redding appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Redding. 

Our next witness is Susan Smith Howley. She has been Director 

of Public Policy for the National Center for Victims of Crime since 

1999. Is that correct? 

Ms. HOWLEY. Yes. 

Chairman LEAHY. She joined the organization in 1991, served as 

its Director of Victim Services from 2002 to 2005. She has written 

and spoken extensively on policy issues affecting victims of crime, 

recently served on the National Advisory Committee on Violence 

Against Women. I have a note that she received her law degree 

from Georgetown University Law Center, and some of us on this 

Committee, of course, find that—never mind. We actually have two 

of us on this Committee, one other besides myself, who graduated 

from Georgetown. That would be Senator Durbin. 

Please go ahead. 

10 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN SMITH HOWLEY, PUBLIC POLICY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. HOWLEY. Thank you, Chairman Leahy. Good morning, 

Chairman, Ranking Member Sessions, and other members of the 

Committee. Again, I am public policy director for the National Center for Victims of Crime, which is a national nonprofit resource and 

advocacy organization that will soon celebrate our 25th year of 

championing the rights and interests of victims of crime. Our members include victim service providers and allied professionals at the 

State, Federal, and local levels. We have a long history of advocating for sexual assault victims and working to promote the use 

and understanding of DNA evidence, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning. 

Sexual assault victims call our National crime victim help line 

every day when they cannot find the help or information they need 

at the local level. They remind us, as Debbie Smith did this morning, that undergoing a rape exam can be intrusive, violating, exhausting, and confusing, especially when it is not conducted by a 

specially trained sexual assault nurse examiner. 

Once the exam is complete, victims often have no idea what happens to the rape kit. Many mistakenly assume that every kit is 

sent to the lab immediately, so they are very confused as to why 

they cannot get information about their case. If they later learn 

that the kit was never sent to the lab and no one tells them why, 

they become very upset and discouraged. Victims whose kits are 

lost or destroyed before processing are especially angry. 

One recent caller spoke at length about her frustration that after 

she had done all she could to promote the investigation, no one else 

seemed to care about bringing the offender to justice. 

Another recent caller was outraged that rape kits from her offender’s previous victims had languished for years without being 

tested. She is ready to sue State and local officials because she is 

convinced that if those kits had been processed, her rapist would 

have been caught and she would never have become a victim. 

Our members confirm what we hear from victims, that many jurisdictions are not processing all appropriate rape kits, and that 

there are substantial delays in many jurisdictions around the country. 

Now, moving forward, we would like to appear today to offer a 

clear policy solution to the rape kit backlog, but before we can do 

that, we need more information. We need to know more about 

whether the problem is a lack of understanding about the investigative power of DNA evidence or a lack of funding to process evidence or a lack of will to investigate and prosecute more sexual assault cases. Each of those barriers would call for a different policy 

solution. 

We also need to know if there is any benefit from testing every 

rape kit, even if the identity of the defendant is not at issue. Some 

jurisdictions have cleared or are in the process of clearing their 

rape kit backlogs by doing just that—testing every kit. Their experience could give us the information to know whether that is out 

path forward. 

11 

But at this point, we are reluctant to recommend that every kit 

be tested. If a defendant admits to the sexual conduct but claims 

consent, there may be no evidentiary value in processing the kit. 

After all, if he is later convicted, his DNA will be captured and submitted into the database. 

Because our capacity to process DNA and other forensic evidence 

is limited, to require testing of every sexual assault kit, even those 

unlikely to result in probative evidence, will inevitably reduce or 

delay testing in other types of cases. 

Many victims of other crime also have a compelling interest in 

the prompt testing of forensic evidence. Forensic DNA testing could 

help close many open homicide cases. Burglary victims can benefit 

from the use of forensic evidence. Families with missing persons 

could benefit if more unidentified remains were processed. Until 

our capacity for DNA testing grows, any prioritization of a class of 

cases should be crafted carefully. 

In the meantime, there is much Congress can do to improve the 

treatment of rape victims as forensic evidence is gathered and processed. 

First, Congress could provide additional support for sexual assault nurse examiners to ensure compassionate treatment and 

preservation of evidence. 

We also recommend the creation of a Sexual Assault Victims 

DNA Bill of Rights, such as California has, that gives rape victims 

the right to know whether their rape kit has been processed and 

whether an assailant has been identified. 

We also urge you to support increased public awareness that sexual assault victims have the right to a free forensic exam, even if 

they have not yet made the decision whether to report the crime. 

Victims typically learn about the forensic exam from the police or 

the rape crisis center, but only a fraction of victims will report to 

the police, and many victims delay calling the rape crisis center 

until it is too late to capture that forensic evidence. 

We applaud this Committee for its repeated efforts to bring justice to sexual assault victims and other victims of crime and Senator Franken for bringing attention to this important issue. The 

National Center for Victims of Crime looks forward to working with 

you in crafting legislation to advance the use of DNA evidence, reduce the backlog of rape kits, and bring a just response to victims 

of crime. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Howley appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [presiding.] Thank you very much. Chairman Leahy stepped out briefly, and so I have the honor to introduce Stephanie Stoiloff. 

Stephanie Stoiloff is the commander of the Miami-Dade Police 

Crime Laboratory Bureau. As head of the lab, she oversees forensic 

labs that test controlled substances, trace evidence, biological evidence, firearms, and tool marks. She is a nationally recognized 

leader in forensic science and has lectured before the American 

Prosecutors Research Institute, the National Institute of Justice, 

and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. She has also 

taught as an adjunct professor of forensic biology at the InterVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:30 Jun 07, 2010 Jkt 056520 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56520.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
12 

national Forensic Research Institute at Florida International University and is a current board member of the American Society of 

Crime Laboratory Directors. She received her bachelor’s of science 

from Florida University and her master’s from Florida International University. 

Ms. Stoiloff. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE STOILOFF, COMMANDER, CRIME 

LABORATORY BUREAU, MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

AND BOARD MEMBER, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIME LABORATORY DIRECTORS, MIAMI, FLORIDA 

Ms. STOILOFF. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. As stated, my name is Stephanie Stoiloff. I am the 

crime laboratory director at Miami-Dade Police Department, and I 

am responsible for managing the operation of a full-service laboratory. In addition to my duties as crime laboratory director, I also 

sit on the board of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, which represents the interests of over 500 crime laboratory 

directors throughout the United States and overseas and plays an 

active role in ensuring the quality, integrity, and credibility of forensic laboratories. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before 

your Committee today, and I am honored to be asked to speak to 

you about ensuring the effective use of DNA evidence to solve rape 

cases nationwide. 

The role of crime laboratories is twofold: to provide investigative 

leads in order to remove dangerous offenders from the streets or 

exonerate an innocent suspect, and to provide the results and interpretations resulting from these investigations in a court of law. 

At the end of the day, there are more cases that could be worked. 

Cases must be prioritized. Generally speaking, when faced with a 

decision on how to prioritize these cases, the highest priority is 

given to those cases in which the subject is the greatest threat to 

society. 

Crime laboratories are faced with insufficient personnel, facilities, equipment, training, and funding to meet the service needs 

and expectations of investigators, courts, and citizens. Forensic 

science has become an increasingly critical component of the successful investigation and prosecution of criminal cases. 

In addition to DNA, crime laboratories also provide scientific 

analysis in areas such as controlled substances, firearms, latent 

prints, and trace evidence. It is estimated that non-DNA forensic 

service areas comprise almost 90 percent of a crime laboratory’s annual caseload. A significant backlog exists in all areas of forensic 

science, not just DNA, and the timely disposition of cases is impacted by a lack of funding to support the staffing, equipment, 

training, and facility needs of forensic laboratories nationwide. 

As a result of the glamorization of forensic science on television, 

DNA requests are made of the crime laboratory because the jury 

expects the evidence to be tested. There are many, many requests 

that are made of the lab to perform DNA testing when the identity 

of the subject is not in question. If identity is not in question, why 

drain precious laboratory resources? Prosecutors need to explain 

that television drama is just that: a dramatization of fictitious 

events and capabilities. In a perfect world with unlimited resources 

13 

including staffing, space, and supplies, every lab could analyze 

every sample from every case. However, the reality is quite different. There are resource issues nationwide that preclude the 

analysis of every item and of every case. Each case is evaluated 

separately and each case is different. 

For example, if a consensual sex case is submitted for analysis 

with an underage female and her adult boyfriend, should this receive the same level of attention as a stranger rape? Crime laboratories, as a whole, do not treat these the same way. We clearly understand the value of analyzing sexual assault evidence. This does 

not mean that a consensual sex case would not ever be analyzed, 

but it does mean that the prioritization is necessarily different. If 

crime laboratories were to examine every case as they are submitted, then other cases would go unexamined. 

The primary challenges that face crime laboratories? Backlogs 

exist. There is no single explanation that defines what makes up 

a backlog. Is it cases in-house that have not been opened? Cases 

in progress but not yet complete? Cases never submitted to the laboratory? Crime laboratories can only manage the cases that they 

know about. In our experience, a written prioritization policy allows the Miami-Dade Police Department to manage the backlog 

and triage the analysis of cases. This translates to a constant reprioritization and continual juggling of priorities to meet the needs 

of the judicial system. 

This juggling is not performed in an arbitrary manner; there are 

defined priorities for all cases that enter a crime laboratory. Incoming priorities are the violent crimes; however, the cases that go to 

trial fastest are the property crimes. The question is then posed as 

to why valuable resources are spent on the DNA analysis of property crimes. Data collected by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement revealed that 52 percent of violent offenders had a burglary in their past. The idea here is prevention. The earlier these 

offenders are removed from society, the less opportunity they have 

to progress to violent crimes. 

Cold case violent crimes are also important, and Congress has repeatedly allocated funding to use current technological advancements to re-examine cold cases. The Miami-Dade Police Department has actively pursued Federal funding under the Solving Cold 

Cases with DNA grant program and has successfully obtained over 

$1.1 million to re-examine cold case violent crimes. Of the first 100 

cold sexual crimes cases reviewed and submitted to the laboratory, 

68 DNA profiles were developed and uploaded into CODIS; 32 hits 

were made in cases where all other leads had been exhausted. 

Training is an essential component of forensic science from the 

collection and submission of evidence to the analysis, reporting, 

and testimony. The Miami-Dade Police Department Crime Laboratory Bureau provides training to investigators, attorneys, and 

judges. Publications such as ‘‘Guidelines for the Collection and 

Preservation of DNA Evidence’’ and ‘‘What Every Law Enforcement 

Officer Should Know About DNA’’ explain the importance of DNA 

evidence. This information should be common knowledge among 

law enforcement and criminal justice personnel. Training curricula 

for every law enforcement recruit should include, as a matter of 

14 

routine, procedures for the proper collection and storage of DNA 

evidence. 

The management of casework submitted to a crime laboratory is 

not only a law enforcement problem; it is an issue that must be addressed within the entire judicial system. Submission of every case 

to the crime laboratory with the expectation that every case can be 

worked is unrealistic. Every case needs to be evaluated separately, 

and not every case needs to be analyzed. In addition, crime laboratories do not have the resources to evaluate every case or every 

sample from every case. The answer to case management does not 

lie in the hands of the criminalists across the country who analyze 

these cases on a daily basis or in the hands of crime laboratory directors. The responsibility for case management lies in the hands 

of the entire judicial system. If the cases are not going to be prosecuted, why expend the law enforcement and laboratory resources? 

The efforts within a crime laboratory should focus on how to 

produce results in a timely manner for cases where forensic science 

can provide critical investigative information. There is no effective 

‘‘one size fits all’’ approach to case management; this is an everchanging re-prioritization that must be fluid to meet the demands 

of the judicial system. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee 

today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Stoiloff appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY [presiding.] Thank you very much. 

Our last witness Jayann Sepich. She has been a leading national 

advocate for mandated DNA testing of all felony arrestees since the 

tragedy of her daughter being raped and murdered as a graduate 

student at New Mexico State University. Ms. Sepich led the effort 

that eventually resulted in the adoption of Katie’s Law in New 

Mexico. Along with her family, she founded DNASaves, a nonprofit 

organization devoted to the passage of arrestee testing laws across 

the country. Her work has been featured in ‘‘Anderson Cooper 360’’ 

and ‘‘America’s Most Wanted.’’ She has been honored by Governor 

Bill Richardson as the Outstanding New Mexico Woman of 2007 

and inducted into the New Mexico Women’s Hall of Fame. 

Notwithstanding all the honors you have received, I am sure you 

wish the reason was not there, but thank you for what you have 

done, and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JAYANN SEPICH, VICTIMS’ ADVOCATE, 

CARLSBAD, NEW MEXICO 

Ms. SEPICH. Chairman Leahy and members of the Committee, 

my name is Jayann Sepich, and I so greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about the very important issue of forensic DNA testing and the related backlogs. I am here as the 

mother of a murdered daughter, and I am also here representing 

the Surviving Parents Coalition. The Surviving Parents Coalition 

are parents of children who have been murdered or abducted and 

sexually assaulted, and as a group, we fight for laws that will help 

protect our children and young people. 

Forensic DNA is vital to solving crimes against children, particularly as children are often not able to put into words those crimes 

15 

that were committed against them. So, as such, support of DNA is 

a legislative priority for the coalition. 

In August of 2003, my beloved daughter Katie was a vivacious, 

joyful, loving graduate student at New Mexico State University. 

She was attacked just outside of her home in a supposedly very 

safe neighborhood. She was brutally raped, sodomized, strangled, 

set on fire, and her body left at an abandoned dump site. I have 

no doubt that it is never easy for any parent to bury their child, 

but the horror and the pain of losing Katie in this violent manner 

is beyond description. 

There were no strong suspects in Katie’s murder, but Katie 

fought so hard for her life that she had the skin and blood of her 

attacker underneath her fingernails, which contained his DNA. I 

know now how lucky we were that Katie’s murder was such a highprofile case because the district attorney of Dona Ana County did 

not want to send that DNA sample to our crime lab because our 

backlog there was about a year, so she used her own precious budget to outsource it to a private DNA lab. That profile was sent to 

the national DNA database called CODIS, and I cannot describe to 

you what bright hope this gave our family because we know who 

had killed our daughter. We had his unique DNA profile. All we 

had to find was a match on the offender database. 

There are so many families across this country that also have 

this bright hope, but there are so many more who are waiting. 

Waiting. And it pains me to think of those thousands of rape kits 

that are sitting on shelves around this country because when I 

think of those rape kits, I do not think of evidence. I see faces. I 

see faces like that of my daughter Katie, and I feel the pain of the 

mothers who have buried their daughters and are waiting for justice. And they deserve justice. They deserve to have evidence in 

their cases tested, analyzed, and uploaded, because without testing, 

there may be no hope for justice. And without justice, these monsters remain free on our streets to victimize again and again, to 

rape again, to murder again, to cause this pain again. This is unconscionable. 

When I learned of the DNA evidence in Katie’s case, I said, ‘‘This 

man was such a monster that surely he will commit another crime, 

he will be arrested for something else, they will take his DNA, we 

will know who he is, we will stop him from killing again.’’ And that 

is when I learned that while every State takes fingerprints from individuals arrested for crimes, most States at that time did not 

allow for DNA to be taken upon felony arrest. I was stunned. We 

do not allow our law enforcement to check the DNA database for 

a possible match before allowing people accused of the most heinous crimes in our society—murder and rape—to be released on 

bail. We do not even bother to check the database. We just release 

them. 

This is when I began to research and study the issue of taking 

DNA upon arrest. Based on my research, I became a national advocate for the taking of DNA upon felony arrest, and my husband 

and I founded DNASaves, which is a nonprofit association that advocates for DNA laws nationwide. We know we cannot bring Katie 

back, but we can work to change laws so that we may be able to 

prevent this horrible pain from being visited upon other parents. 

16 

In 2006, we fought for Katie’s Law in the State of New Mexico. 

It is a law that requires that DNA be taken upon felony arrest. It 

went into effect January 1, 2007, at midnight. Since that date, New 

Mexico’s DNA database program has registered 104 matches of unsolved crimes to 86 individual arrestee DNA profiles. That is less 

than 3 years in a State with a total population of right at 2 million 

people. One hour and 14 minutes after this law went into effect in 

New Mexico, the first arrestee was swabbed in the Bernalillo County Detention Center. It matched a double homicide. That man, 

James Mussaco, has since been convicted of murdering these two 

women. 

Just 3 months after Katie was murdered, a man named Gabriel 

Avilla was arrested on aggravated burglary charges for breaking 

into the home of two young women. We did not have Katie’s Law 

in New Mexico at that time, so his DNA was not taken. It was over 

3 years later that he was finally convicted of burglary, incarcerated, and his DNA was taken, and that DNA matched the DNA 

that Katie fought so hard to provide as she was being murdered. 

He subsequently confessed, pled guilty, and will spend the rest of 

his life in prison. 

If New Mexico had required a DNA sample for Avilla’s felony arrest in November of 2003, Katie’s murder would have been solved 

3 years sooner—3 years that her family prayed for justice and waited to know that this killer was off the streets. 

I have to tell you that during that time I have been told by the Dona Ana County district attorney that over $200,000 was spent 

investigating her murder—$200,000 that would have been saved. 

But, more importantly, this man would have been in custody 3 

years sooner, unable to victimize other young women. 

But we cannot consider one side of the database because the 

database has two sides: the offender DNA database and also the 

evidence in the database. Without a strong DNA database of offenders and arrestees, we will necessarily limit the possibility of 

matches that can be made. And, conversely, without testing of the 

evidence, without uploading the evidence in a timely manner, we 

limit the matches that can be made. 

In the past 6 years, I have come to meet so many families who 

have lost their daughters, as I have, so many families who have 

had their children abducted and sexually assaulted, and a great 

number of rape victims. We owe it to these people to have their evidence tested in a timely manner. But, more importantly, we owe 

it to our country, to our citizens, to stop these monsters in their 

tracks before they rape and murder again and again. We have been 

given a wonderful scientific tool in DNA that is ultimately the 

truth, and this truth cannot only solve crimes, it can prevent 

crimes. And in doing so, it can save precious lives and exonerate 

the innocent. We must do everything we can to make full use of 

this invaluable scientific tool. To do otherwise is criminal. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sepich appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, and thank you for your 

courage in coming here to speak. You and Ms. Smith put a—it 

takes us far from the statistics and brings it to the reality. Those 

17 

of us who had the privilege to serve as prosecutors before we were 

here in the Senate know what a lot of these cases are like. We see 

the personal side of it. They are not just statistics. They are human 

faces on crimes, the victims, what it does to families and communities. And what you do, both of you, in speaking out tells all of 

us what that is, so thank you. 

I want to ask a question of Commander Stoiloff and Mr. Redding. 

A recent National Institute of Justice report found that one key obstacle to reducing the backlog of rape kits around the country is 

simply getting that evidence from the police department to the lab. 

The study recommended additional training of law enforcement 

personnel, the creation of uniform procedures for submitting evidence, as well as improved training for police officers on the benefits and use of forensic analysis. 

I will start with you, Commander. In your experience, what role 

has training played in educating law enforcement personnel about 

the importance of DNA testing? And how about prioritizing those 

cases where DNA analysis is most useful? 

Ms. STOILOFF. Let me address the second part of your question 

first with prioritization. I think the prioritization is something that 

had to occur, as I said in my statement, in order to remove the offenders that are the greatest threat to society. So if you have a 

homicide and a sexual assault that come in with a stranger offender versus a burglary of somebody’s car, you know, most citizens 

understand burglaries because that is what is common to society. 

However, the greatest threat would be the rapist or the murderer. 

So the prioritization is pretty clear in laboratories nationwide. 

Chairman LEAHY. Should there be a uniform standard nationwide on that? 

Ms. STOILOFF. Well, I think there should be a uniform standard 

insofar as all of the offenders that are threatening, yes; I mean, for 

the violent offenders, absolutely. I think all crime laboratories directors, at least in my experience, and as part of ASCLD and anybody I have ever spoken to, understand that those are the highest 

priority. I do not think there is any laboratory that prioritizes as 

a case is submitted. 

Chairman LEAHY. What about a national training program? 

Would that be helpful? Because you go from somewhere as large 

as Dade County or Hennepin County down to very small jurisdictions, which are actually the majority of jurisdictions. 

Ms. STOILOFF. I am sorry. So your question is? 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, would a national training program on 

rape kits and DNA evidence help? 

Ms. STOILOFF. Well, I think the national training program would 

certainly help from the perspective of law enforcement in that you 

have a lot of law enforcement—especially, as you are saying, in 

small agencies—that are not aware necessarily of what DNA can 

do. So I think the education and training is on the side of what can 

we—you know, to know what to collect, to know what to submit. 

One thing that is very important is that, you know, you have one 

chance at the crime scene to collect everything. It does not mean 

everything is submitted to the laboratory or analyzed right away, 

but it does mean that it is preserved in the event that it needs to 

be analyzed at a later date. 

18 

So I do think that there should be some kind of training across 

the—you know, nationwide as far as what the capabilities are. I do 

think there is a lack of understanding whether you have—forgive 

the expression, but the old school police who believe that investigation should solve every crime, and the realization of what physical 

evidence can actually do to solve a case I think is one side of it. 

And then you have the new recruits that come in that it should be 

mandated that they go through some sort of training. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, Mr. Redding, before my time runs out, 

you see after it gets to the police. You see it from the prosecutor’s 

point of view. What do you think of this, having uniform standards 

for when the DNA gets turned over to the labs, national training? 

Are these things helpful? Or can you fall into a one size fits all? 

Mr. REDDING. Well, I do not think you could fall into a one size 

fits all, but I do think that some type of national standard or some 

type of best practices would be something that would be very valuable to law enforcement. Even within Hennepin County, I have noticed and I have seen significant differences between the police departments in what they choose to send to the laboratory and police 

departments in what the people who collect the evidence actually 

collect. And we have done some work to try to bring those standards together so that we have an even policy across our law enforcement agencies in Hennepin County. 

But, yes, I do think that that type of training would be helpful. 

I get calls all the time from police officers who simply are not 

aware of all of the capabilities of DNA typing. DNA typing has 

changed drastically in the 20 years that I have been working on 

it, and so law enforcement needs to understand that, whereas 20 

years ago we needed a significantly large sample to get DNA from, 

recently, for example, we obtained DNA from a murder victim by 

simply swabbing the area that we believed that the perpetrator 

had grabbed this victim, and we were able to—the lab was able to 

swab that area where he had put his hands on her and come up 

with a DNA profile that confirmed who we thought that was. 

Chairman LEAHY. My time is up. I want to yield to Senator Sessions, and then I am going to turn the gavel over to Senator Klobuchar. As you may have gathered from some of the press, there 

are, unfortunately, several things going on here in the Senate right 

at the moment. In case I do not get back, I want to thank every 

one of you for your testimony and say how helpful it is, even as 

difficult especially for two of you, how difficult it must be to give 

it. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. I thank all of you for your testimony, and Ms. Smith and Ms. Sepich particularly because of the 

description you have given of real-life situations that are so painful. 

Let me ask with regard to Ms. Smith, the 7 years you waited before there was a hit, it strikes me that you have to have a database 

to check the person against. Was that a factor in the delay in getting the identification of the person who assaulted you? 

Ms. SMITH. Yes, it was, because with my case all of this was just 

beginning, so it was kind of playing catch-up, so trying to get the 

database set up and all of that, and so that was—there was really 

19 

nobody at fault at the time that my case sat. There is nobody at 

fault now other than the fact that we have a tremendous amount 

of kits that we just need to figure out the best way to get it done, 

because I think that everybody is on the same page in wanting to 

get it done. It is just that we have got to figure out a way to get 

it done. 

Senator SESSIONS. I think that is good advice to us. We need to 

figure out how to do this correctly. 

Ms. Sepich, you described that you led an effort, I believe, to pass 

a law for New Mexico, and that law turned out to be the reason, 

it seems to me from your testimony, that you identified the person 

who had killed your daughter. In other words, they did the test on 

this person when he was arrested 3 years later for a burglary that 

got the hit. Is that correct? 

Ms. SEPICH. Senator Sessions, actually they could have had the 

hit 3 months after she was murdered. That is when he was arrested for burglary. But we did not have the law at that time. It 

was 3 years, 31⁄2 years after she was murdered that he was ultimately convicted and incarcerated. The law did not go into effect 

until about a month after the hit was made. But we have had tremendous success since we have had the law go into effect in New 

Mexico. 

Senator SESSIONS. But one of the points we should all remember 

is that this individual was not arrested for another rape. He was 

arrested for a burglary. 

Ms. SEPICH. That is correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. And that is what told the tale. And, Mr. Redding, you solved a case when you got a hit on a person who was 

arrested for DWI, which is unrelated. 

Mr. REDDING. That is correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. Based on your experience—and you have been 

at this for a number of years—do you think that the 20 States who 

now currently, I understand, test on arrest, that that is good public 

policy? 

Ms. STOILOFF. I do think that is good public policy. I think that 

the larger you can get the convicted offender database as well as 

the larger that you can get the database which contains evidence 

from crimes, the more hits you are going to get. 

So I think that is good public policy. I see no constitutional barrier to that being enacted into law in other States. And I know that 

the trend is in that direction. Again, that will cause a significant 

uptick in the number of samples which are submitted to go into the 

database, but I think that can be handled, and I think that it 

should be handled. 

Senator SESSIONS. Ms. Howley, with regard to assault victims, 

you made reference—several of you did—to rape victims even if 

they know the person who attacked them, it seems to me that either upon that person’s arrest or from the DNA itself, a test should 

be run because maybe the victim may not know that this person 

has a tendency, you know, is likely to assault someone else. How 

would you discuss the value of even testing and entering this information based on a case where you know the offender? 

Ms. HOWLEY. When the offender is known to the victim, we know 

that so many sex offenders are repeat offenders, and your ability 

20 

to upload that person’s sample will depend on their being convicted 

or in many States arrested. 

At this point, if you were to run a rape kit on a known defendant, that information would not be uploaded into CODIS because—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Is that right? 

Ms. HOWLEY [continuing].—Yes, because you have a known defendant. It would only then be when he—— 

Senator SESSIONS. That would be a policy error, would it not? 

Ms. HOWLEY [continuing].—Well, when we are talking about 

greatly expanding our demand on CODIS, I think we do have to 

be careful going forward. Again, that sample, if he is arrested, in 

about half of the States would go into CODIS. And if he is later 

convicted, we would get it into CODIS. And there you are right, we 

could start to see patterns. 

Senator SESSIONS. I see, yes. 

One quick question, Ms. Stoiloff. If a rape victim is examined 

properly, do you have to do multiple DNA checks to make sure that 

you are getting good information? In other words, how many actual 

readings and how much DNA do you have to gather per victim? 

Ms. STOILOFF. When the victim responds to the rape treatment 

center, there is a standard protocol that is followed for collection. 

There is a standard number of swabs and slides, et cetera, that are 

taken at the time. 

When we analyze the evidence in-house, we analyze it once unless it is required to be retested for court purposes, either the original analyst is not there or for whatever reason, the analysis is done 

once, and the victim does not have—— 

Senator SESSIONS. There could be multiple swabs. 

Ms. STOILOFF. Correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. And you analyze each swab. 

Ms. STOILOFF. We would analyze each swab, correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. If the person was arrested and you did it, you 

would only have to have one swab or specimen of that person’s 

DNA to put it into the database. Is that right? 

Ms. STOILOFF. Well, if I am understanding you correctly, the information, if it is obtained—like if we were to obtain a male profile 

from one of the items of evidence, we would not need to test multiple items to put that profile in. However, when we do test the 

rape kit, we do test multiple items, but the profile is only entered 

once. Does that satisfy your question? 

Senator SESSIONS. I think so. I just think if you identify the perpetrator, you know the perpetrator, I think it could be put in and 

might not cost quite as much as if you were having to obtain the 

sample from the rape victim. 

Ms. STOILOFF. Well, we need the sample from the victim to compare against—in the interpretation to know whether, you know, 

what information is there. Every case is different. Sometimes the 

details of the case necessitate comparison to the victim, so we always take the victim standard as part of the rape treatment kit. 

However, I can tell you that in our experience we work every case 

with a standard—even if the subject is known, we still work it, obviously, for prosecution reasons. And in Florida, we put the standVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:30 Jun 07, 2010 Jkt 056520 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56520.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
21 

ard in. So I would take the subject standard, and that would go 

into the database. 

We do not know if, when he is arrested. In the laboratory setting, 

we do not have any knowledge of the disposition unless we happen 

to testify. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Sessions. 

Again, thank you, Ms. Sepich and Ms. Smith, for your moving testimony, and thank you for coming forward. 

Ms. Smith, you mentioned in your testimony, I think your written testimony and your story, about the need for well-trained 

nurses and how critical that is for collecting the evidence and making sure that victims do not feel revictimized when the evidence is 

collected. Do you have any thoughts about what we could do to better train these nurses in this area as well as get more medical students, nursing students to go into this area and be trained? 

Ms. SMITH. Yes. There is a wonderful program, Sexual Assault 

Nurse Examiners, that are trained specifically to take this exam. 

In my case, my doctor was actually reading the instructions as we 

went along. That is not real reassuring when you are going 

through an exam like this. But the sexual assault nurse examiners 

are not only trained how to get information that the average doctor 

may not even think about, but she is also trained to know how to 

do those first emotional needs of her patient. 

In a very good sexual assault nurse program, you will have 

rooms that are set aside so that the victim can go into a room. 

These sexual assault nurse examiners, that is all they are there 

for. It is a one-on-one examination. With me, I had three different 

nurses asking me questions and then a separate doctor, and 

that—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So it builds trust to just have one. 

Ms. SMITH [continuing].—Exactly. Plus you have all the confusion that just—and she is trained to know or he is trained to know 

exactly what questions to ask, how to ask them, and I cannot tell 

you the difference that that can make. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Speaking of that kind of coordination and efficiency, Mr. Redding, you talked about how there needs to be better cooperation 

and coordination with prosecutors and law enforcement with these 

labs, that the labs do not just serve the police, they also serve prosecutors. Do you want to talk about why that is important and if 

you think there is something that we can do to enhance that cooperation? 

Mr. REDDING. That is very important, as I have indicated, not 

just in cold DNA cases but any time that a prosecutor and the police cooperate during the investigation and the pre-charging aspect 

of a case, uniformly that case turns out to be better and we have 

better results from that case. 

One of the things that happens and that I realized needed to be 

corrected was that the only person who was being advised of a hit 

was the police officers, and I received a call some years ago from 

our lab saying, ‘‘What happened to these 25 cases of homicides and 

rapes?’’ And I didn’t know anything about most of them. So I conVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:30 Jun 07, 2010 Jkt 056520 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56520.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
22 

tacted the police. We began together to investigate those crimes, 

and we were able to charge and convict a number of those people. 

So I have now set up in our jurisdiction contemporaneous notice 

from the laboratory to me as well as the police department, and 

that enables me to get involved immediately if that case—if it is 

important. And it is important because prosecutors can teach and 

are teaching across the country interrogation techniques for police 

officers, which are different in cold cases than they are in the regular investigation. And if they are investigated differently and if 

the interrogation goes differently, we have a much greater chance 

of success. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And, again, along these lines of efficiency, 

getting better results, we all want to get these rape kits tested. 

There is no doubt about that. Some of the previous hearings we 

have had on this issue—and we also want to get you more funding 

to do that. At the same time, I know as a local prosecutor there 

is nothing worse than a mandate without the funding. Leave the 

money behind, right? 

So what I would like to know and hear from, I guess, you, Mr. 

Redding and Ms. Stoiloff, is just explain to me how we can best use 

these resources if we give you more resources. Are there certain 

kits that you would argue should not be tested, or should they all 

be tested? What are the criteria you think that we should look at 

as we go forward? Mr. Redding. 

Mr. REDDING. Well, in sexual assault cases, I agree that there is 

some value to testing acquaintance rape kits. Obviously, laboratories have to prioritize, and they must prioritize, and almost all 

laboratories do. Our laboratories certainly do. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Because it is not just DNA, right? There is 

even more evidence, other kinds of evidence. There is more than 

DNA. 

Mr. REDDING. Yes, there are many types of other evidence in the 

laboratories, and prosecutors, of course, have to deal with statute 

of limitations questions and those kinds of things that arise. 

But I do think that as we move forward, we are going to discover 

and we are going to be able to ascertain what the value is of— 

whether or not we should test every sexual assault kit. 

In the grant that I am working on now, we are evolving that 

opinion as we go along. Our grant expires in June. We are looking 

now to see whether or not in acquaintance rape cases that man 

who is identified by the victim is, in fact, in the offender database. 

If he is in the database, then there is not the significant reason to 

test that case or that kit because, if he is in the database, his case 

or his profile would have already hit to an unsolved case. So we 

do not need to do that. That eliminates a significant number of the 

acquaintance rape cases that we would think that there is value in 

testing. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Ms. Stoiloff, do you want to add to 

that? 

Ms. STOILOFF. I would say I agree with what Steve said. The 

prioritization certainly needs to be any stranger rape case, and as 

I said earlier, when you have a written prioritization policy, that 

is clear that that is what is going to happen when the case comes 

into the laboratory. The issue becomes if a stranger rape comes in 

23 

and it is not addressed, that is what should be handled by each 

laboratory correctly, if you will. And the point that Steve made 

about getting the profile in the database, I mean, we even in our 

laboratory, in our experience, if the case is negative, we will still— 

meaning that there is no male profile, no foreign profile obtained, 

we will still work the standard that is submitted of the subject and 

put that into the database. So we will do everything we can to get 

the profile in there. And, you know, sometimes it means that there 

is no evidence to test, but they will submit the standard, and we 

will put that in as well. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So, just to summarize this, you want those 

tests, you want the kit done, but once they get there, you want 

them preserved and there to use. But there may be an argument 

for prioritizing some of them while testing, clearly, in all the 

stranger rape cases. Is that fair to say? 

Mr. REDDING. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you very much. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thanks to 

all of you for your testimony. I am just going to ask a few questions 

of Ms. Howley. I have had the opportunity to work with her before 

on Dorgan’s bill on the Restitution of Victims of Crime Act. I thank 

you for working with us on that. 

I was glad to have Senator Franken ask me if I would join him 

as a lead cosponsor of this Justice for Survival of Sexual Assault 

Act because I think that this would cut down on the backlog of untested rape cases. 

Now, you seem to raise the question, as you discussed in your 

testimony, of the need to know more about the backlog of untested 

kits before you would have a concrete recommendation to address 

the problem. I understand your concerns that we test DNA samples 

effectively and efficiently. So a few questions along that line. 

Do you believe a requirement that State and local governments 

provide statistics to the Federal Government on untested rape kits 

on the backlog thereof would be useful? 

Ms. HOWLEY. I think having that information would definitely be 

useful. My concern is I am not sure how difficult it is to require 

States to provide that. NIJ and others have been trying to quantify 

precisely the existing DNA database for many years, and so I 

would just want to be sure that we understand what the barriers 

have been to getting precise figures before we demand that of 

States. 

I certainly agree that we need that information and we need to 

figure out how we can best get it. I think part of the problem has 

been, as I believe Ms. Stoiloff said earlier, sometimes you have kits 

that are in the local law enforcement or local sheriff’s office and 

you have other kits that are in a lab. It might be a local lab, it 

might be a private lab, it might be a State lab. 

I believe one of the problems has been identifying all those locations. Maybe some are still kept at the hospital and have not been 

forwarded. So identifying what exactly do we want to count as part 

of the backlog and where exactly can we get those numbers. 

You know, we have had problems before where I know many lawmakers have tried to get precise figures from their State. They 

24 

might be told by the State lab, ‘‘We have no backlog.’’ Well, that 

may be true at the lab level, but if you were to go around to all 

of the local law enforcement, you might find there are quite a few 

samples that have not been forwarded. 

So that is my concern. Not that we definitely need the information, but we should figure out how realistic can we be that we will 

have a precise number. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, will the annual reporting requirements 

assist in reducing and eliminating the backlog by, you think, essentially shaming jurisdictions into testing more rape kits? 

Ms. HOWLEY. I think that any time that we can use real numbers 

to draw attention to a problem and then have real numbers to 

measure the effectiveness of agencies in addressing that backlog, 

that is clearly an important step. 

Senator GRASSLEY. What do you recommend for the sort of information required of the States or from the States? 

Ms. HOWLEY. I am sorry. Can you restate that? 

Senator GRASSLEY. What sort of information should be required 

from the States that we are trying to get the statistics on? 

Ms. HOWLEY. I think States should be given clear guidance as to 

what should be considered part of the DNA backlog and then urged 

to measure that backlog. So States should be given guidance that 

we want not only the backlog that exists at your State-level labs 

and your local labs, but your private labs. We want not only the 

number of samples that are in your major cities, but also your 

smaller jurisdiction law enforcement offices. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I am going to move on to another question. 

In some States, rape victims are required to pay for their own rape 

kits and seek reimbursement after the kit has been processed. My 

judgment is rape victims should never have to pay for the cost of 

the kit. Evidence collection is obviously an integral part of law enforcement. This Survivors of Sexual Assault Act includes a provision that requires States to be responsible for full up-front costs of 

the kit, examination. This is an important provision. 

Do you think that the current law allowing for reimbursement of 

rape kit costs by States as opposed to full payment up front has 

caused any rape victims to avoid having a rape kit collected? 

Ms. HOWLEY. While I am not aware of any cases where that has 

happened, that would likely be a result. Most States do not require 

victims to pay for the rape kit and then seek reimbursement. Most 

States pay for it up front, and often through their crime victim 

compensation program. Under the compensation program, the very 

fact of requesting a forensic exam counts as reporting for purposes 

of having the cost of that exam reimbursed. In most States, the victim will never see a bill for the forensic exam. The hospital will 

send it directly to the compensation program or the other government payment source. 

Senator GRASSLEY. See, I thought—maybe I have got it wrong, 

but I thought that there was more requirement to pay and it was 

holding people back. So if it is not a problem, I think we have a 

problem getting word out that that is not the case. 

Ms. HOWLEY. We definitely do have a problem getting word out, 

and part of this is because this system has been evolving in many 

years. So it could be that previous victims or previous advocates 

25 

are not aware of the change in procedures. States have made a real 

effort, especially through mandates under the Violence Against 

Women Act, to change the way that they are reimbursing—or to 

change the way that they are paying for forensic exams. But a lot 

of that change is recent. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Grassley. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to 

thank you and Chairman Leahy for your leadership on this issue. 

I want to thank each of our witnesses, Ms. Smith, Ms. Sepich, for 

your courage and strength, and Mr. Redding and Ms. Stoiloff for 

your expertise and professionalism, and Ms. Howley for your advocacy. 

Last month, I introduced a bill, joined by my colleagues Senator 

Grassley and Senator Hatch and Senator Feinstein, that would create financial incentives for jurisdictions to process their rape kit 

backlogs and make sure that processing them continues to remain 

prompt. 

The truth is, I think, that this is one of those issues in Congress 

where we all can agree on the big picture. Rape is a heinous crime, 

and we need to provide our law enforcement agencies with everything they need to prevent it and bring perpetrators to justice. So 

I just want to ask a few questions on this front. 

Mr. Redding, in your testimony you said there is a need for improve infrastructure and lab capabilities so that DNA evidence can 

be processed as quickly as possible. The National Institute of Justice study revealed that six out of ten police departments surveyed 

lack computerized evidence-tracking systems. They rely on paper 

tracking systems. And it is no surprise that when some police departments review their inventories, they discover stores of untested 

kits. This happened in Detroit and Los Angeles. 

Mr. Redding and Ms. Stoiloff, how do your departments track 

DNA evidence? And what kinds of Federal resources are available 

to help police departments set up the kind of tracking systems that 

they require? 

Mr. REDDING. Well, again, as I mentioned, in my county there 

are 46 different jurisdictions or different law enforcement jurisdictions, and that ability to track information and to track inventories 

does vary significantly. Minneapolis has a good system that I can 

access from my office and my paralegal can access, and so we are 

able to look at those issues and look at what is there when we 

want to try to ascertain is this a case that we can do something 

with or has the evidence never been submitted or never been 

inventoried. So I have good access there. 

I do not have the same kind of access in some of the other smaller suburbs. I think there needs to be uniform best practices recommended to jurisdictions for how long they hold onto evidence 

and for how long they hold onto police reports. Even in some places 

police reports are being destroyed within 7 years, and that is very 

troubling to me as a prosecutor, when we have expanded the statute of limitations, as we have in Minneapolis, yet we still have a 

26 

situation where we can go back to 1991 to prosecute these cases, 

but the police reports have been destroyed. 

So we do need a better practice and a best practices suggestions 

for jurisdictions about how long they keep evidence, how they keep 

track of that evidence, and how long they keep even something as 

basic as police reports. It is very important, and it is crucial. 

Ms. STOILOFF. Aside from the Miami-Dade Police Department, 

we also have over 36 municipalities in Miami-Dade County, so I 

can only address what happens with our agency. I have no idea, 

to be honest, how they track evidence in the other agencies. 

We do have an in-house LIMS system, if you will, which is a 

Laboratory Information Management system. However, what that 

does is actually tracks—we know what we have in-house. As far as 

what is in the property room, even I do not know that, what is actually there from years ago. 

We are, however, as I said, actively—we have been doing cold 

cases since 2001, reviewing cold sexual assaults and cold homicides. So we have pretty much covered everything with our own 

agency as far as what has been collected and stored. But, unfortunately, I agree with what Steve said, that there are issues that 

need to be addressed so that there is uniform best practice with 

other agencies, too. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. I want to move on and highlight 

the experience of some of the jurisdictions that have chosen as a 

default to test all or nearly all rape kits. These jurisdictions have 

seen their arrest rates for rape increase by as much as 30 percentage points and have had thousands of cold hits. 

Our average national rape arrest rate is 22 percent. Jurisdictions 

that have implemented a ‘‘test all kits’’ policy have seen them climb 

to up to 70 percent, more than 3 times the national average. 

Ms. Howley, what in your mind is keeping all jurisdictions from 

moving toward this model? 

Ms. HOWLEY. I believe that there are three barriers, as I outlined 

in my testimony, and the NIJ report indicated a big one is that 

local law enforcement agencies do not always understand the evidentiary value of DNA evidence, that it can be used to solve 

crimes. So many law enforcement agencies in that NIJ survey indicated they were not forwarding for testing where there was not already a suspect, so that indicates one problem. 

Another, of course, is funding. If a local law enforcement agency 

has heard that the lab is overloaded or already knows that it will 

take more than a year to get something back from a lab, they may 

not be forwarding information because they know they cannot get 

it in a timely fashion, and that would be directly related to funding 

to increase the capacity and reduce the lag time. 

But a third issue could be a lack of will. We know in too many 

places law enforcement agencies make a judgment as to the importance or value or credibility of the victim based on what they think 

a rape victim ought to act like. When talking to our members about 

the problems that they see, many of them highlighted the need to 

train law enforcement about sensitive response to victims of sexual 

assault so that they can better understand why a rape victim may 

be presenting with what is called a flat affect—no emotion. She is 

no longer hysterical. Law enforcement needs to be trained to know 

27 

that does not necessarily mean she was not a victim. So I would 

prioritize that as well. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. I have run out of time. I just want 

to make one little point on the reimbursement issue. I just want 

to highlight that we have heard from advocates like Human Rights 

Watch that people are slipping through the cracks and that some 

women pay for their kits up front and that some of them are never 

repaid the full cost. And my bill on this would close those loopholes. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ms. 

Sepich and Ms. Smith, for your extraordinarily powerful testimony. 

Thank you, Ms. Howley, for your voice on behalf of victims across 

the country. And thank you, Commander Stoiloff and Mr. Redding, 

for your service in law enforcement. 

Clearly, the science of DNA has sped far, far ahead. My first realization of it was a murder case where we were able to get DNA 

off a beer bottle that the perpetrator of the crime had taken a swig 

out of during the course of his time in the home of the murder victim, and I suspect it has rocketed forward in the years since then. 

So I think it is a very valuable tool, and I assume that all of you 

would support mandatory DNA testing of violent criminals. 

Mr. REDDING. Yes, I certainly would, Senator. Any way that we 

can get the DNA from a person who has committed crimes and who 

has been arrested, as I said, get that into the database, larger 

databases of convicted offenders along with a larger database of 

crimes which have been tested, when those databases are searched 

against each other, we get more hits the bigger they are. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let the record reflect that all five heads 

were nodding in agreement. Yes, because at that point you are no 

longer confirming evidence and using it as a tool of proof. It becomes an investigative tool against a larger audience, and that 

adds enormously to the value of the DNA sample. 

In terms of prioritizing rape kits, does the prioritization need to 

take place more at the lab or more at the investigative side in the 

police and prosecutor’s office? I assume that—I do not know the answer to the question, so why don’t you—or do we need 

prioritization at both points? 

Mr. REDDING. At least from my experience, the problem is not 

prioritization at a lab. I think the labs that I deal with are properly 

prioritizing. I think the problem is the prioritization within the police department, to some degree within the prosecutor’s office, but 

I do not want to fault the police department, but I think that—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That is the area where the prioritization 

would make the most sense? 

Mr. REDDING. That is the area, and when we have changed that 

prioritization and we get more kits, we do get better results. And 

I want to just briefly comment on police making that determination 

about whether a victim is credible or not. 

Many victims, our most vulnerable victims, are homeless. They 

have a chemical dependency problem or they have, you know, some 

other problem, possibly a mentally ill problem, and so they are 

28 

preyed on. And we need to get those victims’ DNA results into our 

database as well. They can be linked to other cases, and we have 

done that on a number of occasions and been able to prosecute 

cases where we have gotten multiple hits. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I have just a minute or so left and two 

more questions. One is, Do any of you fear that a broader regime 

of mandatory DNA testing would test the capacity of the private 

laboratories to run the DNA? Or is there not that kind of a capacity problem? 

Ms. STOILOFF. There is definitely a capacity problem. All laboratories nationwide have a capacity problem if there is a mandate 

that we have to do every single kit. Even without mandating every 

single kit, the prioritization still allows you to handle—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I meant mandatory testing of every single 

violent criminal. 

Ms. STOILOFF. Oh, as far as the offender. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Offender testing. 

Ms. STOILOFF. It is actually done. It is separate. There are convicted offender laboratories for each State, and then there are local 

and State labs that process evidence. So it would be necessarily different, but the money would be allocated by the State. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So the additional burden of processing offender data would not impede the evaluation of DNA evidence in 

active cases? 

Ms. STOILOFF. They are separate laboratories. So the forensic 

laboratory would have the capacity to do the evidence cases, and 

the convicted offender database lab would have the capacity. But 

anytime you mandate any kind of testing like that, the funding has 

to go with it. As the Senator stated earlier, you know, we have had 

quite a few unfunded mandates even in Florida that now they have 

learned to write in that if it is not funded, it cannot happen. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And the last question just to the law enforcement representatives, just for the sake of the record, the effects of delay in processing evidence in an ongoing investigation are 

often more than just loss of time. Could you each briefly comment 

on some of the collateral damage that takes place in an investigation where the investigation cannot move rapidly forward and does 

not have timely access to key evidence? 

Mr. REDDING. That can be devastating to victims. It is devastating to wait years and then to get a call from a police officer 

or a victim witness advocate in my office and say, ‘‘You know that 

thing you have been trying to put behind you and you have been 

trying to forget for all these years? Well, we are going to reopen 

that wound for you’’—for a good reason, of course, but that is very 

painful. It is not an easy call to make. It is not a call that we ever 

want to make. 

So I would like to see the system take care of that and contemporaneously process sexual assault kits and other evidence kits so 

that time lag—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But from a prosecutive point of view, you 

also lose witnesses, lose recollection, raise cross-examination 

issues. I mean, setting aside for a moment the effect on the victim, 

the effect on the case itself is often significant beyond the simple 

delay, is it not? 

29 

Mr. REDDING. Yes, it is. It can be severely compromised. Evidence, you know, goes away. It is lost. Memories change. We have 

had a number of cases where important witnesses are deceased by 

the time that we get the DNA result, and so that compromises our 

case. We are looking at some of those cases now in an attempt to 

see if we can work around that problem, but it certainly is a problem. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

I have just a few follow-ups here. I wanted to just go at this issue 

again, Mr. Redding—and Senator Whitehouse touched on it—of the 

national databases and how comprehensive they are. I know in 

your written testimony you talked about how Wisconsin discovered 

that it had 12,000 convicted offenders who were, nevertheless, not 

in the convicted offender database, and this I do not think was an 

issue of the testing as much as the data was not dumped in. Is this 

right? 

Mr. REDDING. That is correct. Again, my understanding is that 

some of this is this reaction to an unfunded mandate. Some of the 

localities are required, of course, to collect kits from all convicted 

offenders within the particular county, and I am aware that that 

costs money to the counties, and it is somewhat of a burden to 

counties which are strapped, and as a result, those counties are not 

as vigorous as they should be in collecting that data. 

So I am sure that Wisconsin is not alone in this, that there is 

a problem of uncollected kits—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So you are not just picking on them because of the Packers? 

Mr. REDDING. I am not picking on them because of the Packers. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But you are saying that you believe this 

happens in other States and it is the actual physical entry of the 

data? 

Mr. REDDING. I do. I would be shocked if it did not, yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Do you know if we have that going on in 

Minnesota? 

Mr. REDDING. There is a problem with it in Minnesota that we 

are attempting to correct right now, but, yes, it is an issue. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Ms. Stoiloff, I was just talking about how 

the sort of nitty-gritty testimony today makes us realize that with 

the Miami Police Department not every day is like ‘‘Miami Vice’’— 

right?—and that there is a lot of hard work that is done in the labs 

every day to catch these perpetrators. Do you want to comment 

about what Mr. Redding just noted, this lag in getting the information actually in the databases? 

Ms. STOILOFF. Well, I can say, for the most part, the 

prioritization helps with the lag, if you will, on the high-priority 

cases, especially in cases where in homicides where you have so 

much evidence that is collected at a scene that we actually have 

meetings as soon as possible with the detective, the assigned analyst, and the prosecutor to resolve some of these issues and identify 

what needs to be analyzed right up front. So it is a matter of—it 

is a short turnaround on current cases. 

30 

Now, for cold cases it is a different story, so you have the technology to solve the crimes, but then you have a problem finding 

witnesses, et cetera. So it is sort of twofold. But I think as long as 

we adopt a best practice in addressing these issues immediately, 

you know, as soon as the cases are submitted, that should help 

some of those. And, no, we do not drive Hummers. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. I will remember that. 

The other thing that you mentioned in your testimony, which I 

have heard before from our lab directors, is just the forensic scientists and the amount of money that is put in to train them by 

the Government and to get them up to speed. And then what I 

have heard—and I do not know if this was in your testimony—is 

then a lot of times they may leave and go somewhere else, maybe 

to the private sector, maybe to another lab that pays a little more, 

and it becomes like a bidding war. And I have certainly heard this 

in our State. 

Do you want to comment on that? 

Ms. STOILOFF. We have the same issue. Unfortunately, as nice as 

Miami looks on TV, we do have a problem that these analysts want 

to come—forensic science is a hot thing, is a hot place to go, and 

they want to come and be trained wherever they can get a job. We 

have had the misfortune to lose quite a few over the—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Where do they go? 

Ms. STOILOFF. Usually home, like wherever they came from. 

So—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But they go to other labs? 

Ms. STOILOFF. But they go to other labs. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. A government lab—— 

Ms. STOILOFF. But it is not a situation, though, where they are 

seeking a job anywhere else, you know, so I do not want to portray 

that the Miami-Dade police lab is bad in any way, but they are 

going to where they came from and where their families are. And 

so that becomes a problem because it is a 2-year training process 

for DNA. And so from the date of hire, which is a whole different 

issue, to get them hired and in-house, and then it is 2 years’ training, it is effectively 2 years until they are—you know, they may 

be—I may have zero vacancies, but essentially carry them as nonDNA analysts for 2 years. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Does anyone else want to comment on that? 

Mr. REDDING. I would just like to comment briefly and echo that. 

That is a tremendous issue. As you know, Senator, we can hire a 

prosecutor, an experienced prosecutor, and throw him right into 

the courtroom. You cannot do that with a DNA analyst. You have 

to wait for them to complete the training, and it is a long training. 

And so when you lose an analyst, like we lose them in the Minnesota BCA or you lose them in Miami, you cannot throw somebody 

else in there right away. So it is a significant problem. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Anything more anyone wants to add 

here? 

[No response.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, I just want to thank you for your testimony today, for taking the time to be here. As you can see, we 

are very devoted to working on this problem. We know that there 

31 

have been improvements made, and the improvements have been 

made because of the willingness of people like you, Ms. Sepich, and 

you, Ms. Smith, to come forward and tell your stories. But we know 

that there is clearly a backlog issue, and we want to be smart 

about how we tackle that. I think anyone who has worked on the 

front line as a prosecutor understands this unfunded mandate 

issue, and we have to figure out how to be smart to get the right 

rape kits tested and to get them tested; that we also have to do 

better with training, everything from the nurses to the forensic scientists. And I was interested in some of Mr. Redding’s points about 

the coordination with the police and prosecutors on the lab and improvements that can be made there. 

So those are the things that we are working on right now, and 

just for me, in my former job, which I loved very much—especially 

I think back very lovingly to that job after what we’ve been going 

through the last month in Washington—but I just have these 

memories that are ever etched in my mind about how we were able 

to use this science to not just convict horrendous murderers and 

rapists, but I will never forget that case—and maybe Steve remembers this. We had someone come up from North Carolina—I think 

that was the State—who had identified who she thought was her 

rapist many years before, and he had served something like 6 years 

or a decade in prison, and then the DNA test, in fact, showed that 

it was not him. And he got out of prison, and the two of them actually became friends. The real person was already in jail and had 

been convicted, and they went around the country talking about 

eyewitness ID and improvements that had to be made to that. 

I remember a remarkable case we had—and maybe, again, you 

remember this one, Steve, where we had a burglary, and the burglar had broken some glass and got his blood on the glass shard, 

and then that DNA matched some DNA in another burglary, I 

think it may have been in Florida, in another State, and we were 

able to charge him as, like, number 34546 because we did not know 

who he was. We just had the record. I do not know if anything has 

ever come of that case, but it was a memory I have of just the improvements that we have made in this technology and the tool that 

it is, as you have pointed out, for any kind of case. 

So I am actually optimistic of the work that can be done here, 

the place that science has taken us, and all of you in your respective roles have been such a big part of that. 

So thank you very much, and we look forward to working with 

you on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and 

all the work that we will be doing in this area. Thank you very 

much. 

We will keep the record open for one week for any additional 

submissions, and the hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.] 

32 


56520.001
33 


56520.002
34 


56520.003
35 


56520.004
36 


56520.005
37 


56520.006
38 


56520.007
39 


56520.008
40 


56520.009
41 


56520.010
42 


56520.011
43 


56520.012
44 


56520.013
45 


56520.014
46 


56520.015
47 


56520.016
48 


56520.017
49 


56520.018
50 


56520.019
51 


56520.020
52 


56520.021
53 


56520.022
54 


56520.023
55 


56520.024
56 


56520.025
57 


56520.026
58 


56520.027
59 


56520.028
60 


56520.029
61 


56520.030
62 


56520.031
63 


56520.032
64 


56520.033
65 


56520.034
66 


56520.035
67 


56520.036
68 


56520.037
69 


56520.038
70 


56520.039
71 


56520.040
72 


56520.041
73 


56520.042
74 


56520.043
75 


56520.044
76 


56520.045
77 


56520.046
78 


56520.047
79 


56520.048
80 


56520.049
81 


56520.050
82 


56520.051
83 


56520.052
84 


56520.053
85 


56520.054
86 


56520.055
87 


56520.056
88 


56520.057
89 


56520.058
90 

Æ 


56520.059