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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–327 PDF 2006

CSI WASHINGTON: DOES THE DISTRICT NEED ITS

OWN CRIME LAB?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 22, 2006

Serial No. 109–184

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

DAVID MARIN, Staff Director

LAWRENCE HALLORAN, Deputy Staff Director

BENJAMIN CHANCE, Clerk

MICHAEL GALINDO, Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on September 22, 2006 ..................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Wainstein, Ken, U.S. attorney, District of Columbia; Joseph A. DiZinno,

D.D.S., Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory, Federal

Bureau of Investigation; Charles H. Ramsey, chief of police, Metropolitan Police Department; Edward D. Reiskin, D.C. deputy mayor for

public safety and justice; and Valencia Mohammed, District of Columbia resident .................................................................................................... 11

DiZinno, Joseph A. .................................................................................... 18

Mohammed, Valencia ................................................................................ 41

Ramsey, Charles H. ................................................................................... 25

Reiskin, Edward D. ................................................................................... 32

Wainstein, Ken .......................................................................................... 11

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 62

Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia, prepared statement of ................................................................... 3

DiZinno, Joseph A., D.D.S., Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Laboratory, Federal Bureau of Investigation, prepared statement of ...... 20

Mohammed, Valencia, District of Columbia resident, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 44

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the District

of Columbia, prepared statement of ............................................................ 8

Ramsey, Charles H., chief of police, Metropolitan Police Department,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 28

Reiskin, Edward D., D.C. deputy mayor for public safety and justice,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 35

Ruppersberger, Hon. C.A. Dutch, a Representative in Congress from the

State of Maryland, prepared statement of .................................................. 64

Wainstein, Ken, U.S. attorney, District of Columbia, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 14

(1)

CSI WASHINGTON: DOES THE DISTRICT NEED

ITS OWN CRIME LAB?

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis (chairman

of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Davis, Cummings, and Norton.

Staff present: David Marin, staff director; Larry Halloran, deputy

staff director; Keith Ausbrook, chief counsel; Anne Marie Turner

and Steve Castor, counsels; Victoria Proctor, senior professional

staff member; Michael Galindo and Benjamin Chance, clerks; Michael Sazonov, research assistant; Brian McNicoll,

communicatiions director; Kim Trinca, minority counsel; Earley

Green, minority chief clerk; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant

clerk.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Good morning and welcome. Today’s hearing will consider the creation of a full service forensics lab in the

District of Columbia. Today the District of Columbia relies on the

Federal Bureau of Investigation’s crime lab to handle all of its forensic capabilities with the exception of fingerprints and firearms.

The sharing of resources by the Metropolitan Police Department

and the FBI has shown both progress and promise. But over time

technological developments in DNA testing, new and old case needs

and shifting priorities caused by terrorism and homeland security

concerns have strained the ability to satisfy the interests of all parties. The relationship between MPD and the FBI has been strong

and beneficial, but perhaps the time has come for D.C. to have its

own forensic resources. According to the Metropolitan Police Department Web site as of September 21st, the total number of murders for this year is 124. Since January of this year, homicides are

down 11 percent due in large part to the crime emergency declared

73 days ago, but violent crime is up 4 percent with the increase

mostly in robberies and sexual assaults. In fact, it’s my understanding that if a woman is raped in D.C. and there is no suspect,

the MPD will complete a rape kit but will not perform DNA testing

on the evidence collected from the kit. Additionally, there’s no data

base in which to handle the DNA collected which other jurisdictions have found instrumental in solving crimes, in identifying serial murders and rapists. As a father of two daughters, I find this

alarming. If D.C. had the resources for such a data base, would

MPD have been able to find the killer of Valencia Mohammed’s

2

son? Ms. Mohammed is here today to talk about her personal experience as a mother of two sons who were killed by gun violence in

D.C. and to give us her perspective of the need for a D.C. crime

lab.

In 2003, the FBI crime lab moved from FBI headquarters in

downtown Washington to Quantico, VA, out in my area, where it

currently provides forensic services free of charge for the FBI, including terrorism and counterintelligence cases; any duly constituted law enforcement agency in the United States and even

international cases. FBI Laboratory personnel provide forensic examinations, technical support, expert witness testimony and training to Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies. FBI lab

officials estimate that 30 percent of their overall caseload is from

D.C. To help ease this burden on the FBI lab, MPD and FBI signed

a memorandum of understanding in 2004. The MOU permits MPD

employees to work in the FBI lab and test evidence from D.C.

cases. The FBI provides those MPD employees with training, laboratory space, equipment, quality assurance measurements and

supplies. So far the results of the memorandum of understanding

are promising. It helps relieve the burden on the FBI caseload

caused by D.C. cases, specifically in DNA testing. Turnaround time

for non-D.C. cases has been reduced slightly. The process time for

trace evidence has been reduced by half for non-D.C. cases. The results suggest that if D.C. had its own full service crime lab for

processing DNA and trace evidence, both D.C. and FBI evidence

would be processed faster. If the District does get its own lab, the

unit handling MPD cases may be able to relocate to the new D.C.

lab.

Thus far, $11.5 million has been approved by the D.C. Council

for architectural and engineering designs for a new DNA lab. The

new lab would include forensic and DNA testing functions, the city

morgue and the Department of Health. In addition, the facility

would also include a biosafety laboratory to address homeland security threats. The final estimated price tag for the facility is $253

million. Over the next 4 years, that’s almost $175,000 a day.

In fiscal years 2005 and 2006 Congress appropriated $13 million

for bioterrorism and a forensics lab in D.C. Slated to open in 2010,

city leaders are hoping the Federal Government will take on 37

percent of the total cost while leaving the District with the remaining 63 percent.

It must be difficult for a detective to tell a family member whose

loved one was just murdered that we have no leads, no suspects

and no evidence. But it’s undoubtedly a dismal affair for that same

directive to tell a family, we’ll have to wait. We have all the evidence, we might have a suspect but we just have to wait for evidence testing. If the District had its own full service forensics lab,

would these conversations still occur? Would the crime statistics in

D.C. go down? Would there be a reduction in the number of cold

cases?

Today’s hearing will help determine the need, the means, and

the way to hopefully turn a cold case into a case closed.

I would now recognize the member from the District of Columbia,

Ms. Norton, for her opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]

3

4

5

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Chairman Davis. I suspect

that Chairman Davis always selects these eye-catching names for

his hearings to create an impression that he is not having another

boring congressional hearing, hence today’s hearing entitled, ‘‘CSI

Washington: Does D.C. Need Its Own Crime Lab?’’ Unlike CSI

Miami or New York, all those other CSI cities, I believe that this

morning’s hearing concerning the seldom discussed but vital anticrime forensic tool will show that the question is rhetorical. Seriously, Chairman Davis knows that I’ve been looking forward to this

hearing in particular, which I requested to be held this session,

and he has my personal gratitude for calling this hearing today.

The District declared a crime emergency shortly after experiencing a crime spike this summer as crime began to significantly increase nationwide. Although there never are any quick fixes to

achieve an immediate reduction in crime, Mayor Williams and the

City Council acted quickly to use several tools at hand, including

increased funds for police overtime. I commend the city for apparently quelling the increase in violent crime before it got out of

hand.

Reducing local crime is always a local issue in our country, and

here is also a home rule issue as well. However, there are natural

and appropriate synergies between local and Federal police work,

and they were apparent long before the advent of terrorism made

these connections impossible to ignore.

In 1992, Congress passed Public Law 102–397, a bill I sponsored

to permit the Capitol Police to patrol the neighborhoods near the

Capitol to stave off crime before it makes its way here. The bill represented a new departure. By permitting the Capitol Police to patrol outside the grounds and the first few blocks around the Capitol, the legislation provides for greater utilization of the welltrained police force that protects Members of Congress and visitors

by assuring they are not victims of crime from surrounding neighborhoods as they visit or leave the congressional campus. Simultaneously, sections of the Capitol Hill community where crime is

typically higher than in similar neighborhoods also received some

protection in addition to the hard-pressed Metropolitan Police Department officers who must also take calls from throughout the

neighborhood.

What I learned from the Capitol Police bill led me to do the same

in order to improve utilization of Federal police officers around

Federal facilities, I discovered that there were 30 Federal law enforcement agencies here, Federal enforcement agencies here attached to Federal agencies, with authority to carry weapons and

make arrests but unable to perform typical police duties. Even traffic control in the areas surrounding their immediate locations were

necessary. Federal agency police often called MPD or even 911 to

report crimes or to handle traffic accidents that occurred just outside their Federal agency.

Federal police officers who made an occasional arrest merely

handed over the suspects to the MPD and did not even do the paperwork, leaving the beleaguered MPD with hours of processing

that kept officers off our high-crime neighborhood streets. As a result, I wrote the D.C. Police Coordination Act, patterned on my earlier bill to expand Capitol Police jurisdiction. The larger police coVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:21 Nov 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\30327.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
6

ordination legislation allows Federal agency police officers to assist

MPD in crime prevention and law enforcement activities in the

District. By patrolling areas surrounding their respective agencies,

sharing and donating equipment and supplies, sharing radio frequencies and streamlining the processing of suspects. Policing by

these Federal officers does not involve going outside their Federal

mandate because crime prevention from the neighborhoods surrounding the agency simultaneously serves both the Federal Government and the District of Columbia.

I had these experiences in mind when I asked the Capitol Police

Board and the Capitol Police to temporarily assist the Park Police,

although both are Federal police, after five muggings and assaults

on the National Mall this summer. I believe that this assistance

was a natural extension of the Capitol Police mission to protect

Members of Congress and visitors to the Capitol. I was particularly

concerned when the underfunded Park Police, which unlike the

Capitol Police had not grown, were meeting Park Police needs after

the Mall assaults by barring Park Police from Federal parks in the

District, Maryland and Virginia that are more dangerous than the

Mall. It made little sense to protect the Mall at the expense of

parks like Anacostia Park and Rock Creek Park. I very much appreciate the decision of the Capitol Police Board to allow this temporary assistance. I congratulate the Park Police and all who assisted them for quickly cracking the Mall cases. All of the perpetrators have pled guilty and are incarcerated.

These experiences suggest that further analysis would reveal

similar cooperation between Federal and D.C. crime efforts can be

found. As to police, the District of Columbia has more Federal and

local police combined per capita than any jurisdiction in the United

States. The Nation’s Capital is saturated with Federal and local police, but historically has had one of the highest crime rates in the

United States. I should have thought that would have gotten everybody to think whether or not more police was the answer to our

problems, if I may say so.

Our focus on the crime lab today is about the closest connection

between Federal and D.C. crime-fighting efforts. I’m enormously

grateful to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to allow the District

to use its forensics crime lab at Quantico, VA and particularly for

the 2004 agreement that increases this cooperation by permitting

the Metropolitan Police Department to perform some of the work

at the lab. Today’s witnesses will testify concerning the benefits

and sacrifices to both agencies.

I must say, however, that my concern to help the District quickly

get its own crime lab is deeper than the need for bricks, mortar

and expertise. A forensic lab of one’s own for a city with a chronically high crime rate is a no-brainer. This year I’ve been able to

get $4.5 million to assist the District now pending in the Appropriation Committee and last year got almost $5 million in Federal

funds to assist the District. And that’s not the first Federal funds

that the District has gotten for this effort.

I’m also, however, fascinated by the riddle of it all, and my hypothesis that the forensic lab may be the key to further reduction

in final crime and violent crime in the District. And I cannot put

aside the crack epidemic of the early 1990’s when the homicide rate

7

here was over 400—400 annually. These crime highs were reflected

throughout the entire country, but D.C.’s crime rate topped that of

most similar cities. Most disturbing was the fact that when crime

began to go down in virtually every other big city, it remained

high, very high here for years, not months, but years longer. Moreover, the District’s crime rate has been among the highest in the

country for decades. The city’s response typically has been to add

more officers. And consequently, we have long had the highest

number of local police per capita in the country.

Other typical recommendations include more community policing

and more police out of their cars, out of their offices and on patrol.

However, I must wonder whether better crime fighting and prevention results in other cities are all a matter of better policing. I

doubt it. I’m interested in the role that inadequate forensics in the

past and delays in getting to forensic evidence today may play in

D.C.’s persistently high crime rate.

When a vital anti-crime tool is inadequate or delayed for decades,

is there a significant effect on deterrence and prevention? I do not

know whether the effect of quick and expert forensics on crime

rates or convictions has been investigated. However, I refuse to believe that the District of Columbia is inherently a city with a greater propensity to violent crime than New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and other big cities. We have never found a satisfactory explanation for the District’s persistently high rate of violent crime, and

I don’t believe we have ever looked beyond the surface. A new forensic lab is certain not to be yet another quick fix. However, today’s hearing will help clarify how improved forensics can help in

the search for answers that must be found to this city’s persistently

high violent crime rate.

I am particularly grateful to today’s witnesses for their work in

crime prevention in the District of Columbia, and very much look

forward to their testimony. I particularly welcome my good friend

Valencia Mohammed, who has not only suffered directly from the

absence of a crime lab and outstanding forensics here, but also has

helped educate and raise consciousness among residents about the

importance of forensics to crime prevention.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton follows:]

8

9

10

11

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Ms. Norton, thank you very much too.

Members will have 7 days to submit opening statements for the

record.

Before we recognize our very distinguished panel, I want to congratulate Mr. Wainstein on his recent confirmation as the assistant

U.S. attorney for the National Security Division and Dr. DiZinno

on his promotion to the Director of the FBI Investigation Laboratory. We’ll now recognize our panel.

Ken Wainstein, the U.S. attorney from the District of Columbia;

Joseph A. DiZinno, who is the Director of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation Laboratory at the FBI. Chief Charles Ramsey is no

stranger to this committee; he’s the chief of police at the Metropolitan Police Department. Chief, welcome back, and thanks for the job

you’re doing. And Edward Reiskin, the D.C. deputy mayor for public safety and justice. Thank you for being with us. And Ms. Valencia Mohammed, who was referred to in both of our lists. Thank you

for being with us also.

We’ll do this in one panel. It’s our policy that we swear in all witnesses before you testify. So if you could rise and raise your right

hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. Now your entire statements

are in the record. We have a light in front of you. It turns green

when you start. It turns yellow after 4 minutes, red after 5. If

when you see that yellow light on you can start to wind down and

try to stay close to 5 minutes, we’d appreciate it, but you know

your testimony is important and we appreciate your being here.

Ken, thank you.

STATEMENTS OF KEN WAINSTEIN, U.S. ATTORNEY, DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA; JOSEPH A. DiZINNO, D.D.S., DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION LABORATORY, FEDERAL

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; CHARLES H. RAMSEY, CHIEF

OF POLICE, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; EDWARD D. REISKIN, D.C. DEPUTY MAYOR FOR PUBLIC SAFETY

AND JUSTICE; AND VALENCIA MOHAMMED, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RESIDENT

STATEMENT OF KEN WAINSTEIN

Mr. WAINSTEIN. Morning, Chairman Davis, Congresswoman Norton. I want to thank you for inviting me to testify today about the

very important topic of the idea of building a forensic laboratory for

the District of Columbia.

I testified here today about the idea of building a laboratory from

the perspective of the chief prosecutor of the District of Columbia

whose office is a primary consumer of the forensics examinations

that will be conducted by that laboratory. I want to preface my remarks by saying that I express no opinion on the source of any

funding for such a laboratory, but instead I would like to focus my

comments on the law enforcement benefits we would derive from

having such a laboratory dedicated to working on criminal cases in

the District of Columbia.

As you know, the U.S. Attorney’s Office here in D.C. is unique

among all 94 such offices in that it serves as both the Federal prosVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:21 Nov 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\30327.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
12

ecutor as well as the local prosecutor or the local D.A. for the Nation’s Capital. In addition to our Federal caseload, we initiate approximately 22,000 criminal cases each year for prosecution in the

Superior Court. Particularly in the most serious cases or the more

serious of those cases such as homicides, nonfatal shootings, rapes,

other sex offenses, drug crimes, carjackings and the like, our prosecutors and their law enforcement partners rely heavily on

forensics evidence and forensics examinations and analyses to solve

those crimes and to prove our cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

Currently these forensic analyses are conducted in several places.

Testing and fingerprint analysis are routinely conducted by the

MPD. The FBI tests DNA samples, hair and fiber evidence and

other trace evidence, and the DEA performs chemical analysis on

suspected drugs. These agencies have done a tremendous job, I

want to underscore that, they’ve done a tremendous job doing these

analyses. But this dispersed system of evidence analysis can and

does have an adverse impact on our prosecution efforts.

For example, with regard to the DNA analysis conducted by the

FBI, our Superior Court cases go into the mix with the FBI’s own

cases and those State cases from around the country that are sent

to the FBI. As a result, the processing of our Superior Court cases

by necessity has to be prioritized against the competing needs of

these other cases from around the country. In addition, these workload realities mean that the FBI can generally conduct DNA analysis in a case only after an arrest has been made and a trial date

is set. Thus, it’s the relatively rare occasion when we’re able to

make use of DNA analysis in the investigative prearrest stages of

our cases.

From my perspective, a forensics laboratory in the District of Columbia should go a long way toward addressing these concerns. I

believe the establishment of a laboratory would benefit our law enforcement efforts in the following ways: First, it would give us more

control of the prioritization of our cases. Without the competing demands of cases from other jurisdictions, we’d be better able to

schedule and prioritize our forensics analyses to meet the needs of

our investigations and our trial schedules.

Second, it would give us an opportunity to tackle the backlog of

DNA samples collected in D.C. and then give us the opportunity to

enter them into appropriate data bases to be used in D.C. and

throughout the Nation.

It would also permit closer coordination among investigators, the

prosecutors and the forensic analysts that would help us solve

crimes and bring more criminals to justice.

It would expand our ability to use DNA analysis and other forensic testing in the investigative prearrest stages of our cases.

It would be an opportunity to upgrade our forensics facilities and

equipment which are lacking in some respects.

It would allow us to enhance the management and operations of

the medical examiner’s office whose work is vitally critical to the

successful prosecution of our homicide cases. It would allow us the

ability to do our own drug analysis on suspected drugs. And finally,

the development of a state-of-the-art facility would help to attract

and retain high caliber staff and managers to run a high quality

forensics program here in D.C.

13

Now one doesn’t need to watch CSI every week to appreciate the

critical role of forensics work in our criminal investigations and our

prosecutions. As technology progresses and as jurors increasingly

expect to see sophisticated forensics evidence at trial, we are becoming more and more reliant on effective evidence collection and

analysis to develop cases and to secure convictions in our violent

crime prosecutions.

There is no better example of this phenomenon than our neighboring jurisdiction to the west. The Commonwealth of Virginia has

shown how enormously valuable DNA data bases can be in the effort to solve crimes. Since the creation of this data bank in 1992,

Virginia has entered over 250,000 samples taken from convicted

felons. The data base has produced 3,451 hits which have solved

338 murders, 610 sex crimes, and 2,163 burglaries. That is over

3,000 very serious crimes, most of which would not have been

solved without that DNA technology and data bases.

The District of Columbia needs to catch up. It needs to be able

to analyze cases in which there is no identified suspect. This means

that both crime scene samples and offender samples have to be entered into the system to try to make a match. As helpful as the FBI

lab has been and it’s been tremendously helpful in making sure we

have analyses for trial when there’s an identified suspect, it simply

can’t process all of the District’s no suspect samples and all the offenders for the data base and still do all of its other very important

work.

While a D.C. forensic laboratory will not solve all of our law enforcement challenges, it will go a long way toward making sure

that those crimes that can be solved, are solved. For the victims of

these crimes, their families and the community as a whole, this

should be a high priority.

Thank you for inviting me to testify today, and I would be

pleased to answer any questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wainstein follows:]

14

15

16

17

18

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. DiZinno. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. DiZINNO

Mr. DIZINNO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman

Norton and members of the committee, I am pleased to be here

today to discuss the FBI’s continued commitment to assist the

Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department in the development of their own forensic laboratory assets.

During 2002 and 2003, the FBI Laboratory initiated discussions

with the MPD to explore the development of an MOU between both

agencies regarding issues affecting MPD forensic case examinations. The FBI Laboratory has historically provided laboratory testing services to MPD. Since September 11, 2001, the mission of the

FBI Laboratory has focused primarily on providing forensic services to support counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations. The support to MPD investigations could continue but not at

the priority level previously received.

Since approximately 30 percent of all submissions received by

the FBI Laboratory nuclear DNA analysis unit and a significant

number of trace evidence examinations involve MPD investigations,

the FBI Laboratory recommended the formation of an MPD laboratory that would replace the trace evidence and DNA services being

performed by the FBI Laboratory. The FBI Laboratory and MPD

then developed an MOU to document this partnership.

As part of the MOU, the FBI has provided MPD laboratory

space, equipment and supplies and training for MPD personnel to

perform examinations within the FBI Laboratory. Additionally, laboratory operational manuals, quality assurance procedures and all

materials necessary to pursue laboratory accreditation within the

scope of the FBI Laboratory’s accreditation agency, the American

Association of Crime Laboratory Directors, Laboratory Accreditation Board, or ASCLD/LAB, have been provided.

In the spring of 2004, the MOU was formally agreed upon by

both agencies and the FBI Laboratory immediately began supporting this initiative. Based upon the 2002 workload submitted to the

FBI Laboratory by the MPD, it was recommended that three serology/DNA examination teams, each consisting of one examiner and

one biologist, be established as well as two trace evidence examination teams, each consisting of one examiner and one technician.

Narrative position descriptions, academic and experience requirements, salary ranges and employment postings were provided by

the FBI Laboratory to MPD in April 2004. Subsequent to the signing of the MOU, the FBI Laboratory assisted in the advertisement,

recruitment and interview process to select prospective candidates

from June to October 2004.

Currently two MPD trace evidence examiners and one MPD trace

evidence technician are working on MPD casework in FBI Laboratory. A second trace evidence technician resigned before completing

her training and a replacement was hired and is expected to be

qualified by the end of September 2006. The incorporation of the

MPD trace evidence teams in the FBI Laboratory has had significant positive results for the MPD and the FBI. For example, between 2003 and 2005, average turnaround time for MPD trace eviVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:21 Nov 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\30327.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
19

dence cases was reduced from 142 to 50 days with the incorporation of the MPD trace evidence teams. Incidentally in that same

time period, the non-MPD trace evidence examination turnaround

time for the FBI Laboratory decreased from 127 days in 2003 to

61 days in 2005. For DNA analysis currently two MPD DNA biologists are performing pre-DNA serology examinations on MPD casework in the FBI Laboratory and are expected to be qualified to perform DNA biologist work in spring 2007. The third MPD biologist

is currently training in the FBI Laboratory. In addition, two MPD

DNA examiners have been hired and both should be qualified to

perform DNA examinations on MPD casework by the fall of 2007.

The FBI will continue to assist MPD to recruit a third DNA examiner.

It should be noted that since the inception of this program, an

additional five DNA personnel have been hired and have left the

program for a variety of reasons. Overall, it is anticipated that two

DNA examiners and three qualified DNA biologists will be working

MPD casework by October 2007.

In 2003, the FBI Laboratory received 194 MPD DNA cases and

159 MPD submissions were reported with DNA results. In 2005,

the FBI Laboratory received 255 MPD DNA cases and reported 232

MPD DNA submissions—results. It should be noted that a portion

of the MPD DNA cases were outsourced for DNA analysis work at

a cost of $1.1 million paid by the FBI Laboratory. The current

backlog for nuclear DNA casework in the FBI Laboratory consists

of 329 MPD cases and 1,323 non-MPD cases. The average turnaround time for a nuclear DNA case in the FBI Laboratory has increased to almost 1 year for nonexpedited cases. It is anticipated

that once the MPD DNA personnel are qualified and working MPD

cases, the turnaround time for MPD DNA cases as well as the FBI

non-MPD DNA cases will significantly be reduced.

As far as the national DNA data base, FBI lab personnel have

uploaded 2,325 DNA samples from Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency [CSOSA], and 23,756 Federal convicted offender

samples, some of those samples of convicted offenders from Washington, DC as well as 250 to 300 forensic or unknown samples into

the national data base. As a result of FBI personnel uploading

Washington, DC DNA data into the national DNA index, 14

CSOSA offender hits have occurred as well as 70 national DNA

index hits to forensic samples of MPD profiles.

Overall, it is anticipated in the first quarter of 2008 the MPD

laboratory could potentially achieve ASCLD/LAB accreditation.

Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to come before you

today and share the work that the FBI Laboratory is doing in cooperation with MPD to address the need to support the development of a dedicated MPD laboratory. The FBI will continue its efforts and will keep this committee informed of our progress in protecting the people of this Nation’s Capital.

Mr. Chairman, Ms. Norton, members of the committee, thank

you for your time and your continued support of the FBI and MPD

laboratory’s continued efforts to address the timely analysis of forensic evidence in the Nation’s Capital. I am happy to answer any

questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. DiZinno follows:]

20

21

22

23

24

25

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Chief Ramsey, thanks for being with us.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. RAMSEY

Chief RAMSEY. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of

the committee, staff and guests, thank you for the opportunity to

testify this morning concerning the District of Columbia consolidated laboratory facility and what the lab will do for crime fighting

and crime prevention in our Nation’s Capital.

Deputy Mayor Reiskin will provide you with a detailed update on

the planning and implementation of the proposed lab and he will

articulate quite clearly and convincingly why such a facility dedicated to the needs and priorities of the Metropolitan Police Department and other D.C. Government agencies is so crucial to the

health and safety of our city. I won’t try to repeat what the deputy

mayor will lay out for the committee. However, I would like to amplify a few key points that he will make, especially as they relate

to the Metropolitan Police Department’s mission of crime solving

and crime prevention.

Over the years advancements in DNA analysis and other

forensics technology has provided law enforcement with tremendous benefits in the short term as well as amazing promise and potential for the future. While television has certainly popularized

the importance of DNA in modern crime fighting, law enforcement

agencies across the country can point to any number of real-life

cases that have been solved through the use of DNA analysis. Earlier this year here in the District of Columbia we closed a 23-yearold murder case based largely on DNA evidence.

The entertainment programs such as CSI and Law and Order

gloss over one very important reality, to take full advantage of

DNA technology agencies need the resources, bricks and mortar,

specialized equipment and highly trained staff to do the job. Unfortunately, the District of Columbia has been behind the curve, far

behind the curve for a long period of time when it comes to harnessing the power of DNA technology.

During the 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s when other jurisdictions

were investing in building or expanding the capacity of their crime

labs, the District continued to rely on the Federal Government to

handle most of our lab operations. In recent years, it has become

clear to everyone, the Mayor, the D.C. Council, Metropolitan Police,

other health and safety agencies and certainly our residents that

this situation is no longer tenable. To support our crime fighting

efforts, the District needs its own dedicated crime laboratory and

we need a laboratory that’s capable of taking full advantage of the

latest in DNA and other forensics technologies.

As you will hear from the deputy mayor, we’re finally moving in

that direction with plans underway to construct a consolidated laboratory that will include a fully functional crime lab to support the

MPD and other agencies.

The Metropolitan Police Department appreciates the crime lab’s

support and resources provided by the FBI and other Federal agencies over the years. The FBI in particular has been a gracious and

steady partner in analyzing evidence for our department and, more

recently, in providing space and resources for a small number of

26

dedicated MPD technicians to work on District cases at the FBI

lab, but I understand that the FBI has its own needs and its own

priorities when it comes to allocating the finite resources of its

crime lab and since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the

demands on the FBI crime lab have certainly expanded and their

priorities have necessarily shifted.

I know it can be difficult and frustrating for a crime victim in

D.C. or the survivor of a homicide victim to be told that forensic

analysis on their case may be delayed because the FBI crime lab

is focusing on other priorities that come first. But that’s the reality

we face under the current situation.

A dedicated D.C. crime lab is essential for both day-to-day crime

fighting as well as homeland security in the National Capital Region. The reality is should there be a future terrorist strike in the

District of Columbia we would need not only the FBI crime lab but

other forensic facilities to be involved in the myriad tasks associated with such a catastrophic event. In this scenario a dedicated

D.C. crime lab would promote much needed coordination among police, health officials in the medical examiner’s office, while continuing to ensure evidence from local crimes—sexual assaults, robberies, and others—is still being analyzed in a timely fashion.

In your invitation letter, Mr. Chairman, you asked about the relationship between forensic testing and the MPD’s ability to refer

cases for prosecution. That is a somewhat difficult question to assess. There are very few cases in which DNA or other forensic evidence is the sole basis for prosecution. Typically forensics represents one element of the total evidentiary package in any particular case. That said, there are certainly cases where DNA, for example, is the foundation for a case and moving forward depends on

the forensic evidence. Our inability to analyze this evidence in a

timely manner can delay our ability to move forward on some

cases.

Perhaps a larger technical limitation involves our inability under

the current arrangement to take full advantage of the CODIS system, the repository of DNA samples that has been so beneficial in

identifying offenders and solving cases nationally. Currently in

many of our cases the FBI crime lab is able to conduct DNA analysis only when we have a suspect in a case. As such, the DNA test

is largely to confirm the involvement of an already identified suspect. That is certainly beneficial in fact essential in these types of

cases. However, if our department had its own fully functional

crime lab, we would be able to conduct many more cold hit analyses in which DNA recovery at the crime scene is tested against the

national repository. If the experiences of Virginia and other jurisdictions are any guide, I am quite confident this would result in

more offenders being arrested and more cases being solved. In addition to being a benefactor of CODIS, the District of Columbia

could also become a more frequent contributor to the national system, something that would benefit others, particularly neighboring

jurisdictions as well.

Unnecessary delays or missed opportunities in moving forward

with criminal prosecutions can harm not only the victims or the

survivors, who are seeking justice and some measure of closure.

They can also endanger the community at large as offenders conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:21 Nov 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\30327.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
27

tinue to commit crimes while the earlier case against them is being

built. That’s why I so strongly believe that we need to have our

own dedicated crime lab, and it has implications not only for investigating and solving crimes but just as importantly for preventing

crime if we’re making our community safer.

In many respects, our department is performing remarkably well,

given the limitations we face with our crime lab resources. According to the FBI’s 2005 crime statistics that were released earlier

this week, the District’s clearance rates for homicide, rape, aggravated assault and burglary are well above average when compared

with comparably sized cities having populations of 500,000 to 1

million, and while I’m certainly pleased that our clearance rates

were higher than the norm, I will never be satisfied with just being

above average. This is our Nation’s Capital, and we should be setting the standard when it comes to criminal investigations, crime

solving and crime prevention. We can’t possibly meet that goal if

we don’t have our own dedicated crime lab facility.

The good news is that our city is united in our commitment to

build a state-of-the-art crime lab facility. Our elected leaders, the

business community, the police department and other safety and

health agencies and, most importantly, our residents all recognize

the need for this facility and the benefits it would bring. So moving

forward with this project is not a matter of consensus or commitment but a matter of resources. By working together, the District

Government and our partners in the Federal Government, I am

confident that we can find the resources necessary to create a facility that is fitting and appropriate for our Nation’s Capital and one

that will help us continue to make this great city even safer and

more secure.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Chief Ramsey follows:]

28

29

30

31

32

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Reiskin, thanks for being with us.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD D. REISKIN

Mr. REISKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. My

name is Ed Reiskin. I am the deputy mayor for public safety and

justice. And I do want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you, Congresswoman Norton, for your continued leadership on many issues

that are of vital interest to the District and this is most certainly

one of them.

I am happy to be here on behalf of Mayor Williams to discuss

this topic that’s of vital importance not just to District of Columbia

residents but also to our Federal stakeholders and the other folks

that are involved in the District’s complex criminal justice system.

The reason Mayor Williams and the Council has championed this

issue, both through his request for Federal support and through his

commitment of significant local capital resources, is that this facility will have a greater impact on reducing crime and preparing the

city for disasters than perhaps any other single investment we can

make.

There’s been a lot of discussion about the crime lab aspects of

this facility, but this is a consolidated laboratory facility that we’re

building. It will house the Metropolitan Police Department’s

forensics crime laboratory, the entire operations of our chief medical examiner, the Department of Health’s public health laboratory,

and the forensic toxicology drug testing lab of the Pretrial Services

Agency, which is a Federal agency.

You’ve heard much about the benefits of the crime lab which include not only enhanced capability to solve crimes but improve expedited detection of and response to biological or chemical agents

and communicable diseases, state-of-the-art facilities to support

death investigations and greater coordination, communication and

standardization among the agencies, and these synergies are not

and cannot be achieved through the current work of outmoded facilities, outsourced responsibilities and outspaced capacity.

The distinguished panel here has spoke quite a bit to the criminal aspects of this. So I’ll just highlight that we have tens of thousands of items of evidence collected at the scenes of crimes every

day throughout the District, but because of the lack of facilities,

many of those pieces of evidence go unanalyzed. They’re certainly

unanalyzed quickly, sometimes languishing for years, leaving

criminals on the loose, victims’ families suffering and of course justice not served.

The Chief has spoken to the fact and all of them have spoken to

the fact that we have lagged behind in terms of DNA analysis and

processing and, as you refer to, Mr. Chairman, one of the more

striking statistics is that we have roughly 1,500 sexual assault

cases awaiting analysis. The sexual assault case backlog is shameful and an injustice to the many victims who would find peace only

through the capture of their assailants.

Beyond DNA analysis, the lab will support firearms, fingerprint,

document and cyber analysis, all critical to the successful closure

and prosecution of crime in the District. The Office of the Chief

Medical Examiner, also a part of this lab, has the responsibility for

33

identifying decedents but no viable means of using DNA analysis

which would be particularly helpful on unidentifiable or decomposed decedents.

This facility is small and old which can strain staff size and effectiveness, and the fact that they have to outsource functions can

delay certification of the cause and manner of death, which cannot

only hamper a criminal investigation, as the U.S. Attorney referred

to, but also leaves families waiting longer than they should to have

closure.

The lab will also contain a public health lab, and I don’t have to

tell you that we remain one of the top targets in the country for

terrorism, and in fact we were struck with a bioterrorism attack

here in this complex shortly after September 11th. The District’s

Department of Health partnered with many others in the response,

and while 5 years later our response capabilities have improved

quite a bit, there’s been relatively little improvement in our ability

to detect and prevent.

The new public health laboratory as part of the consolidated lab

would be able to provide laboratory response, network approved

rapid identification of bioterrorism agents, and clinical diagnostic

support for hospitals with potential victims of biological, chemical

or toxin exposures. In order to safely handle these types of agents,

we need a biosafety level 3 containment facility.

Our current public health lab, which is 64 years old and collocated in an office environment, actually in the police department

headquarters building, that cannot be upgraded to that level.

With the proper containment facilities, we’ll be allowed to safely

process various agents of bioterrorism such as anthrax, tularemia

and ricin. These types of facilities are also required by conventional

forensic disciplines to conduct forensic examinations on biologically

contaminated evidence that are part of criminal investigations.

So to bring you up to where we are with this facility, to date over $23 million has been committed through District and Federal funding. We have an expert team in place on this project. We’ve completed a program analysis which has identified a need for a roughly

300 square foot, 5 story facility that would house roughly 500 employees. Site analysis is complete. Having reviewed location, accessibility ownership, zoning and other factors, we are currently completing a process mapping exercise, which will help define our staffing analysis as well as help us be able to exploit synergies between

the different functions. And just last month we executed a design

contract so the design for the facility is now underway with the

program site and process mapping work in hand.

Finally, we have $150 million proposed in local capital budget

funding over the next—over the two following fiscal years for construction, the balance of construction dollars to be requested from

the Federal Government.

So in closing we’re very grateful for the opportunity to raise this

issue. As I said, the Mayor and the Council have committed significant effort and resources to this project. There are many benefits

which I think the other speakers have already touched upon, benefits that will serve not only our residents and businesses but the

members of our Federal family in the city and the 20 or 25 million

visitors who come here each year.

34

So I thank you for this opportunity and look forward to questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reiskin follows:]

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well, thank you very much as well. Ms.

Mohammed, thank you for being with us.

STATEMENT OF VALENCIA MOHAMMED

Ms. MOHAMMED. Thank you very much. Now it’s time to hear

from the mamas. Thank you very much, Congressman Davis and

Congressman Norton, for having me here today.

In the spirit of the tens of thousands of families who have lost

a loved one to street wars in the black community plagued with

drugs and gun violence, I come before you today in peace in support of the thousands of mothers like myself who have endured the

pain of losing our children to violence in the streets of the District

of Columbia while others look down on us as if street violence only

comes to bad people or those people who deserved it.

I am Valencia Mohammed, the mother of six children. I have lost

two sons to gun violence in the Nation’s Capital. In 1999, my 14-

year-old son Said Raqib was found murdered in my own home

while I attended a weekend sorority conference in Philadelphia. I

aged 10 years in a week from crying and begging God to bring him

back alive. I have never spoken with the original detective in that

case. I was in shock and could not work for the first 2 years following his death. The murder tore my family apart. One child became

mentally ill, going in and out of mental institutions.

Another child, Imtiaz Mohammed, who I believed had a bright

future, dropped out of high school with only seven credits left to

complete his secondary education. Imtiaz seemed to be on the path

of destruction after the death of his brother.

On the D.C. streets, if you know who killed someone, you don’t

tell, you take revenge, you wait until the police solve a case, you

take the information to your grave. In fact, you don’t even tell your

mother, your snitching mother. I waited and waited for years to

hear some good news about my son’s case. The stream rumor was

that he was accidentally killed by one of his friends while they

were examining a gun they rented with their allowance. I kept this

in my heart. My family told the police we never heard from them

again. I always thought I was due some official investigation and

detailed explanation about what happened.

On October 28, 2004, I received another call, the news about my

son Imtiaz Mohammed being shot brutally in front of a home

where we first lived in the District. The house is only four blocks

from the police precinct. The murder happened around 4 p.m. while

I was on my way to computer class. I was hysterical when I heard

it because, like Said, I knew there was nothing I could do to bring

him back. At this time I got two responsible police detectives. However, they were so efficient in their duties, they also had a very

heavy caseload. As a reporter, many times I would see them in

Federal court. How could they be working on my son’s case when

they were in court, I said to myself.

I was already determined to become an activist for grieving

mothers and an advocate for our loved ones who were killed in the

District after Imtiaz was killed. I told the Chief, I would galvanize

mothers to help the police department get whatever they needed to

make our community safe. I don’t know how many others accepted

the charge to pound the streets, grocery stores, churches, schools,

42

Metro stations, radio shows, television stations, corridors of the

D.C. politicians or the halls and corridors of the Senate, but I knew

what was my calling at that point. The Chief said, if you could just

help me get a forensics lab. I said, is that all you need? He said,

please, just help me get that. I accepted the challenge.

Solemnly, I swore with the blood of my two sons that I would not

stop until this matter received the attention on Capitol Hill that

it deserved, along with the appropriate funds to erect a fully operational, adequately staffed forensics crime lab. I took to the streets

with the newsletter showing a few photos of murder victims. Hundreds of parents began to call me. We began to organize our efforts

on several fronts to stop crime because we began to analyze many

of the programs that were in place, that were serving a small segment of our community. We analyzed organizations that received

lots of attention but did not produce adequate results.

Thank God, we ran into Paul Wagner, who’s a reporter from

WTTG Fox TV, who had been a lone soldier out in the community

for over 7 years, crying for a forensics lab, but his cries went on

deaf ears. We also contacted about a dozen jurisdictions with crime

labs, obtained blueprints and information about funding sources.

As we near the possibility of the District’s own forensics lab, the

cost is our concern. We have been told that the only way Congress

would fund the forensics lab is for it to include a bioterrorist lab

component. That’s not fair. For decades we have relied on the FBI

to assist us. We almost had 5,000 unsolved murders on the books.

Does anyone hear our plea? It’s really not fair. We want our own

stand-alone forensics crime lab. Take the bioterrorist component

where it belongs, with the military or the FBI. Bioterrorism is a

national issue. We need and deserve our own state-of-the-art, fully

operational, adequately staffed and fully operational forensics lab.

Congressman Davis, many of the mothers whose children were

killed in the District come from Fairfax County. They believe their

children’s murders are not solved because they reside in your county. Some of their children came to D.C. for a date, others going

home from work. I want to go back and tell them also, Congressman Davis, that you are fighting on their behalf. I want to give all

mothers who have lost their children to the streets in D.C. some

hope that they can finally rely on their officials and that you are

listening.

Once the Congress decides to provide funding for the lab, we do

not want it redirected in any way by the Mayor or the Council of

the District of Columbia.

Please hear our plea. We have planned in the near future for

dozens of mothers to begin our lobbying efforts after the first of the

year. We will walk the halls of Congress and the Senate. The discussions in this meeting will determine our direction. For mothers

who have lost their direction due to street violence, the pain is

quite different from mothers who have lost their children to foreign

wars. We mean no harm. At least a mother of a war casualty may

give her child a kiss goodbye or a hug before they shipped them

off to fight for freedom in a foreign country. There might be a big

celebration. Then there’s a big send-off with hundreds of fellow enlistees to serve this country. These parents are fully aware that

they have sent their children to kill or be killed in a war sancVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:21 Nov 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\30327.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
43

tioned by this country. If their child kills dozens of people in the

war, the act is hailed as a victory. If they got killed in the act, they

are hailed as heroes. With street violence, mothers don’t know that

the last spoken word to their child, hug or kiss with their children

would be the last. There is no big send-off party. After they have

been killed, no one hails them as a hero but a victim.

Sometimes society and police have preconceived concepts that the

child may have caused his or her own demise. Many mothers don’t

fight for their right for closure. They endure the pain and slowly

die inside spiritually and until the pain takes them over physically

and they pass away. But for those of us who have sworn with the

blood of our children, we will continue to fight for our police department to get whatever it needs to keep our community safe.

We will leave you in peace until we meet again. Thank you

again, Congressman Davis and Congressman Eleanor Holmes Norton, and we truly believe that this matter could have been resolved

a long time ago if our Congressperson had a voice in Congress.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mohammed follows:]

44

45

46

47

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. I’m trying to get her a voice

in Congress.

Ms. MOHAMMED. Thank you. I know.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. And I’m working on it. Thank you very

much for being here and sharing that tragic story, and hopefully

it won’t be repeated if we can get some action. Your testimony has

been very, very helpful.

I’m going to start the questioning with Ms. Norton and then I’ll

conclude it. Ms. Norton, you’re recognized.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. Ms. Mohammed,

I have a voice. The problem is I don’t have a vote, but I know exactly what you mean. And Chairman Davis is doing all—he and his

staff are doing all they can to help. And we’re trying to get this

done this term. It’s been a long time.

Your testimony, the testimony of all of you has been very enlightening to me. Let me begin with a few questions. This question

comes from the testimony of Mr. DiZinno. I’m a member of the

Homeland Security Committee, so is the chairman. And I noted

that your testimony virtually began with what we all know, and

you say on page one indeed that the FBI Laboratory has focused

primarily on providing forensic services for counterterrorism and

counterintelligence. What does that mean in terms of your support

for ordinary criminal investigations that you assist in the District

of Columbia and, for that matter, in the other States, and how

does—and I would like some sense of before and after on that question, before terrorism and after terrorism.

Mr. DIZINNO. Yes. Thank you. I think to answer your question

the way the FBI addresses its caseload in the laboratory is based

on the FBI priorities. Since September 11th those priorities——

Ms. NORTON. So forensically that would mean what? Does that

mean that you fill in the blanks?

Mr. DIZINNO. That would mean that if there was evidence submitted that has to do with preventing a terrorist attack or evidence

submitted that would have to do with preventing the United States

against foreign intelligence operations or espionage in line with the

FBI priorities, those cases would be worked prior to cases of violent

crime.

Ms. NORTON. It’s hard for me to know. Therefore, how often or

how—what this means in terms of numbers or delays for local jurisdictions like the District of Columbia.

Mr. DIZINNO. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. The District now pays for much of its own staff and

maybe we can understand that the District is paying for this service in the FBI, is it not?

Mr. DIZINNO. The District is currently funding the personnel in

our lab—to work in our laboratory. All the reagent supplies, quality

assurance, quality control measures, training, that is provided by

the FBI laboratory.

As far as the priority for the District of Columbia cases, we ask

the MPD to prioritize their cases that they submit to us prior to

them being submitted.

Ms. NORTON. Do you have so many cases that it means that—

when you say ‘‘cases’’ that may prevent a terrorist attack, we hope

that you’re not—we hope that there are not thousands and thouVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:21 Nov 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\30327.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
48

sands of cases that have to do with preventing a terrorist attack.

So I’m trying get some sense of how much work you do for local

jurisdictions today as compared with, let us say, before September

11th, just in rough percentage terms.

Mr. DIZINNO. Well, certainly the percent varies in the laboratory

depending on what examination we are speaking about, whether it

be DNA, latent print exams, and those percentages vary from unit

to unit depending on the area of expertise of examination desired

in that case. Certainly, since September 11th, the number of terrorism cases submitted to our laboratory has greatly increased. If you

would like, I can get back to you with numbers for each——

Ms. NORTON. That would be very helpful.

Mr. DIZINNO [continuing]. Specific area if that would be helpful.

Ms. NORTON. That would be very helpful and not only for our

work on this committee, but in my other work on other committees

having to do with antiterrorism efforts.

This MOU idea is a very good idea. I’m trying to understand it

and the greater efficiency that it has brought.

Could I ask Mr. Reiskin, you say in your testimony that backlogged cases are not part of the MOU, which leads me to wonder

if they’re orphans or what happens to them.

Mr. REISKIN. As Dr. DiZinno said, MPD has the ability to

prioritize the cases that go to the FBI lab. The FBI lab has a constrained capacity, understandably, because of the priorities that

they have as the Federal law enforcement agency to be able to handle D.C. cases, and largely, I think they’ve been very accommodating in working with us, working with MPD, to prioritize what cases

are submitted for analysis and which are not. It’s the——

Ms. NORTON. No. I’m asking you another question. I understand

that. Backlogged cases are not part of the MOU. Where are they?

Who handles them? The more backlogged a case gets, the less likely it is to do any good even if you do get to it. So I’m trying to figure out, if they’re not a part of the MOU, which means that you

have to do at least with some of the processing, then what happens

to that group of cases, and how many such cases are there?

Mr. REISKIN. We have attempted to work down that backlog.

We’ve received some grant funds from the Department of Justice.

Ms. NORTON. So you all do those cases yourselves?

Mr. REISKIN. What we’ve done most recently is we’ve contracted

with a private laboratory. We have a contract that will enable

something on the order of 250 cases to be processed, but the private laboratory is not accredited by the FBI, so it can’t do the

CODIS data base entry, so we’re——

Ms. NORTON. Well, does that mean the particular one you’re

using, or no private laboratories are accredited by the FBI?

Mr. REISKIN. I don’t believe any type of laboratories are accredited.

Mr. DIZINNO. The FBI is not an accrediting agency. Most labs

are accredited by an organization called the American Society of

Crime Laboratory Directors, Laboratory Accreditation Board

[ASCLD/LAB].

Ms. NORTON. Now, is this lab accredited or not?

Mr. REISKIN. The private lab we’ve contracted with is not. What

we have done is we’ve reached out to the accredited crime labs in

49

the region, and we are in the process of working with one of them

on an MOU that would enable them to take the results of the analysis that we have had done and get it entered into the data base.

But we clearly have more backlog than we can handle.

Ms. NORTON. I’ve got to stop you there because, you know, I’m

not a defense lawyer, but you’ve already given me something to go

back at the U.S. attorney when the matter comes. Whether it matters or not to be accredited, the fact that the jury hears that it’s

not accredited is not something that I would want to have happen

if I were a victim of a crime.

So would you please tell me what the effect of giving it to an

unaccredited lab is?

Chief RAMSEY. If I may, Ms. Norton, the lab that we’re contracted with, the private lab, it is accredited. The problem is that

because it’s—they can’t enter into CODIS. They’re not a law enforcement agency.

Ms. NORTON. I see.

Chief RAMSEY. So another agency has to then review the results,

like the FBI, like Baltimore City, for an example, that can enter

directly into CODIS. So you really don’t—I mean that—it’s still got

a backlog because they not only have to deal with their cases; I

mean, quite frankly, they probably may as well have done the analysis themselves if they’ve got to go over someone else’s work, in a

sense. It’s a little easier, but it still takes more time. So it just

makes it difficult. So we are working with Baltimore City now to

try to get some of our cases handled through their lab, as well as

continuing to try to get some of the cases through the private labs,

but that’s 266 cases. I mean, we have almost 1,500 sex cases that

are backlogged, so you’re barely putting a dent into the backlog.

Ms. NORTON. That’s 266——

Chief RAMSEY. Like we’ve got money for it right now to be able

to try to get to the backlog at that pace, and then if you add on

that the new cases that you’re constantly getting, you aren’t really

putting any kind of meaningful dent into the backlog. So until we

have our own lab and we’re able to establish priorities, we’re able

to be more proactive and not just deal with those cases where

there’s a suspect known or in custody, then——

Ms. NORTON. What is the suspect number in custody? Is that——

Chief RAMSEY. Well, right now—because you’ve got a limited

amount of resources, so you’re going to do those first——

Ms. NORTON. Yeah, I see.

Chief RAMSEY [continuing]. But you have to get at those

unknowns——

Ms. NORTON. Oh, God.

Chief RAMSEY [continuing]. So you can identify those people.

Many of those suspects are already in a data base, but unless you

actually work the DNA, you won’t know it, so they’re free to commit additional crimes or they’re picked up by another jurisdiction,

and they’re in custody for a crime, but you can’t tie them to the

D.C. crime because that evidence has not been worked. So they’re

already out of circulation when they could have been charged additionally here, in some cases, had we known or had that information

been in a data base.

50

Ms. NORTON. Does this explain why there’s so many sex, sex assault cases in——

Chief RAMSEY. Well——

Ms. NORTON. I mean, why are there so many of the backlogged

cases that are sex assault cases?

Chief RAMSEY. Many of the sex assault cases that we have in the

District are known offenders. There’s some relationship between

victim and offender—date rape, some kind of casual acquaintance

or whatever. We do have stranger rapes that take place as well.

Ms. NORTON. Well, just a moment. If it’s an acquaintance, you

still—is there still the same kind of need for——

Chief RAMSEY. No, not often.

Ms. NORTON. OK.

Chief RAMSEY. Sometimes there’s not.

Ms. NORTON. But the sexual assault cases that are in the backlog

are cases where the assailant is not known?

Chief RAMSEY. Some are. Some are not. We do send them, but

they’re a lower priority because there’s an unknown—there’s no

name to it. So with many of our cases, there is evidence there, but

because you don’t know who a suspect is, you don’t have a named

offender, it’s a low priority——

Ms. NORTON. And this is one of the most——

Chief RAMSEY [continuing]. But we do send it.

Ms. NORTON. Yeah. The word is out. You’re not in court for

rape—and now I understand the problem—because it may be, perhaps, the best example of what forensic could do—forensics could

do, given the pileup of sexes—sexual assault cases.

Mr. Wainstein, congratulations on your new appointment. We

can still call upon you when you’re off dealing with terrorism?

Mr. WAINSTEIN. Please do.

Ms. NORTON. Let me ask you about a concern of mine.

Some years ago, I was able to get very few criminal investigators

for your office when I learned—it was some years ago. I was—

maybe I had been in Congress half as long as I am now when I

learned that your office didn’t have criminal investigators.

What particularly concerned me was to know that they did have

some, and they found that they simply used MPD officers because

they’ve got to use somebody to investigate cases, and these officers,

of course, have to be in court anyway when their case may be

called; and in addition, apparently, they also are investigating

cases that, in comparable jurisdictions, are being investigated by

dedicated criminal investigators.

What is the ratio of investigators to attorneys, and, let us say,

typical jurisdictions with criminal—with a criminal jurisdiction like

you have, and what is the ratio in the District of Columbia of

criminal investigators to attorneys?

Mr. WAINSTEIN. Well, first, if I may, Congresswoman Norton,

thank you for the congratulations, and let me reiterate, please do

call on me for anything. I look forward to continuing working with

the District of Columbia in any way I can, and I—second, let me

thank you, Congresswoman Norton, for your efforts in this area

over the years. This has been a big issue for D.C., for the U.S. Attorney’s Office here for many years because we are—as I said earlier, we are the D.A.’s Office in many respects.

51

Ms. NORTON. Indeed. Let me ask you: What percentage of your

cases are typical criminal jurisdiction cases, and what percentage

of your cases are typical Federal jurisdiction cases?

Mr. WAINSTEIN. Well, I don’t know the exact percentage, but we

have about 22,000 cases that we bring in D.C. Superior Court,

which are the cases——

Ms. NORTON. How many cases do you bring in Federal court?

Mr. WAINSTEIN. I don’t know the exact number but somewhere,

maybe, up to 1,000 or so. So it’s derived by the the number of cases

within——

Ms. NORTON. This is why the District of Columbia feels it has to

have it. It has nothing to do with you, Mr. Wainstein, but imagine

that you have another home rule anomaly that the U.S. attorney

for the District of Columbia has no caseload to speak of, except our

own local caseload, and we’re very grateful for his work, but the

Federal cases here are a pittance compared to the lion’s share of

his caseload, which are typical robbery, murder and other State offenses. Go ahead, sir.

Mr. WAINSTEIN. Yes. Well—but our Federal side is quite active.

We have, I think, somewhere in—80 to 90 assistant U.S. attorneys

working on the Federal side and about 160–170 working on superior court. So in terms of the allocation, the manpower, and the

amount of work we do on either side, it is significant in both areas.

Also, there’s quite a bit of crossover. As you know, we do a lot

of Federal cases which take on violent crime in the streets of D.C.

in our Federal prosecutions. But as to the investigators, you were

very helpful, and we spearheaded the effort to get us investigators

initially. We had a couple of investigators along the way who

helped here and there, but we didn’t have a cadre of investigators

we could call on on the superior court side of our operation to go

out and help——

Ms. NORTON. How many investigators do you have on the superior court side?

Mr. WAINSTEIN. We have about 10 now, and that’s thanks to

your efforts. And the problem that you’ve identified is that if you

look at most D.A.’s offices, they have a huge number of investigators that the prosecutors rely on to help build the cases in the

grand jury stage post-arrest, pretrial, so they don’t have to rely exclusively on the local police department or the Federal agencies for

that matter. We don’t, so we really rely on the Metropolitan Police

Department. It does very high-caliber investigative work.

Ms. NORTON. Yeah. Our detectives and our police, but of course,

they have to be taken from work that would otherwise go—would

be typical police work. But I’m not criticizing you; I just think Congress has not been very much aware of this.

I do want to say for the record that, when my good friend from

Virginia, Mr. Wolf, indicated a concern about crime here, I brought

this matter to his attention. He has been concerned about crime,

and has been—we were talking, chairman, and he and I have been

talking on and on about crime even before the crime emergency. He

happens to be the chair of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over

U.S. attorneys in the United States, and I have asked him to try

to include in your appropriation at a conference more investigators.

52

Imagine what this would mean at a time when the—when D.C.

has appropriated, yet again, more money. Keep throwing money

and somehow crime will go down. How long? Do you have to be

born in the District of Columbia to know that’s never worked? Keep

throwing more money at the police department, and that will take

care of it.

The problem with that is the chief, justifying before the council,

is that these police have to be trained—how long does it take, Mr.

Ramsey, to train?

Chief RAMSEY. Six months in the academy, another year on the

street.

Ms. NORTON. So—but what it would mean if we could get the

Federal Government to do for our U.S. Attorney’s Office, what it

does for every U.S. attorney in the country, would be immediately

freeing up police to go back to spend more hours on the District of

Columbia. So I am interested in this. I’m particularly interested in

this issue, and I’m grateful that my good friend from Virginia is

also interested, and I do believe he’s going to help us.

Mr. WAINSTEIN. Yes. Congresswoman Norton, I appreciate your

efforts and Chairman Wolf’s efforts in that regard. Of course, the

sticking point always ends up coming down to dollars, and the concern that I have, while I would love to have a large number of investigators who would help our AUSAs out tremendously, the problem is, right now, the whole U.S. attorney community is in a very

difficult budget situation. We have vacancies. I have 11-percent vacancies in my office because we don’t have the budget to fill those

vacancies. Those are prosecutors. We have 40 prosecutors down

now because of the budget situation. So the problem would be,

while I’d love to have investigators, if it was a zero sum situation

where we’d have to actually take money out of what is already a

tight budget to pay for those investigators, it would possibly——

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Wainstein, I don’t care where the money comes

from. You’re taking—let me be clear.

You may need your U.S. attorneys and other parts of your budget, but we just had a crime emergency in this city. It’s very hard

for me to hear testimony that the present situation should continue, where police are taken off the street to investigate cases, and

so I don’t care where it comes from. Although, I think that Frank

Wolf will do all that he can to leave you whole, but I don’t appreciate testimony that says, you know, we’ve got vacancies in our office, so we should continue to take from MPD when they—when

you just heard testimony that it will be 18 months or so before

they’ll get one cop on the street pursuant to a crime emergency

that was this summer. So I’m going to press—I have one more

question on these investigators.

Is it not true that typically an office with your kind of jurisdiction has—large cities, for example—has about one attorney—

sorry—one investigator for every four attorneys? I—and your office

doesn’t even come close to that——

Mr. WAINSTEIN. No. That’s absolutely right, Congresswoman

Norton.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. And it’s also true that you fill out—you

fill out this need with MPD officers.

53

Mr. WAINSTEIN. Absolutely. MPD officers, they do the bulk part

of our investigations, and——

Ms. NORTON. That’s not even a Hobson’s choice for us. I want you

to know, Mr. Wainstein, that’s not even a Hobson’s choice. That’s

the wrong choice, and we’ve got to stop that choice from happening,

and that is my job.

Mr. Chairman, then I’ll come back.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you, Ms. Norton.

You know, as I said in my opening statement, I understand that,

if a woman is raped in the District and there is no suspect, that

the MPD will complete a rape kit but will not perform DNA testing

on the evidence collected from the kit.

Is that an accurate understanding, Chief?

Chief RAMSEY. It will be sent for testing, but it’s a very low priority, so it essentially doesn’t get tested. The ones that really get

tested are the ones that are ready for prosecution, if there’s a

known offender or if there’s someone who’s awaiting trial, and

those are the ones that get the priority. So, if there’s a known suspect, the odds are great. If it’s not, even though it’s submitted, the

odds of it ever getting tested, unless we start really making serious

inroads into this backlog, is pretty low.

So, basically, you’re doing the work with the MPD, but you’re

sending them out, and we just don’t have the capacity to rush that,

and generally we can do it now for the backlog; but it’s when we

try to take the cold cases, if you will, and start running them to

see whether or not we have a suspect that’s in the data base, and

then we can identify them.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Is that essentially correct, Mr. DiZinno,

given your resources?

Mr. DIZINNO. Yes, that’s correct. We rely on MPD to prioritize

their cases as far as their submissions to us, and we address the

priority from the order that they’re sent in.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I mean, if you were able to get—if you had

the capacity to do everything, you could probably increase your

data base. You could find out—I mean, who knows what you could

match? You could probably close a lot more cases, couldn’t you?

Mr. DIZINNO. Certainly the uploading of that data into the data

base would facilitate the investigations.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Wainstein, we titled this hearing—

and Ms. Norton mentioned it in her opening—‘‘CSI Washington,’’

and for a reason. We used to hear about the Perry Mason effect in

the murder trials when the defense needed to have a specific alternative suspect. Now we all see the crime scene shows on TV, but

do we have a CSI effect where the prosecution now must have DNA

or trace evidence analysis to prove the case?

Mr. WAINSTEIN. Absolutely. It’s amazing to see the impact, I’d

say, maybe the last 6 or 7 years as these shows of—television

shows have gained popularity, and people see things acted out over

half an hour or an hour, where the police solve the crime. And

then, abracadabra, there’s this tremendous forensic evidence—

DNA, fingerprints, gunshot residue, whatever it is—and it always

is the key to solving the crime. They see it on TV, and they expect

to see it in the courtroom. And we see this and hear this from jurors all the time.

54

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Even if you have a case in every other

way but you don’t have the DNA, this makes it tough?

Mr. WAINSTEIN. Absolutely. And of course, you know, a juror is

instructed that if he or she has a reasonable doubt, then that person must acquit; and often they see the lack of DNA, the lack of

fingerprints. Even in a situation where you might not, based on the

facts of the case, expect to find a fingerprint or expect to find DNA,

they ask ‘‘Why isn’t there any DNA? We see that on TV all the

time.’’ So there’s absolutely been an impact on our cases.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Then if you don’t have the—if you don’t

have the DNA data base, how can you go about identifying and

tracking serial rapists and murderers?

Mr. WAINSTEIN. Well, that’s a huge problem, and of course, that

problem arises even more in the investigative stage where, you

know, you’ve got a lot of rapists who are serial rapists. They don’t

just do one rape, they do many rapes; and they do them throughout

various jurisdictions, and unless we can get our samples into those

data bases and have them match to samples from other jurisdictions through CODIS, we’re losing the opportunity to find out who

these serial rapists are and to get them off the streets and prevent

further crime.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Reiskin and Chief, I gather, then, if

you had the new forensics lab, it would eliminate the need for such

a restrictive policy, and we’d be able to follow through on these

cases.

Chief RAMSEY. Yes, sir. It would certainly go a long way toward

certainly eliminating the backlog and also giving us the ability, especially when you start to see patterns emerge. One of the things

that Mr. Wainstein was talking about with serial rapists, you may

not know who they are, but you certainly can recognize the pattern, and you want to be able to put that together as quickly as

you can to try to identify the person responsible and—and those

are the cases that need to really get bumped up and could be

worked a lot quicker than they are now.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Reiskin, I understand that the city’s

been working with Federal officials to help secure funding for the

consolidated lab facility.

Can you elaborate a little bit on the city’s effort to date and what

additional congressional appropriations you think would be—need

to be to make this happen?

Mr. REISKIN. Yeah. We have submitted requests to the President

with our annual appropriations, first in 2005 and again in 2006. In

2005, we were appropriated, through the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee, $8 million; subsequently in 2006, an additional $5 million through D.C. Appropriations. As the Congresswoman mentioned, we’re awaiting the outcome for 2007. There’s potentially another $4 million or so.

In the requests that we will be making to OMB for the President’s 2008 budget, we will be seeking—and this is roughly consistent with what we’ve projected in the past—$25 million in fiscal

year 2008, $30 million in fiscal 2009 and $25 million in fiscal 2010.

And from our standpoint, we’re indifferent to the source, whether

it’s D.C. Appropriations, Justice Appropriations. That’s the need

that we’ve identified.

55

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. Let me—I mean, this doesn’t

just serve the needs of D.C. residents, but people from around the

world who come to this city every day who could become victims,

certainly my constituents, you know, hundreds of thousands who

work in this city and who are coming to this city every day as well.

So this is a national concern. This isn’t just local, and I think the

fact that we have funded it—and we can be sure that Mr. Wolf,

who couldn’t be here today, and Ms. Norton and myself will continue to push to at least make sure that the Federal part of this

continues to be a priority.

And Ms. Mohammed, we appreciate what you’ve done organizing

the other mothers of murder victims to draw attention on the unsolved crimes in the city. You put a face on it, and that’s one of

the reasons we’re here today.

Ms. MOHAMMED. Sir, what I’m trying to ascertain for the mothers is the money that’s been appropriated is $25 million, and exactly how far do we get up to that data? Are we at first base or

are we just hitting the ball?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me just ask Mr. Reiskin.

From the city’s perspective, it’s not going to be all Federal.

There’s going to be a city component to this obviously, and there’s

an agreement to fulfill our responsibilities, and I’m just asking

what that equation is so that——

Mr. REISKIN. Yeah. The overall proposal that we’re putting forth

is roughly two-thirds funding from the District, one-third from the

Federal Government. To date, there’s been roughly $23 million

committed. It’s $13 from the Federal side, $10 from the District

side. That’s through fiscal year 2007. That may grow depending on

how the——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. But you’re looking at about 80–85 million

from the Federal Government over time, about a third of what it’s

going to cost to——

Mr. REISKIN. The overall cost of the project is roughly $250 million. What we’ve received to date is allowing us—it allowed us to

get through the program design—the program analysis, the site

analysis, the process mapping, and now the design contract. The

design contract alone is on the order of $12 to $15 million. So, with

the funds to date, we will have the design complete. The construction is really the balance of what we——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. And that’ll be in a larger chunk from——

Mr. REISKIN. Right. The construction would start in fiscal year

2008.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Would the city do a bond issue for this or

would they just pay it out of operating capital or——

Mr. REISKIN. Right now, it’s projected to come out of general obligation bonds, but how that would be funded will depend on how

that capital budget is developed over the next 5 years.

Ms. MOHAMMED. That’s the issue. That’s the issue for the parents, Congressman Davis and Congressman Norton. They can filibuster all they want. I’ve got to go back and tell the mothers that

we’re going to have an erected building, fully staffed, and something by what year? Are we talking 2020 or what? That’s what we

want to know. I mean, I want to be alive.

56

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me ask that, and then I have a followup question to that.

What’s the time period here where we can expect this to be up

and operating if everything proceeds on time?

Mr. REISKIN. We’ve just executed the design contract that’s a,

roughly, 14-month process. Construction would be roughly 2 years.

So it’s the end of calendar year 2009 when the facility is projected

to open.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me ask this question. We have a backlog of which, I think, Ms. Mohammed and the people she’s working

with are concerned about. What would it take in an additional Federal expenditure, let’s say, over the next year to add personnel or

resources at the current FBI crime lab to clear up this backlog?

Mr. DIZINNO. I don’t know the exact number of the backlog, so

once we have that exact number, we certainly could make a

better——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Chief, do you have any idea what the

backlog is?

Chief RAMSEY. It’s roughly about 1,500 sex cases, I’m told, and

we have identified about 100 old homicide cases, to date, that we

think could yield some DNA. And certainly there are more, but we

have a team that’s going back in time, looking at all these cases,

so that could actually——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I appreciate that. That gives me a ballpark. I think what our concern and I think what your concern

would be is, by the time you build this in 2009, some of this stuff

gets stale, DNA evidence. I mean it’s always there, but if we could

just put forward just maybe an extra million or something like that

and get it in and clear up this backlog, maybe we close some cases

and put some people away and prevent some other cases from coming up.

Does that sound reasonable?

Mr. DIZINNO. That’s absolutely true, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. What I’m asking is, given what the Chief

has said the backlog may be—you don’t have to do the math here

today——

Mr. DIZINNO. Right.

Chairman TOM DAVIS [continuing]. Because—but if you could get

back to the committee and then we’ll get back with Mr. Wolf and

see what that difference is and what it might be and what an extra

hundred thousand, million, whatever it is, would do to clear up this

backlog just for the mothers and the victims and the families and

everything else. Even if we could just clear the backlog up right

now, it would make things a lot easier while we’re building that.

Ms. Mohammed, do you agree with that?

Ms. MOHAMMED. I think that’s fine.

I want to say just one last thing on behalf of mothers and families of murdered victims. Doris Moore’s sister—she’s a doctor at

George Washington Hospital—was killed in 1969. Her murder is

still open on the books. The Chief knows we have almost 5,000 unsolved murders in the District of Columbia. Mark Sitz’ father was

killed in 1977. He’s a teacher in Prince George’s County. When I

leave here today, they’re going to ask me whether or not, you know,

the DNA that was collected during that particular time—which

57

was eons ago—whether or not it will be relevant, whether or not

it will be used, or what kind of hope do they have before they die?

And I don’t know of these thousand cases—this 1,000 cases and the

300, or whether or not the DNA is still relevant or old enough, but

I want to be able to tell people who have been waiting since the

sixties and the seventies that there’s still hope and that people still

care, because their hearts are still burning because these murders

remain unsolved.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well, that’s correct. And look, we’re not

sure, even if you process the DNA, you’re going to solve the case;

but it puts you closer to it, and without it, it’s impossible.

So, Chief, if we could just go back and take a look at the backlog,

whatever years it goes back, and Ms. Norton, it seems to me, if we

could put a little bit of money up front to clear the pending cases

while we’re looking at this, then we could make some headway and

get to some of these while the evidence is still a little bit fresh, because waiting 2 or 3 more years makes these cases more difficult,

wouldn’t you agree, to solve?

Mr. DIZINNO. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, we will work with MPD to

provide that information.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well, get that information to us. We will

share it with the other relevant congressional committees and just

see if there’s anything we might be able to do to try to clear up

the background. It seems to me Ms. Mohammed and some of the

people that she’s worked with are lighting a fire in this city for people who say, ‘‘Look, give us the resources and we will try to work

with the city to do that,’’ and Chief, we’ll try to make your job a

little bit easier because I know it’s got to be as frustrating for you

as it is for the victims.

Chief RAMSEY. Yes, sir, it is. And I appreciate all of your help

in not only getting the lab but in dealing with issues like the backlog and so forth, and we’ll do the very best we can to push this

through as fast as we can so that we can, one way or the other at

least, let these families know whether or not it yielded any results

or not, and we’re obligated to do that.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate your line of

questioning because it’s in the nature of trying to solve the problem

because, in light of what the chairman said, if I go back to the testimony with you, Mr. Chief Ramsey, we talked about the turnaround times above average. Then I would take it that means that

you are closing in on the backlog cases, and you’re closing cases on

a timely basis that come in and have the ordinary priority; for example, somebody—you’ve got a suspect.

Is that what that means? What does it mean about processing a

criminal? Are you all just lumping all of it together and coming up

with an average processing, I mean with an above-average processing time? Mr. DiZinno.

Mr. DIZINNO. [No response.]

Chief RAMSEY. Yeah, maybe; so because I think you’re talking

about the reduction——

Ms. NORTON. Oh, I’m sorry. I’m still trying to find out—see, what

the chairman is talking about—I had this very same experience

58

when I chaired the AOC. There was this humongous backlog, and

the first thing to do is to separate out the backlog from the new

cases or else you just feed the backlogging, and you never get out

of it. Then, when the backlog is gone and you no longer are building backlog, you’re on time. And I can’t figure out whether the

process the chairman is suggesting might be used to work here;

and it would if, for example, you are able, with this new personnel

and with the MOU, to turn around today in a fairly timely way,

and then we wouldn’t at least be building the kind of backlog we

were before. And that’s what I’m trying to get at.

Mr. DIZINNO. Yes, Congresswoman Norton, I think there’s two

separate issues, as you said: eliminating the backlog and then providing timely service for cases that are submitted. Depending on

the backlog, the size of the backlog, and the number of new cases

submitted versus the funding and resources provided, we would

certainly work with MPD to, No. 1, try to eliminate their backlog

and, No. 2, attempt to provide a more timely response to the current cases that they would submit.

Ms. NORTON. They said it’s more and more timely, apparently,

with the new efficiencies. Now, let me make sure I have these—

this backlog.

I think Congress would be very sympathetic with the notion that

all of these cases or so many of these cases are disproportionately

sex cases, sex crime cases, and that means if you commit a sex

crime in the District of Columbia, you probably don’t have to worry

about it, or at least many of you do not have to worry about it

given the kind of evidence that’s necessary. 1,500 backlogged sex

crime cases, and did you say 100 cold homicide cases, Chief?

Chief RAMSEY. Right now, we have 100 that we’ve identified that

could possibly yield some meaningful DNA. Not all homicide cases

have DNA from the offender. A lot of the evidence is from the victim, not from the offender. So you have to go through these, and

it’s not guaranteed that you’ll wind up with anything that will lead

you to an offender. But these are ones that we’ve identified that

would be worth submitting to see whether or not we could yield,

but I think it—yield anything useful—but I think it’s important to

clarify that. Because of television and the way in which people kind

of view this is, they think that in every single case you’re going to

be able to identify a suspect through DNA, and that’s simply just

not true, so—but it will make a huge difference, a huge difference

in our ability to solve crime.

Ms. NORTON. And at least it would mean that we’re not doing the

same old thing we’ve been doing ever since I was a child, just get

more—more policemen and then looking to you and saying, ‘‘Well,

how come you haven’t solved it? You’ve got more policemen.’’ what

is the definition of ‘‘stupidity?’’ You keep doing the same thing and

hope and expect to get a different result. More police, as important

as they are, must not be the answer in the District of Columbia if

you compare the number of police here to other jurisdictions.

I congratulate you, Ms. Mohammed, on your questions. I’ll say to

the District of Columbia we have—what was the total, Mr. Reiskin?

What’s the total amount the Federal Government has come forward

with now and the total amount D.C. has come forward with?

59

Mr. REISKIN. To date, we have $13 million from the Federal Government, with $4 million pending, and $10 million from the District government.

Ms. NORTON. That’s disgraceful. That’s just disgraceful. That

means the city also has not given the priority. The city needs all

of those involved, but——

Mr. REISKIN. If I could clarify——

Ms. NORTON. Here’s the Federal Government. It’s not even our

crime lab, and we have a—in this climate, we’ve come up with

more money than the District of Columbia itself has appropriated?

There’s something wrong with that picture.

Mr. REISKIN. If I could clarify, in the most recent capital budget

that was sent to Congress, there was another $150 million of local

capital funds identified for this project.

Ms. NORTON. So you are testifying that you all are now appropriating in this year’s budget $150 million, and it’s already passed

the council?

Mr. REISKIN. In the capital budget, there’s proposed capital

spending for the outyears beyond fiscal year 2007. In that proposed

spending which has been approved by the council, sent to Congress,

is $150 million, $75 million each in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

Ms. NORTON. It’s going to be very difficult for me to continue to come back and get $5 million chunks of money from the Federal

Government unless I’m finally able to say here’s what the District

is putting up for its own forensic lab. So I just want to say that

for the record, because I regard this as the only new idea. This very

old idea is the only new idea I’ve heard from——

Ms. MOHAMMED. Congresswoman Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Yes.

Ms. MOHAMMED. Please excuse me; that if I recall, we were told

at one point that the—Mayor Williams was coming up here to request $150 million for the 2007 budget for the crime lab, but by

the time he got here, it had changed to a new downtown library,

and even the Chief spoke to that. We were just very disheartened

as parents, but let me just give you all a quick real example.

My son Imtiaz Mohammed was killed on October 28, 2004. The

person was finally arrested after he killed another victim in July—

or was it June—2005. When he was arrested, at the arraignment,

the judge asked that—or the magistrate or whatever they called

him—asked that DNA samples be sent and brought back within 30

days. It just came back 2 weeks ago. So, so much for——

Ms. NORTON. I think that says it all.

Ms. MOHAMMED [continuing]. Speed.

Ms. NORTON. Well, your own cross-examination, I must say, Ms.

Mohammed, has gotten from Mr. Reiskin an ending target date of

2009, is that right—a target to completely—to complete the building of a forensic lab?

Mr. REISKIN. That’s correct. It will be the end of calendar year

2009.

Ms. NORTON. The end of calendar year 2009.

I just think that with a city that is boasting—what is it—all

kinds of surpluses, I can understand why, in a real sense, you

know, what’s immediately in people’s faces gets surpluses, but as

I said in my opening statement, analytically, after decades of

60

throwing more money at police, you would have thought people

would say, ‘‘Well, wait a minute. Let’s get fresh eyes and look at

this. Is there something we aren’t doing?’’ And what bothers me is

the notion of doing the same thing. I have no idea if this bill will,

in fact, have the desired effect, but I can’t believe that it is preferable to keep doing the same thing.

I have only a couple more questions. The chairman wants to get

out of here. He’s been very—he has been very, very gracious.

We have not said anything about the effect of forensics on civil

matters. Somebody has been—has had an accident. Someone has

another civil matter where benefits may be involved, but

forensics—forensic evidence is necessary in order to get the benefits

for the survivors.

How often does that occur, and how do we deal with that need

for forensic evidence?

Mr. WAINSTEIN. I’ll go ahead and just step up. I’m not——

Ms. NORTON. Does the FBI have anything to do with it? Who

does it?

Mr. WAINSTEIN. The concern of our obligation——

Ms. NORTON. You all don’t deal with anything civil.

Mr. DIZINNO. Correct. The FBI only performs forensic analysis

for criminal casework.

Ms. NORTON. Does D.C. have to go to private forensic laboratories for that kind of analysis even if it’s a civil matter in court?

Mr. WAINSTEIN. We handle civil matters on the Federal side. It

might be——

Ms. NORTON. I can’t hear you, sir.

Mr. WAINSTEIN. Oh, I’m sorry. My apologies.

We handle civil matters in Federal court, but the A.G.’s Office

would handle a lot of the civil matters where that might come up,

and maybe you could put the question to Mr. Spagnoletti about

that.

Ms. NORTON. On the limit on the number of evidence—and I can

understand that. Sometimes, I’m sure, if you had your own forensic

lab, there would be a limit on the number of pieces of evidence, but

I’m sure you’d make that choice, and I’m sure you prioritize the

kind of evidence you need in an informed fashion.

Is there a formula, or do you look at the case and then decide

what kind of evidence, since you can only do, what is it, four or five

pieces? What kind of evidence do you need? How is that—how is

that duty performed, and how is that decision made?

Chief RAMSEY. Yes. I believe here—and of course I have my person who runs my forensic section behind me, so I’ll ask him to tap

me on the shoulder if I go astray here. But because you can recover

numerous items at any scene, when you take a look and review the

evidence, you really try to look at what do you think might have

some kind of, you know, DNA that could be recovered, and that’s

a decision that’s made by those that process the scene.

Now, that leads to another point that I just want to kind of get

on the record. Building a lab is one thing. Maintaining it and continuing to have the proper training and so forth so that people stay

at an acceptable level is another. That’s got to also include people

assigned to the mobile crime or crime scene investigation section,

because how they process the scene, how they collect the evidence

61

initially is important. There’s nothing they can do with it in any

lab if they screw up the crime scene. It makes it very, very difficult.

So the training for our people has to constantly be budgeted so

that we can make sure those people that we’ve charged with that

responsibility process that scene appropriately, package it appropriately, store it appropriately, all those kinds of things that are

needed so that the people in the lab have a chance of getting useful

evidence.

So I just wanted to throw that out there because that’s a huge

piece that sometimes gets overlooked.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. That’s very important.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Ms. Norton, I thank you very much. I

want to thank everybody for being involved with this.

Mr. DiZinno, you’re going to confer with Chief Ramsey and

maybe get some ballpark in terms of clearing this backlog. I

think—you know, just so many of us see that you don’t want to

start off in a hole from day one, and maybe some resources could

be directed in that direction. I know you’d like to see that.

Mr. DIZINNO. Yes.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Again, congratulations, Mr. Wainstein, on your promotion.

The hearing’s adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statements of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings and Hon.

C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger follow:]

62

63

64

65

66

67

Æ