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

78–008 DTP 2002

S. HRG. 107–342

DNA CRIME LABS: THE PAUL COVERDELL

NATIONAL FORENSIC SCIENCES IMPROVEMENT

ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 15, 2001

Serial No. J–107–19

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

SHARON PROST, Chief Counsel 

MAKAN DELRAHIM, Staff Director 

BRUCE COHEN, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .................... 27

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ............. 21

Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ..................... 7

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............................ 1

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 3

Thurmond, Hon. Strom, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina ........ 7

WITNESSES 

Buel, Eric, Director, Vermont Forensic Laboratory, Waterbury, Vermont ......... 36

Boyd, David G., Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. .......................... 8

Coonrod, Keith K., Chair, Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations, 

Albany, New York ................................................................................................ 14

Downs, James Claude Upshaw, M.D., Director/Chief Medical Examiner, Department of Forensic Services, State of Alabama, Auburn, Alabama ............. 40

Nix, Milton E., Jr., Director, Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Decatur,

Georgia .................................................................................................................. 43

Petersen, William, Actor, Valencia, California ...................................................... 18

Sheppo, Michael G., Bureau Chief, Illinois State Police Division of Forensic 

Services, Forensic Sciences Command, Springfield, Illinois ............................. 32

Townsend, Richard J., Director, Utah Bureau of Forensic Sciences, Salt Lake 

City, Utah ............................................................................................................. 28

Yura, Michael T., Director, Forensic Identification Program, West Virginia 

University, Morgantown, West Virginia ............................................................ 47

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Questions submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary .................................... 54

Questions submitted by Senator Feingold ............................................................. 55

Responses of Eric Buel to questions submitted by the Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 55

Responses of Eric Buel to questions submitted by Senator Feingold .................. 56

Responses of J.C. Upshaw Downs, M.D. to questions submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary ........................................................................................ 57

Responses of J.C. Upshaw Downs, M.D. to questions submitted by Senator 

Feingold ................................................................................................................ 58

Response of the National Institute of Justice to a question submitted by 

Senator Schumer .................................................................................................. 60

Responses of Milton E. Nix, Jr. to questions submitted by Senator Feingold .... 60

Responses of Michael G. Sheppo to questions submitted by the Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 61

Responses of Michael G. Sheppo to questions submitted by Senator Feingold .. 63

Responses of Richard J. Townsend to questions submitted by the Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 65

Responses of Richard J. Townsend to questions submitted by Senator Feingold ........................................................................................................................ 66

Responses of Michael T. Yura to questions submitted by the Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 66

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Laboratory, Washington, DC, proposal .. 68

Page

IV

Fenger, Terry W., Director, Forensic Science Program, School of Medicine, 

Marshall University, Huntington, WV, statement ............................................ 70

Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC, report ................................ 71

(1)

DNA CRIME LABS: THE PAUL COVERDELL NATIONAL FORENSIC SCIENCES IMPROVEMENT ACT 

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2001

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:13 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Hatch, Sessions, Leahy, Feingold, and Durbin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Chairman HATCH. Good afternoon. I am pleased to welcome all 

of you to today’s hearing on forensic science. 

I appreciate the efforts of Senator Sessions, who has agreed to 

chair the hearing. 

While the topic may at first blush sound somewhat dry, I assure 

you that any reader of Patricia Cornwell’s novels or any viewer of 

the television programs ‘‘Quincy’’ or ‘‘CSI: Crime Scene Investigation’’ knows the work performed by our Nation’s forensic scientists 

is truly fascinating. These are the people who, by analyzing fingerprints, DNA samples, fibers, hair, ballistics and other crime scene 

evidence, help solve some of our most difficult crimes. Without 

them, I don’t think we would solve a lot of crimes. 

The work performed by these scientists carries with it an awesome responsibility. Because of their expertise, the testimony of forensic scientists often carries great weight with a jury in a criminal 

trial. In that regard, we are all troubled by allegations that mistakes by a police chemist helped send innocent people to prison. 

This isolated situation should not be used unfairly to indict the 

thousands of forensic scientists who perform their work professionally and responsibly. It should, however, remind us that those 

who work in our criminal justice system have an obligation to be 

diligent, honest and fair-minded. And we as public policy leaders 

have the obligations to ensure that our forensic scientists have the 

resources necessary to carry out their critical work. Thanks in 

large part to Senator Sessions, we now have legislation that will 

do just that. 

The Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act 

of 2000, introduced last session by Senator Sessions and signed 

into law by President Clinton, authorized substantial resources for 

2

State and local crime laboratories. These resources, awarded to 

States by the Attorney General in the form of block grants, can be 

used by laboratories for personnel, facilities, training, equipment 

and other supplies. The legislation also contains an important safeguard that will ensure testing accuracy. 

To apply for a grant, a State must certify that it has either a forensic laboratory system, coroner’s office or medical examiner’s office that is accredited by the Laboratory Accreditation Board of the 

American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors or the National 

Association of Medical Examiners, or that the State would use a 

portion of the grant to prepare and apply for such accreditation. 

This provision is critical given that less than one-half of all crime 

laboratories in the United States are currently accredited. 

The resources authorized by this legislation are dearly needed. 

To cite one statistic that I am certain we will hear again this afternoon, a recent study by the American Society of Crime Laboratory 

Directors found that 9,000 additional forensic scientists are needed 

to have a 30-day turnaround of evidence. The study also found that 

the majority of labs do not even have the basic equipment needed 

to respond to the caseloads that they currently have. 

I know that the administration supports the Coverdell Act, and 

I am confident that I can work with Attorney General Ashcroft to 

see that the needs of our Nation’s crime labs are addressed. 

Many of our witnesses today are officials with State forensic laboratories. In closing, I want to urge you to be creative and 

proactive in seeking solutions to your personnel and resource 

needs. For example, there are now private institutions that offer 

cost-effective training programs and other services for forensic scientists. One such institute, the non-profit Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine, on whose board I am proud to sit, 

trains many of Virginia’s crime scene investigators, forensic scientists, medical examiners and other law enforcement investigators. In many cases, the Institute can provide training at a lower 

cost than State-run laboratories. Many of you may want to go there 

and take a good look at what they are doing. 

Let me now turn to our Democratic leader on the Committee, 

Senator Leahy, for his opening statement, and I will turn the remainder of the hearing over to Senator Sessions, whose efforts and 

leadership on this issue have been very, very critical in getting 

these matters on their way. I am very grateful to him. I am grateful to our Democrat leader on the Committee, as well, for his hard 

work in these areas as a former prosecutor and as somebody who 

fully understands these problems. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Hatch follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Good afternoon. I am pleased to welcome you all to today’s hearing on forensic 

science. While the topic may at first blush sound somewhat dry, I assure you that, 

as any reader of a Patricia Cornwell novel or any viewer of the television programs 

Quincy or CSI: Crime Scene Investigation knows, the work performed by our nation’s forensic scientists is truly fascinating. These are the people who, by analyzing 

fingerprints, DNA samples, fibers, hair, ballistics, and other crime scene evidence, 

help solve some of our most difficult crimes. 

The work performed by these scientists carries with it an awesome responsibility. 

Because of their expertise, the testimony of forensic scientists often carries great 

weight with the jury in a criminal trial. In that regard, we are all troubled by alleVerDate Feb 1 2002 09:40 Mar 27, 2002 Jkt 078008 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\HEARINGS\78008.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
3

gations that mistakes by a police chemist in Oklahoma helped send innocent people 

to prison. This isolated situation should not be used unfairly to indict the thousands 

of forensic scientists who perform their work professionally and responsibly. It 

should, however, remind us that those who work in our criminal justice system have 

an obligation to be diligent, honest, and fair-minded. 

And we, as public policy leaders, have the obligation to ensure that our forensic 

scientists have the resources necessary to carry out their critical work. Thanks in 

large part to Senator Sessions we now have legislation that will do just that. 

The Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act of 2000, introduced last session by Senator Sessions and signed into law by President Clinton, 

authorized substantial resources for state and local crime laboratories. These resources, awarded to states by the Attorney General in the form of block grants, can 

be used by laboratories for personnel, facilities, training, equipment and other supplies. 

The legislation also contains an important safeguard that will ensure testing accuracy. To apply for a grant a state must certify either that it has a forensic laboratory system, coroner’s office, or medical examiner’s office that is accredited by the 

Laboratory Accreditation Board of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors or the National Association of Medical Examiners, or that the state will use 

a portion of the grant to prepare and apply for such accreditation. This provision 

is critical given that less than 1⁄2 of all crime laboratories in the United States are 

currently accredited. 

The resources authorized by this legislation are dearly needed. To cite one statistic that I am certain we will hear again this afternoon, a recent study by the 

American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors found that 9,000 additional forensic 

scientists are needed to have a 30-day turn around of evidence. The study also found 

that the majority of labs do not even have the basic equipment needed to respond 

to the caseload they currently have. I know that the Administration supports the 

Coverdell Act, and I am confident that I can work with Attorney General Ashcroft 

to see that the needs of our nation’s crime labs are addressed. 

Many of our witnesses today are officials with state forensic laboratories. In closing, I also want to urge you to be creative and proactive in seeking solutions to your 

personnel and resource needs. For example, there are now private institutes that 

offer cost-effective training programs and other services for forensic scientists. One 

such institute, the non-profit Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine, 

on whose board I am proud to sit, trains many of Virginia’s crime scene investigators, forensic scientists, medical examiners, and other law enforcement investigators. In many cases, the institute can provide training at a lower cost than staterun laboratories. 

I’ll now turn to the Ranking Member, Senator Leahy, for his opening statement.

Senator Leahy, we will turn to you. 

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

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for calling this hearing on the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences 

Improvement Act. In the last Congress, I was proud to cosponsor 

this legislation which is named after a friend and colleague of ours 

who was, I think it is safe to say, extremely well liked on both 

sides of the aisle. 

This legislation brings an infusion of Federal funds to enable 

State and local crime labs across the Nation to update their facilities and improve their crime-solving abilities. I want to applaud 

Senator Sessions for his efforts in working together with me to revise the bill’s funding formula to make it fair for all States. Senator 

Sessions helped make it possible to get the kind of bipartisan consensus we needed. 

We got the bill passed and President Clinton signed it into law 

on December 21, 2000. It authorized $85 million in the upcoming 

fiscal year and $738 million over the next 6 years. For some reason, the new administration did not request any funding for this 

new, bipartisan law. I think that was a mistake on their part and 

4

I am going to work with them, and I know Senator Sessions is, to 

put the money back in because we need this funding for our State 

and local crime labs. 

Senator Sessions and I are both former prosecutors. We know 

that especially today, if you don’t have good labs, more than adequate labs—you have really got to have the best—law enforcement 

and the prosecutor are hampered. 

Then Senator Ashcroft had been a cosponsor of this bill, and then 

Senator Abraham was also a co-sponsor so if we go back to those 

two Cabinet members, they might be able to convince the President 

to put the money back in, along with Senator Byrd, Chairman 

Hatch, Senator Cleland and Senator Durbin. 

I have already requested the full $85 million in the Appropria- tions Committee. Senator Harkin and I offered a $1.5 billion 

amendment to the Budget Act which would have part of this. 

I also notice that there is a vote, and I will put my whole statement in the record, but if I could just be a tiny bit parochial, and 

I want to mention this has probably never happened in this Committee on matters that anybody has ever been parochial, but let me 

talk about Vermont. 

The Vermont Forensics Laboratory is currently operating in the 

old Vermont State Hospital building in Waterbury, Vermont. It is 

one of only two fully accredited forensics labs in all of New England. In population, we are the smallest State in New England, so 

I am proud of that, but it is trying to do 21st century science in 

a 1940’s building—very limited space with no central climate control. 

With an outdated facility and limited resources, the scientists in 

Vermont are trying to overcome a heroin crisis in my home State. 

Heroin cases have gone up 400 percent. It is a heavy caseload, in 

addition to the usual demands on the crime lab which serves 92 

local, State and Federal law enforcement organizations in Vermont. 

I think they have done a superb job there, but if we could fully 

fund the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement 

Act, they could do much more. I know Dr. Eric Buel, who is here, 

has done a great deal; in fact, he helped me when we were putting 

together the bill. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I will put my whole statement in the record, 

but I join with you and Senator Hatch and so many colleagues on 

both sides to make sure we get this through. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

VERMONT

I commend Chairman Hatch for calling this hearing on the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act. 

In the last Congress, I was proud to cosponsor this legislation, named after our 

departed friend and colleague, to provide an infusion of federal funds to enable state 

and local crime laboratories across the nation to update their facilities and improve 

their crime-solving abilities. Senator Sessions and I worked together to revise the 

bill’s funding formula to make it fair for all states. We reached bipartisan consensus 

and Congress quickly passed the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act. President Clinton signed it into law on December 21, 2000. 

The Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act authorizes $85 

million in the upcoming fiscal year and $738 million over the next six years for Department of Justice grants to help our state crime labs. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration did not request any funding for this new bipartisan law. I do not unVerDate Feb 1 2002 09:40 Mar 27, 2002 Jkt 078008 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\HEARINGS\78008.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
5

derstand why the Administration failed to request funding to help our state and 

local crime labs. Forensics are the science of fighting crime, and we cannot afford 

to under-use all the tools that modern technology offers in helping us to continue 

to bring crime rates down after eight years of progress. This is a particular mystery 

since Attorney General Ashcroft, when he served in this body, was a cosponsor of 

the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act. 

I look forward to working with Chairman Hatch, Senator Byrd, Senator Sessions, 

Senator Cleland, Senator Durbin and other strong supporters of the Coverdell Act 

to fully fund our legislation. As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have already requested the full $85 million for the next fiscal year for the 

new law. 

During the debate on the budget resolution, Senator Harkin and I offered an amendment to add $1.5 billion to the Department of Justice account in FY 2002 to 

fund programs to assist state and local law enforcement, including the Coverdell 

Act. The Senate unanimously approved the Leahy-Harkin law enforcement budget 

amendment. The budget resolution conference report, passed last Thursday by the 

Senate, retained most of the funding increases in the Leahy-Harkin law enforcement amendment so additional resources are available in the Department of Justice 

budget to fully fund these investments in forensic science. 

Forensic science workloads have increased significantly over the past five years, 

both in number and complexity. Since Congress established the Combined DNA 

Index System in the mid1994s, States have been busy collecting DNA samples from 

convicted offenders for analysis and indexing. 

But funding has simply not kept pace with this increasing demand, and State 

crime laboratories are now seriously bottlenecked. Backlogs have impeded the use 

of new technologies like DNA testing in solving cases without suspects—and reexamining cases in which there are strong claims of innocence—as laboratories are required to give priority status to those cases in which a suspect is known. 

In some parts of the country, investigators must wait several months—and sometimes more than a year—to get DNA test results from rape and other violent crime 

evidence. Solely for lack of funding, critical evidence remains untested while rapists 

and killers remain at large, victims continue to anguish, and statutes of limitation 

on prosecution expire. 

Let me describe the situation in my home state of Vermont. The Vermont 

Forensics Laboratory is currently operating in the old Vermont State Hospital building in Waterbury, Vermont. Though it is proudly one of only two fully-accredited 

forensics labs in New England, it is trying to do 21st Century science in a 1940s 

building. The lab has very limited space and no central climate control -both essential conditions for precise forensic science. 

With an outdated facility and limited resources, the scientists at the Vermont Forensic Laboratory are trying to overcome a heroin crisis in my home state. In the 

last year alone, heroin cases in Vermont have risen by 400 percent. This heavy caseload is in addition to the usual demands on the crime lab, which serves 92 local, 

state and federal law enforcement organizations in Vermont. 

I commend the scientists and lab personnel at the Vermont Forensics Laboratory 

for the fine work they do every day under difficult circumstances. But the people 

of the State of Vermont deserve better. Fully funding the Paul Coverdell National 

Forensic Science Improvement Act is our chance to provide them with the facilities 

and equipment they deserve. 

I look forward to the hearing the testimony today of Dr. Eric Buel, the Director 

of the Vermont Forensic Laboratory, on the importance of the Coverdell Act to 

states like Vermont, which desperately need federal support to handle the increased 

workloads placed upon their forensic science systems. 

Today’s hearing is about the need to fund the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences 

Improvement Grants. But I want to say a few words about another aspect of the 

same legislation. When the Senate took up this legislation, I proposed and the Senate adopted a modest Sense of Congress amendment. Among other things, this 

amendment calls on the States to make post-conviction DNA testing more widely 

available. 

In recent years, DNA testing has led to the exoneration of more than 80 men and 

women who, for one reason or another, were prosecuted and convicted of crimes that 

they did not commit. This number includes at least 10 individuals who had been 

sentenced to death and in some cases came within days of being executed. It also 

includes more than a dozen cases in which the DNA tests not only exonerated an 

innocent person but also helped identify the real perpetrator. 

Just last week, a man named Jeffrey Todd Pierce was freed from prison in Oklahoma as a result of DNA testing. He was convicted of rape and served 15 years of 

a 65 year sentence based in large part on the so-called ‘‘expert’’ testimony of a police 

6

chemist named Joyce Gilchrist. She claimed that hair found at the crime scene was 

‘‘microscopically consistent’’ with Jeffrey Pierce’s hair. The DNA tests proved that 

she was wrong. 

The Pierce case may be just the tip of the iceberg. The FBI did a little investigation into other cases involving the same police chemist and concluded that she exaggerated her results not just once or even twice, but repeatedly. Governor Keating 

has promised a review of all of the felony cases in which she was involved—that 

is roughly 3,000 cases, including 23 in which the defendant was sentenced to death. 

The odds are that Jeffrey Pierce was not the only innocent person who was convicted in Oklahoma based on sloppy lab work. 

I mention the Pierce case because he was released just last week. But I could 

have pointed to many other cases in which people were wrongly convicted because 

forensic specialists were incompetent or because they fabricated or overstated test 

results to support the prosecution’s theory of the case. In 1997, we learned about 

major problems at the FBI’s crime labs, ranging from unqualified forensic scientists 

to contamination of evidence and the doctoring of laboratory reports. Before that, 

there were similar problems in various state crime labs. 

All this is to say two things. First, we need to fund the Paul Coverdell National 

Forensic Sciences Improvement Act, which will help improve the quality and credibility of our nation’s crime labs. Second, we must honor our commitment to ensuring 

broader access to postconviction DNA testing. Jeffrey Pierce is free today because, 

after years of requesting a DNA test, without success, he was able to take advantage of Oklahoma’s new post-conviction DNA statute. But most States have yet to 

act. 

I look forward to hearing from Dr. Buel and our other witnesses today about the 

importance of the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act.

Senator SESSIONS [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator 

Leahy. You helped us move this bill forward. It will help labs in 

Vermont, particularly, but it will help others all over the country 

and it is important that we get the funding. 

We had legislation that we were pleased to work on last year to 

give a substantive tribute to and honor Paul Coverdell. We named 

it after him following his untimely death, and it was passed unanimously. Unfortunately that doesn’t mean we have got the money 

yet, and I am glad to know how strongly you feel about it, and so 

do I. 

I have talked to Attorney General Ashcroft and I think they will 

give us a fair hearing, and I believe the facts are going to indicate 

quite clearly that we need more funding for laboratories. According 

to a report issued by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, as of December 1997, 69 percent of crime labs reported DNA backlogs in 6,800 

cases and 287,000 convicted offender samples. 

In my home State of Alabama judges report that typically 25 percent of cases set for trial are delayed because of incomplete forensic 

data. Sixty-six percent of drug cases are rescheduled for the same 

reason. 

As a former prosecutor, I know how dependent the criminal justice system is on fast, accurate and dependable forensic testing. 

With backlogs in the labs, the prosecutors are forced to wait for 

months, even years, to pursue cases. 

Let me just say, in my experience of over 15 years as a prosecutor, I am absolutely convinced that the single most easy fixed 

bottleneck in the criminal justice system is our inability to fund forensic laboratories and an inability for those laboratories to get reports back promptly to the prosecutor. Justice delayed is justice denied. There is something exceedingly unhealthy about arresting a 

person on a plain case of drugs—maybe it is part of that heroin increase that the Senator sees in Vermont—the defendant is arrested 

by the police and you have to wait months or a year before the case 

7

can go to trial because the chemist has not come forward and has 

not had time to establish that it is, in fact, heroin. The case cannot 

go to trial until that report is in. 

So I believe we are dealing with a matter that impacts criminal 

justice in America adversely in far more ways than we know. I 

don’t think our State legislatures are as attuned to it as they 

should be, and I don’t think the Congress has been as attuned to 

it as it should be. 

For a small amount of money, compared to what we spend on so 

many other things, we can, by helping our forensic laboratories, improve criminal justice more than almost anything I can imagine. So 

I am excited about the legislation; I think it is good. 

I am also pleased that we are having this hearing. I thank Senator Hatch for his leadership and commitment to it. We are just 

going to have to battle as hard as we can to make sure that we 

get the funding that this program requires. 

At this point, we will insert into the record prepared statements 

from Senator Thurmond and Senator Grassley. 

[The prepared statements of Senators Thurmond and Grassley 

follow:]

STATEMENT OF HON. STROM THURMOND, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH

CAROLINA

I am pleased that we are holding this hearing today regarding the need for increased funding for America’s crime laboratories. 

As technology is revolutionizing the fight against crime, law enforcement on all 

levels must increasingly rely on scientific evidence. This is especially true regarding 

DNA evidence, which is the most revolutionary development in law enforcement 

since fingerprinting. The use of DNA has risen dramatically in the past decade, and 

is becoming a routine part of criminal investigations. 

Today, all states require certain violent criminals, especially sex offenders, to provide DNA samples that can be matched in DNA databases to help solve crimes. The 

more complete and integrated our DNA criminal databases are throughout the country, the more violent crimes we can solve. 

However, DNA evidence must be processed to be of any benefit, and the crime 

labs have not been able to analyze the samples as quickly as they are collected. 

Today, there is a huge backlog in the states in evaluating samples from offenders 

and from crime scenes. For example, a 1998 Department of Justice Report found 

that almost 70% of all crime labs had a backlog that totaled 6,800 cases and 287,000 

convicted offender samples. It is very difficult for crime labs to eliminate these backlogs, especially as the demand for their services is increasing. Moreover, it is extremely expensive for crime labs to keep up with advances in technology. 

In recent years, the Congress has taken steps to help address the lack of resources in our crime labs. But more needs to be done. Last year, we passed the Paul 

Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvements Act, of which I was an original 

cosponsor. This legislation authorized a total of over $400 million dollars over the 

next four years to provide grants to states for facilities, equipment, personnel, and 

other needs. It is critical that we allocate sufficient funding in this Congress to help 

states in this area. 

Resources for law enforcement has increased considerably in recent years, but 

funding for crime labs has not kept pace. We must help our crime labs keep up with 

the demand and meet the challenges of tomorrow. This hearing will help us understand the needs of law enforcement as we fight crime in a new century.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. G

fRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

IOWA

First, let me commend the fine work of the men and women in the area of forensic 

science. Their ‘‘behind the scenes’’ work done in the field and at our crime laboraVerDate Feb 1 2002 09:40 Mar 27, 2002 Jkt 078008 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\HEARINGS\78008.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
8

tories is rarely given the weight of recognition commensurate with their contributions. While I applaud these efforts, it should come as no surprise to most of you 

that I have developed a healthy concern in this area through my oversight experience with the FBI, and specifically with the FBI Crime Lab problems in the late 

90’s. I share concerns that the serious backlogs that exist at the labs and are being 

discussed today will result in rushed and sloppy work. I continue to be deeply concerned about the deplorable conduct uncovered at the FBI, such as lab contamination, lack of quality assurance standards, mishandling of evidence, testimonial errors, and the withholding of exculpatory evidence. I would caution those who argue 

that funding is the panacea for all your problems. I worry about organizations that 

foster a culture of arrogance and seek to stifle dissent. I’ve seen, first-hand, what 

happened at the FBI when a laboratory scientist came forward with information on 

improper actions. These occurrences have resulted in somewhat of a ‘‘loss of inno- cence’’ within this area of expertise. And it has been disturbing to learn that what 

was previously thought to be an irrefutable and impartial opinion isn’t necessarily 

the case. While I understand that these may be exceptional occurrences, it has also 

been discomforting to see that many state and local agencies are not immune to this 

type of conduct. So, without appropriate and ongoing training, management, and 

oversight, a fullyfunded program is no better off than it was before because the 

truth is not being served.

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Leahy, the lights are not going, but 

we are on a vote now. Is that correct? 

Senator LEAHY. The first lights are on. Do you want to just go 

ahead and start? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, we might start, I think, with our first 

panel and we will get as far as we can go. 

Let me introduce to you our first panel, and the record we will 

establish here today we will utilize as we talk with the appropriators and the full Congress as we seek to justify the funding this 

program needs. 

Our first witness is Dr. David Boyd, the Deputy Director of the 

National Institute of Justice, in Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Keith Coonrod, with the New York State Police Forensic 

Science Investigation Center in Albany, New York, is here today in 

his capacity as Chairman of the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations, as well as the President of the American Society of 

Crime Laboratory Directors. 

Congratulations on those honors. 

Mr. William Peterson is co-producer and star of the new hit CBS 

prime time television series ‘‘CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.’’ In 

its debut season, ‘‘CSI’’ was the only new show to be nominated for 

a Golden Globe honor, and won a TV Guide award for the best new 

show of the season. 

Congratulations, Mr. Peterson. We will be delighted to hear from 

you. 

Senator LEAHY. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that everybody who 

has to run a lab in the country is jealous of the lab on that show, 

which I think Mr. Peterson is going to point out. 

Mr. PETERSON. Very true. 

Senator SESSIONS. Dr. Boyd? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID G. BOYD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. BOYD. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Senator Leahy, 

and thank you for this opportunity to testify today. I also serve as 

the Director of the Office of Science and Technology for the NaVerDate Feb 1 2002 09:40 Mar 27, 2002 Jkt 078008 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\HEARINGS\78008.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
9

tional Institute of Justice, which is the research and evaluation 

arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, and we provide the principal funding for R and D for the forensic sciences in the United 

States. 

Forensic scientists working in the more than 300 public crime 

laboratories across the Nation have the scientifically challenging 

responsibility of discovering as much about the evidence left at a 

crime scene as possible. But as a recent RAND report pointed out, 

this job is made more difficult by huge case backlogs which makes 

it hard or impossible for laboratories to perform the timely analyses that could shorten investigations. 

Further, budgetary constraints suppress their ability to modernize or upgrade equipment. Yet, recent court decisions are forcing 

forensic scientists to reevaluate, and in some cases augment both 

the science and the implementation upon which their results are 

based. 

Addressing these needs has been the focus of several programs 

at NIJ. One of these, the $40 million DNA Laboratory Improvement Program, has already increased the number of DNA-capable 

laboratories in the United States from fewer than a dozen in 1996 

to more than 130 separate laboratory facilities in all 50 States by 

the end of last year. 

But 95 percent of the laboratory directors surveyed in the RAND 

report indicated that the single greatest need was for a qualified, 

properly educated workforce for the laboratories. We have accordingly begun the creation of a technical working group of forensic 

practitioners, educators, trainers and others to formulate a standardized curriculum for undergraduate and graduate forensic 

science majors to ensure a relevant knowledge base for those entering the forensic workforce. 

The Forensic DNA Research and Development Program has been 

providing enhancements to existing methods, techniques and technologies, as well as creating new tools for the future of DNA evidence. 

Current projects aim to reduce the risk of loss of crucial evidence 

to equipment failures; to develop a mitochondrial DNA screening 

method that allows labs to examine old, degraded, or very small 

evidence samples without resorting to expensive and technically demanding DNA sequencing methods; develop high-throughout, lowcost mass spectrometry instrumentation and to exploit 

nanotechnology for forensic applications. 

We expect the first forensic nanotechnology project, a DNA chip 

with all 13 of the required genetic markers for databasing, to be 

in the hands of practitioners for evaluation by October of this year. 

This chip can produce a reliable result in under 10 minutes, instead of the several hours currently required, thus saving thousands of analyst-years of productivity. This chip may even eventually offer new ways to use DNA earlier in investigations. 

The forensic workforce is so severely constrained that it is simply 

not possible for them to work harder, so we have to find ways to 

help them work smarter. Accordingly, this year’s non-DNA general 

forensic solicitation will fund projects that can increase the sensitivity, speed, or reliability of traditional forensic methods in areas 

10

such as trace evidence, latent prints, toxicology, controlled substances, and other forensic techniques. 

But new technologies, methods and techniques can help to 

achieve better productivity only when laboratories have the time 

and ability to thoughtfully evaluate and validate them. As the 

RAND report notes, the laboratories are so overwhelmed by a lack 

of human resources that infusion of new technology is incredibly 

difficult, at best. These circumstances make the need to support 

crime laboratory improvement paramount before these critical 

gains through technology transfer can be made. 

I have spent much of my testimony describing our successes in 

transferring the application of DNA to state and local forensic laboratories. But it is important to remember that DNA comprises less 

than 3 percent of the type of evidence needed by the criminal justice system. 

Controlled substances represent fully 54 percent of cases and are 

the most frequently examined evidence, followed by latent prints, 

blood alcohol and toxicology. The Coverdell Act’s attention to all 

types of forensic lab improvement rather than just DNA is one of 

its greatest strengths. 

It is imperative that we work to create an environment where 

crime laboratories can function beyond case triage and start performing the work that will save the entire criminal justice system 

time and resources. It is that critical investigative stage where forensic analyses can rule out suspects, direct leads with real data, 

and help solve crimes more quickly and more accurately than canvassing and eyewitness interviews that require the use of already 

overburdened investigators. 

Supporting the full modernization and upgrading of our Nation’s 

crime laboratories means more than just saving time and money; 

it means saving lives, stopping crimes, and promoting public safety 

in a very real, tangible way. We believe we have made great 

progress in enhancing the ability of public crime labs to analyze 

many types of forensic evidence, and we believe that the provisions 

outlined in the Coverdell Act will help us build on that important 

work. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boyd follows:]

STATEMENT OF DAVID G. BOYD, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 

today orr this important issue. My name is David Boyd. I am the Deputy Director 

of the National Institute of Justice and the Director of its Office of Science and 

Technology. NIJ is the research and evaluation arm of the Justice Department. My 

office, the Office of Science and Technology, works to explore technology and other 

resources that could be used by law enforcement officials to solve and prosecute 

crimes. 

NIJ believes it has made great progress in enhancing the ability of public crime 

labs to improve their capacities to analyze many types of forensic evidence. We believe that the provisions outlined in the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences 

Improvement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106–561), if funded, will help us build on that important work. 

DNA and other types of forensic evidence are valuable tools that investigators, 

prosecutors, and other law enforcement officials use in this manner. It is the job 

of forensic scientists working in the more than 300 public crime laboratories across 

the nation to reveal as much about the evidence as possible. This job, already a scientifically challenging endeavor, is made more difficult by the restrictions faced by 

11

virtually all of the public crime laboratories. A recent RAND report, Challenges and 

Choices for CrimeFighting Technology, pointed out that public crime laboratories 

face huge casework backlogs, forcing them to prioritize work according to upcoming 

court dates, and making it difficult for them to perform the timely analyses that 

might aid or shorten investigations. Further, budgetary constraints suppress their 

ability to modernize or upgrade equipment, yet recent court decisions are forcing forensic scientists to reevaluate and, in some cases, augment both the science and the 

implementation upon which their results are based. 

The needs faced by the public crime labs have been the subject of several important programs at the National Institute of Justice over the last six years. The first 

of these programs, the DNA Laboratory Improvement Program, a $40 million initiative meant to improve the capabilities and capacities of our nation’s crime laboratories to implement and conduct forensic DNA analysis, has already shown significant and easily measurable results. When the program began in 1996, under the 

authority of the 1994 DNA Identification Act, fewer than a dozen states had the capability to perform forensic DNA testing. By the end of FY 2000, more than 130 

separate laboratory facilities had DNA capabilities. Many of these laboratories were 

able to use federal funds to leverage their laboratories’ priorities with their own 

state legislatures. A number of states responded to NIJ’s encouragement to form 

consortiums across their state and local laboratories to make more efficient use of 

funding and services. 

An outgrowth of the DNA Laboratory Improvement program has been the Crime 

Laboratory Improvement Program (CLIP), developed to aid all facets of public crime 

laboratories, because DNA evidence is applicable in a small portion of crimes. For 

most crimes, in addition to DNA, other kinds of evidence must also be collected, 

analyzed, and explained. 

Important gains have been made in several areas that will improve the capacity 

and capability of all public crime labs. One effort that addresses what many believe 

is the most critical need in the crime laboratory community is the creation of a 

Technical Working Group (TWG) of forensic practitioners, educators, trainers, and 

others to formulate a standardized curriculum for undergraduate and graduate forensic science majors to ensure a relevant knowledge base for those entering the forensic work force. Training, education, and human resource issues are those cited 

as the most critical need by more than 95 percent of the crime laboratory directors 

responding to the RAND survey. 

NIJ is also undertaking the development of a Forensic Resource Network that will 

be accessible to the forensic community to assist in quality assurance, validation 

and evaluation, new technologies, and surplus property distribution. We believe our 

experience with the DNA Laboratory Improvement Program demonstrates that 

CLIP will have as significant an impact in upgrading non-DNA forensic applications 

as the DNA Laboratory Improvement Program had on DNA forensics for our nation. 

NIJ has had great success in working to assist labs to address critical issues and 

develop meaningful proposals that include measurable long-term goals, and 

deliverables that will have important consequences for bettering their productivity, 

capacities, and capabilities beyond the life of the grant. The Coverdell Act’s provision calling for state plans to be developed prior to funds being released to a state 

should help to continue this important aspect of laboratory improvement. 

Finally, there is the Forensic DNA Research and Development Program, which 

has been providing enhancements to existing methods, techniques, and technologies, 

as well as creating new tools for the future of DNA evidence. Such technological innovations were identified in a report by a working group of the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence as important in enhancing the value of DNA 

in solving and preventing crime. Some of the program’s $5 million annual budget 

is used to develop technologies and techniques that will immediately improve the 

use of DNA in today’s laboratories. One such improvement allows laboratories to 

predict instrumentation failures before they occur, thus reducing arbitrary laboratory shut-downs and the risk of loss of crucial evidence. Another example is the development of a mitochondrial DNA screening method that allows labs to examine 

old, degraded, or very small evidence samples without resorting to the expensive 

and technically demanding DNA sequencing methods needed beyond the screening 

stage. The program also supports future improvements such as high throughput, 

low cost mass spectrometry instrumentation and the exploitation of nanotechnology 

for forensic applications. 

We expect the first forensic DNA chip with all 13 of the required genetic markers 

for data basing to be in the hands of the practitioners for evaluation by October 

2001. This chip, under development at MIT’s Whitehead Institute of Technology, 

uses standard, commercially available reagents with a capillary electrophoresis format, but instead of the several hours currently required to analyze a sample, the 

12

chip can perform the same task and produce a reliable result in under 10 minutes. 

This type of instrumentation can save many thousands of man-years of productivity 

when it is implemented in our nation’s labs and may eventually offer new ways to 

use DNA earlier in investigations. 

Increases in productivity such as these are a crucial need in forensic laboratories 

today. The forensic workforce is so severely constrained that it is simply not possible 

for them to work harder, so we must find ways to help them to work smarter. This 

is also the goal of NIJ’s current non-DNA general forensics solicitation, which will 

fund projects that can increase the sensitivity, speed, or reliability of traditional forensic methods in areas such as trace evidence, latent prints, toxicology, controlled 

substances, and other forensic areas. 

But new technologies, methods, and techniques can help to achieve better productivity only when laboratories have the time and ability to thoughtfully evaluate and 

validate them. As the RAND report notes, the laboratories are so overwhelmed by 

a lack of human resources that infusion of new technology is incredibly difficult at 

best. These circumstances make the need to support crime laboratory improvement 

paramount before these critical gains through technology transfer can be made. 

I’ve spent much of my testimony describing our successes in transferring the application of DNA to state and local forensic labs. But it is important to remember 

that DNA comprises less than 3 percent of the type of evidence needed by the criminal justice system. The attached table shows that, far and away, controlled substances (fully 54 percent of cases) are the most frequently examined evidence, followed by latent prints, blood alcohol, and toxicology. The Coverdell Act’s attention 

to all types of forensic lab improvement, not just DNA, is one of its most obvious 

strengths and comports with NIJ’s expansion to include all types of forensic lab improvement. 

It is interesting to note that if labs could modernize their equipment and, as just 

one example, add autosamplers to recent model mass spectrometers (a total investment of approximately $3,000 for the autosamples and about $90,000 for a decent 

recent model mass spectrometer), they could double the number of controlled substances they examined on each machine, but actually decrease the manpower needed. That manpower could then be devoted to other types of analyses that could actually aid in the ongoing investigation of crimes, rather than just at the prosecution 

stage. 

It is imperative that we work to create an environment where crime laboratories 

can function beyond case triage and start performing the work that will save the 

entire criminal justice system time and resources. It is that critical investigative 

stage where forensic analyses can rule out suspects, direct leads with real data, and 

help solve crimes more quickly and more accurately than canvassing and eyewitness 

interviews that requires the use of already overburdened investigators. Supporting 

the full modernization and upgrading of our nation’s crime laboratories means more 

than just saving time and money. It means saving lives, stopping crimes, and promoting public safety in a very real, tangible way. 

That concludes my remarks. I’d be happy to answer any question you may have.

13

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Dr. Boyd. 

We have got a great panel to hear. I think the vote is about over 

and it will take me about 7 minutes to go and vote. So if you don’t 

mind, we will temporarily recess and start back as soon as we do 

that, and perhaps Senator Leahy can be back by that time also. 


10719a.eps
14

Thank you. We will be recessed and return shortly. 

[The Committee stood in recess from 2:33 p.m. to 2:49 p.m.] 

Senator SESSIONS. We will get started again, and I apologize 

again for—I guess they pay us to vote around here, and hold us accountable sometimes for it, too. 

Next will be Mr. Keith Coonrod, from the New York Police Forensic Science Investigation Center there in Albany, who also is 

here as Chairman of the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations, as well as President of the American Society of Laboratory 

Directors. That is a mouthful, but they are important duties. 

We are glad to have you, Keith. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH K. COONROD, CHAIR, CONSORTIUM OF 

FORENSIC SCIENCE ORGANIZATIONS, ALBANY, NEW YORK 

Mr. COONROD. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the Committee. I would like to thank the Senate Judiciary Committee for this opportunity to provide testimony here today regarding the needs of our forensic laboratories and the strong support 

shown by the Committee in passage of two very important pieces 

of legislation last year—the Coverdell National Forensic Sciences 

Improvement Act and the DNA Backlog Elimination Act. 

My name is Keith Coonrod. I am currently employed by the New 

York State Police as Director of Toxicology, Drug Chemistry, Trace 

and Breath Testing, in our forensic laboratory system. I am here 

as Chair of the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations, 

which is comprised of seven leading forensic organizations. These 

include the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, known 

as ASCLD, which represents over 400 crime laboratory managers 

and directors, of which I am currently president; the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory Accreditation 

Board, known as ASCLD/LAB, which is the accrediting body for forensic crime laboratories, for which I am currently an ex officio 

member of the board of directors, and have been team captain responsible for many inspections of laboratories undergoing the accreditation process; the International Association for Identification, 

known as IAI, which is the oldest and largest forensic identification 

association in the world; the American Academy of Forensic 

Sciences, known as AAFS, which is a professional organization representing numerous forensic specialties such as criminalists, engineering sciences, jurisprudence, odontology, pathology and biology, 

physical anthropology, psychiatry and behavioral sciences, questioned documents, toxicology, and multi-disciplinary general section; the National Association of Medical Examiners, known as 

NAME, which represents medical examiners, coroners and other 

physicians who conduct death investigations; the National Forensic 

Science Technology Center, known as NFSTC, which is dedicated 

to assisting forensic science facilities to achieve the highest quality 

of operations; and the National Center for Forensic Science, known 

as NCFS, which represents research, education, training tools and 

technology to meet the needs of forensic science, investigative and 

criminal justice agencies. 

While the public thinks of forensics as DNA, it is essential that 

the Committee understand that it is just one of many tools available to the criminal justice community by our forensic laboratories. 

15

While DNA is indeed an important discipline, forensic science is 

more broadly defined as the examination of evidence submitted by 

criminal justice agencies to forensic laboratories for the purpose of 

determining how that evidence pertains to the law and/or the 

courts. 

Forensic laboratories support the criminal justice community by 

offering services in clandestine laboratory investigations, explosives 

analysis, controlled substances analysis, firearms examinations, alcohol analysis, toolmark examinations, toxicology, impression evidence, arson analysis, trace evidence examinations, death investigations, digital evidence, physical match, crime scene investigations training, as well as biological examinations, including DNA. 

However, as you know, the use of forensic science by the criminal 

justice system has increased dramatically over the past several 

years, but our funding has not. We find ourselves in a situation 

where we are unable to keep up with the demands of the system, 

and unfortunately many cases are either held up because we cannot deliver evidence on time or, worst yet, the prosecutor goes to 

court without the proper information from the forensic laboratory. 

It is an unfortunate reality that with the staggering backlogs, 

not all cases submitted to our Nation’s laboratories will be examined. Laboratories must decide which cases they will analyzed. 

Recently, the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors 

completed a study to determine those resources that forensic laboratories need to adequately support our Nation’s criminal justice 

community with the quality examination of evidence in a timely 

manner. 

Forensic crime laboratory managers and directors were asked to 

provide an accounting of resources needed to provide quality analysis in a timely manner. A timely manner was defined as 30 days, 

unless shorter timeframes were required by a particular State statute. 

We actually don’t know how many forensic laboratories exist in 

the United States, as many facilities never before considered as 

crime laboratories are now providing forensic examinations in one 

or more forensic disciplines and should be included. Therefore, 

these results are based on a very conservative estimation of 500 forensic facilities throughout the United States. 

We conducted the study by surveying 224 crime laboratories. The 

results show that an additional 9,000 forensic scientists are needed 

to properly staff our laboratories. An additional $1.3 billion is needed for adequate laboratory facilities, and $285 million is needed to 

purchase the equipment necessary to conduct analysis of submitted 

evidence. More than 26 percent of our Nation’s crime laboratories 

do not even have basic laboratory management systems which assist laboratories in documenting the chain of custody of their evidence. 

The reality of the situation is that a budget of $35 million to improve our Nation’s crime laboratories, divided among 50 States, 

would mean an average of $700,000 per State, or $70,000 per laboratory. 

Mr. Chairman, a crucial piece of scientific instrumentation called 

the gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer, which is the backbone 

16

in a forensic laboratory utilized to analyze a simple drug case, costs 

the laboratory $100,000. 

The need to hire 9,000 forensic scientists would cost the Nation’s 

laboratories more than $650 million. Additional laboratories rely on 

mentoring relationships to train new forensic scientists, and this 

requires that the laboratory utilize their limited resources of seasoned forensic scientists and equipment for training purposes instead of actual case work. 

If the Chairman would like, I can submit the rest of presentation 

in written form. 

Senator SESSIONS. That would be great. We appreciate that very 

much. 

Mr. COONROD. Thank you. 

Senator SESSIONS. You made some stunning disclosures there 

about what it really takes to get us up to where we need to be. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coonrod follows:]

STATEMENT OF KEITH KENNETH COONROD, CHAIR OF THE CONSORTIUM OF FORENSIC

SCIENCE ORGANIZATIONS

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank the Senate Judiciary Committee for this opportunity to provide testimony here today regarding the needs of our forensic laboratories and the 

strong support shown by the committee in passage of two very important pieces of 

legislation last year - The Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act and 

the DNA Backlog Elimination Act. 

My Name is Keith Coonrod and I am currently employed by the New York State 

Police as Director of Toxicology, Drug Chemistry, Trace and Breath Testing in the 

forensic laboratory system. I am here as the chair of the Consortium of Forensic 

Science Organizations which is comprised of 7 leading forensic organizations. These 

include:

• the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) which represents over 400 crime laboratory managers/directors - I am currently 

President; 

• the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) which is the accrediting body for forensic crime 

laboratories for which I am currently an ex-officio member of the Board of 

Directors and have been Team Captain responsible for many inspections of 

laboratories undergoing the accreditation process; 

• the International Association for Identification (IAI) which is the oldest 

and largest forensic identification association in the world; 

• the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) which is a professional organization representing numerous forensic specialties such as: 

Criminalistics; Engineering Sciences; Jurisprudence; Odontology; Pathology 

and Biology; Physical Anthropology; Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences; 

Questioned Documents; Toxicology and a Multi-disciplinary General Section; 

• the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) which represents 

medical examiners, coroners and other physicians who conduct death investigations; 

• the National Forensic Science Technology Center (NFSTC) which is dedicated to assisting forensic science facilities to achieve the highest quality 

of operations; and 

• the National Center for Forensic Science (NCFS) which provides research, education, training, tools and technology to meet the needs of forensic science, investigative, and criminal justice agencies.

While the public thinks of forensics as DNA, it is essential that the committee 

understand that this is just one of many tools available to the criminal justice community by our forensic laboratories. 

While DNA is indeed an important discipline, Forensic Science is more broadly 

defined as the examination of evidence submitted by criminal justice agencies to forensic laboratories for the purpose of determining how that evidence pertains to the 

law and/or courts. 

17

Forensic laboratories support the criminal justice community by offering services 

in Clandestine Laboratory Investigations, Explosive Analysis, Controlled Substance 

Analysis, Firearms Examinations, Alcohol Analysis, Toolmark Examinations, Toxicology, Impression Evidence, Arson Analysis, Trace Evidence Examinations, Death 

Investigations, Digital Imaging, Physical Match, Crime Scene Investigations, Training as well as Biological Examinations including DNA. 

However, as you know, the use of forensic science by the criminal justice system 

has increased dramatically over the past several years but our funding has not. We 

find ourselves in a situation where we are unable to keep up with the demands of 

the system and unfortunately, many cases are either held up because we cannot deliver evidence on time or worse yet, the prosecutor goes to court without the proper 

information from the forensic laboratory. It is an unfortunate reality with the staggering backlogs that not all cases submitted to our nation’s laboratories will be examined. Laboratories must decide which cases they will analyze. 

Recently the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors completed a study 

to determine those resources that forensic laboratories need to adequately support 

our nation’s Criminal Justice Community with quality examinations of evidence in 

a timely manner. Forensic Crime Laboratory Managers and Directors were asked 

to provide an accounting of resources needed to provide quality analysis in a timely 

manner. A timely manner was defined as 30 days unless shorter time frames where 

required by a particular state’s statute. 

We actually don’t know how many forensic laboratories exist in the United States 

as many facilities never before considered as crime laboratories are now providing 

forensic examinations in one or more forensic disciplines and therefore, should be 

included. Therefore, these results are based on a very conservative estimation of 500 

forensic facilities throughout the United States. We conducted our study by surveying 224 Crime Laboratories. 

The survey results show that an additional 9,000 forensic scientists are needed 

to properly staff our laboratories, an additional $1.3 billion is needed for adequate 

laboratory facilities and $285 Million is needed to purchase the equipment necessary 

to conduct analysis of submitted evidence. More than 26% of our nation’s crime laboratories do not even have basic Laboratory Management Systems (LIMS) which assist laboratories in documenting the chain-of-custody of their evidence. 

The reality of the situation is that a budget of $35 million to improve our nation’s 

crime laboratories divided among 50 states would mean an average of $700,000 per 

state or $70,000 per laboratory. Mr. Chainnan a crucial piece of scientific instrumentation called the Gas Chromatograph—Mass Spectrometer, which is the backbone in a forensic crime laboratory utilized to analyze a simple drug case, cost the 

laboratory $100,000! 

The need to hire 9,000 additional forensic scientists would cost the nation’s laboratories more than $650 million. Additionally, laboratories rely on mentoring relationships to train new forensic scientists. This requires that the laboratory utilize 

their limited resources of seasoned forensic scientists and equipment for training 

purposes instead of actual casework. 

To address this issue, regional forensic training centers need to be established in 

strategic locations utilizing existing talents and staff of universities in conjunction 

with local forensic laboratories. Many forensic laboratories have already started 

working with existing universities in addressing these needs. Discussions are already occurring between universities and crime laboratories in states such as Illinois, Florida, Virginia, West Virginia, California and New York. 

Finally, less than 1⁄2 of all crime laboratories in the United States are ASCLD/

LAB accredited. The quality of forensic analysis conducted in our nation’s crime laboratories is paramount. Quality analysis can be achieved by utilizing the current 

ASCLD/LAB accreditation process for those laboratories that are not currently accredited. Laboratories that accept money from the Coverdell National Forensic Improvement Act that are not accredited must achieve accreditation within 2 years. 

However, ASCLD/LAB currently does not have the infrastructure to handle this potential wave of applicants and would have to shift the substantial cost of accrediting 

these facilities to those laboratories already accredited unless ASCLD/LAB receives 

funding needed to offset these bridging costs. 

As my concluding remarks Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee 

for allowing me to share with them the facts regarding the desperate needs of our 

forensic laboratories who provide valuable support to our criminal justice community. I thank this committee for their strong support in passage of the Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act and urge your continued support in obtaining adequate funding and appropriation for this law.

18

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Petersen, we are delighted to hear from 

you, and thank you very much for taking time out of your busy day 

to be with us. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM PETERSEN, ACTOR, VALENCIA, 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. PETERSEN. Thank you so much, Senator, for inviting me. I 

feel completely honored to be able to address this distinguished 

group. 

I am here to speak to you on behalf of a television show that 

highlights crime-solving technology. As a result of my role in the 

CBS crime drama series ‘‘CSI,’’ I began to research the field of forensic science and became fascinated with it. 

Each week, our 23 million viewers find forensic science equally 

fascinating. What motivates these viewers to tune into ‘‘CSI’’ is the 

believe that as Americans, I think they know that our criminal justice system is about the truth, and I believe they find comfort in 

the fact that the evidence is ultimately the essence of that truth. 

The forensic laboratory that my character, Gil Grissom, inhabits 

is one that knows no budget constraints nor budget cuts. It has 

adequate space and funding for every technological advance imaginable. We have a sufficient number of expertly trained employees 

to solve every crime that we encounter. We have few, if any, backlogged cases. 

My ‘‘CSI’’ lab processes evidence and solves crimes in the mere 

44 minutes of screen time allotted to us by our network. My character’s lab is a technological wonder and absolutely state-of-the-art. 

But unfortunately we all know that this is not the reality of the 

approximately 500 crime labs and coroners’ labs across our country. 

Their reality is quite different than the manufactured world of my 

character and of ‘‘CSI.’’ Our country’s crime labs are faced with a plethora of problems. 

Caseloads have grown faster than funding and their backlogs are 

constantly expanding. Many labs have outdated facilities and 

equipment. They have to operate with an insufficient number of 

qualified personnel and outmoded technology to conduct the analyses that are so vital to our criminal justice system. 

For every 44 minutes that ‘‘CSI’’ spends solving a crime on 

Thursday nights, 44 days, 44 weeks, sometimes 44 months are 

spent by real victims and suspects waiting to receive the truth. 

‘‘CSI’’ restores people’s belief in America’s system of justice before 

they go to bed that night, but in reality it is frequently weeks, 

months, and sometimes years that the innocent are held hostage 

and the guilty roam free while evidence sits untouched in our Nation’s overburdened crime labs. 

Recently, the media has focused some attention on the failures 

of certain individuals in the forensic community. These scientists 

are the exception rather than the rule. As I am sure each of you 

would agree, we must never let the misguided behavior of any one 

person taint the dignity and honor of a whole profession. 

The forensic scientists I have met are dedicated professionals 

committed to objectivity. They are advocates for the truth. They 

recognize the consequences that their analyses and decisions can 

have on both the accused and the victim. They need and want the 

19

tools and training that are so vital to keeping the scales of justice 

level. 

In conclusion, let me say that I am deeply committed to this 

issue and I recognize the needs of the laboratories doing this important work. I want them to have help and I completely and 

wholeheartedly support the efforts of our forensic scientists and the 

funding of the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the opportunity 

to express my beliefs. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Petersen follows:]

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM PETERSEN, CSI, ACTOR, VALENCIA, CALIFORNIA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am greatly honored 

to have been invited to address such a distinguished group. I am here to speak to 

you on behalf of a television show that highlights crime solving technology. As a result of my role in the CBS dramatic series, CSI, I began to research the field of 

forensic science and became fascinated with it. Weekly, twenty three million viewers 

find forensic science just as fascinating. What motivates these viewers to tune in 

to CSI is the belief that, as Americans, our criminal justice system is about the 

truth, and they find comfort in the fact that the evidence is, ultimately, the essence 

of that truth. 

The Forensic Laboratory that my character, Gil Grissom, inhabits is one that 

knows no budget constraints or budget cuts, that has adequate space for every technological advance imaginable, that has sufficient employees to solve every crime 

that we encounter, and has no backlogs. The CSI lab processes evidence and solves 

crimes in a mere 44 minutes allotted to a network program. My character’s lab is 

a technological wonder and state of the art. But, we all know that this is not the 

reality of the approximately 450 crime labs and coroner’s labs across our country. 

Their reality is quite different than the manufactured world of my character and 

CSI. 

Labs across the country are faced with a myriad of problems. Caseloads have 

grown faster than funding and backlogs are expanding. Many labs have outdated 

facilities and equipment and an insufficient number of qualified personnel to conduct the analyses that are so vital to our criminal justice system. For every 44 minutes that CSI spends solving crime, 44 days, 44 weeks, or 44 months are spent by 

victims and suspects waiting to receive the truth. CSI restores people’s belief in the 

criminal justice system before they go to bed at night, but in reality it is frequently 

weeks, months, and sometimes years, that the innocent are held hostage and the 

guilty roam free, while evidence sits untouched in overburdened labs. 

Recently the media has focused some attention on the failures of several in the 

forensic community. These scientists are the exception, rather than the rule. As I 

am sure you would agree, we cannot let the behavior of any one taint the whole 

profession. The forensic scientists that I have met are dedicated professionals committed to objectivity—they are advocates for the truth. They recognize the consequences that their analyses and decisions can have on both the accused and the 

victim—they need and want the tools and training that are so vital to keeping the 

scales of justice level. 

In conclusion, let me say that I am deeply committed to this issue and recognize 

the needs of the laboratories doing this important work. I support the efforts of the 

forensic scientists and the funding of the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences 

Improvement Act. And again, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to 

express my beliefs before this esteemed Committee.

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much. That was a good presentation from one not in the system and it is good to hear that. I 

do think that the American people do like the pursuit of truth. 

They do like the idea that we know something with relative certainty and can determine that scientifically. 

Do you think that is part of the charm or the lure of the program 

that you have? 

Mr. PETERSEN. I absolutely do. I don’t want to analyze the last 

25 years of culture and society here in America, but I believe that 

20

we are at a place in time where certainly our show has come at 

the right time and place for a very, very large amount of the American population. And I think it is that certainty; I think it is the 

idea of knowing something absolutely. 

My character on the show often says, you know, people lie. 

Whether they intend to lie or whether they forget something or 

they thought they saw something that they didn’t see, they end up 

ultimately being lies and very difficult to deal with in any sort of 

legal situation. 

The great thing about our forensic scientists in this country is 

that they are able to say, no, that couldn’t have happened because 

of this, that and this. And I think that is one of the true points 

of why our show has been so successful because it is what all of 

these crime lab directors and their associates manage to do with 

evidence that makes the difference. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, in my experience as a prosecutor of 15 

years, I never had a problem with good scientific evidence. In those 

years, I have seen two or three instances of a wrongful identification where a witness literally believed that was the person they 

identified as robbing them. But I have never seen a fingerprint 

turn out not to be true or a chemical analysis not come back in the 

right way. 

Perhaps because of the shows and Patricia Cornwell books and 

other things, people do expect good scientific evidence. They expect 

that the professionals who are doing that have had time and equipment, and so forth, to get the job done correctly. 

Dr. Boyd, do you have any indication or numbers of how much 

increase there has been in the demand for forensic analyses to be 

done in the last, say, decade? 

Mr. BOYD. I don’t know that we can give you specific numbers. 

What I can tell you is that it is very clear, based on what has been 

happening in the courts especially with DNA and other things, that 

DNA evidence is clearly expected in those cases when it is actually 

available. 

I think we can take for granted that the success, kind of the gold 

standard of DNA, has made the American public and the courts 

generally expect there to be more scientific evidence, for it to be 

better analyzed and for it to be more positive than has been the 

case, I think, in the past. 

I think there is an assumption that if it is available, it ought to 

be used, and quite literally a demand. I think juries expect to see 

it, I think judges expect to see it, I think the public expects to see 

it. 

Senator SESSIONS. I think you are correct. I know when I first 

began prosecuting you would have a witness to testify that they 

bought cocaine from the defendant. Then we used audio and video 

recordings of the drug bust. So I think the juries expect more, and 

you just can’t go into a trial with DNA from two samples and not 

all 20 drops of blood or whatever is on the scene. 

Mr. BOYD. I think one particular point to make is that we know 

in drug cases one of the first things you have to do is prove what 

the drug is. So all we have to do is look at the number of drug 

cases and we can take that as just one part of the growth because 

every drug case entails a laboratory analysis. 

21

Senator SESSIONS. Well, as I believe you indicated, 54 percent 

are drug cases, and that is a big part of the bread-and-butter work 

that just needs to be done in a timely fashion. 

Senator Feingold, we are glad you can join us, and I know you 

may have other things, but I would defer to you at this time. 

Thank you for coming. You may make a statement or ask questions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will make a couple of remarks and ask a question or two. I regret that I couldn’t 

be here earlier. I very much appreciate the witnesses being here. 

I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, and our distinguished 

ranking member, Senator Leahy, for holding the hearing. I am very 

pleased to see this Committee once again address the need for improving the tools for seeking the truth in our criminal justice system. 

Last year, we had a very informative and lively hearing about 

post-conviction DNA testing, and I was a cosponsor last year and 

am proud to be a cosponsor again this year of Senator Leahy’s bill 

that will ensure access to post-conviction DNA testing, the so-called 

Innocence Protection Act. 

DNA testing of biological material has played an incredible role 

in the pursuit of truth and justice. DNA testing has identified perpetrators or provided other important probative value to the police 

and prosecutors who are investigating a crime. But DNA testing 

has also further exposed what you might say is a piece of the dark 

underbelly of our criminal justice system, the conviction and sentencing of innocent people for crimes they did not commit. 

All Americans are becoming increasingly familiar with the stories of people wrongfully convicted, sentenced and sent to prison finally walking free as a result of DNA testing. Nationwide, scores 

of innocent people have been able to walk free, and the value of 

this test is even more poignant, of course, for those sitting on death 

row. 

Since the reinstatement of the modern death penalty, ten death 

row inmates have been exonerated as a result of DNA testing. 

While DNA has unlocked the prison doors for many innocent people, it has also led us to the real perpetrator. 

Mr. Chairman, our State crime labs play an important role in 

identifying, receiving, handling, testing and storing the biological 

evidence that is subject to DNA testing. In addition to DNA testing, they, of course, conduct other aspects of forensic science, like 

hair analysis, fingerprint analysis and ballistics identification and 

imaging. The Federal Government can provide meaningful support 

and resources to assist crime labs with meeting these needs. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that our late colleague, 

Senator Coverdell, championed the need for additional resources 

for our State crime labs, and I am very pleased that you, Senator 

Sessions, have continued Senator Coverdell’s work. I am glad that 

this bill was signed into law and I hope our State crime labs get 

the resources they need. 

22

Let me ask a question of all of you with a bit of material at the 

beginning and then you can just take it where you wish. 

As you are all aware, Joyce Gilchrist, an Oklahoma City crime 

lab scientist, has been accused of shoddy lab work, or even falsifying test results and testifying falsely on the stand. Over a 15-

year period, it is believed that she was involved in hundreds of felony convictions, including 11 in which the defendant was executed 

and 12 in which the defendant is currently on death row. 

Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating has said he is confident not 

a single innocent person has been executed. I don’t see how he can 

be so confident, given that a full review of all cases in which she 

was involved is only just beginning. In fact, just last week Oklahoma released Jeff Pierce from prison after serving 15 years of a 

65-year sentence for a rape he did not commit, and Joyce Gilchrist 

testified falsely in his case that hair taken from the crime scene 

matched hair samples taken from Mr. Pierce. 

Mr. Pierce’s lawyers had argued that Ms. Gilchrist had overstated the certainty with which hair comparisons could be used to 

identify a single person. As if this was not serious enough, Ms. Gilchrist then violated a court order by failing to forward the hair evidence to a private lab hired by the defense. The evidence she did 

send leaked out of the package; it could not be analyzed. This 

meant the defense could not fully analyze the evidence before trial. 

The State appeals court said that, while she violated the court 

order, her failure to turn over the evidence was insufficient to overturn the conviction. It was not until Mr. Pierce was able to test certain biological evidence with modern DNA testing that he finally 

won his release and walked out of prison a free man just last week. 

On Friday, May 11, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project writing in the New York Times suggested that we 

should place quality assurance standards on forensic labs in the 

same way that we do on medical testing labs. They suggest a model 

for improvement among forensic labs would be the 1988 Clinical 

Laboratory Improvement Act which provided accountability for 

medical testing labs. 

Now, I would ask you, do you agree that Federal standards are 

needed to promote quality, accountability and integrity of forensic 

labs? 

Mr. BOYD. One of the principal roles of the National Institute of 

Justice has been to try to help to develop standards for the conduct 

of certain forensic or investigative disciplines. Over the last, I 

think, 3 years we have published a guide which is now kind of a 

standard for the way homicide investigations should be conducted, 

one for the use of eyewitnesses, one for arson and one for bombing 

investigations, and one for crime scenes in general. 

We also this year received from Congress in a reprogramming 

authority to use $1.7 million of asset forfeiture money that we will 

be using to reduce the DNA backlog to use expressly for quality assurance to ensure that the testing that is being done, in fact, meets 

those kinds of standards. NIJ has also supported strongly the development by ASCLD and by the American Academy of Forensic 

Sciences both accreditation and proficiency testing kinds of programs for forensic scientists and for the laboratories themselves. 

23

I think one of the things that we need very much to do, though, 

is now to look at developing a standard, consensus-based set of curricula for the education of forensic scientists. The reality today is 

that if you were to ask someone with a forensic science degree 

what it meant, you would get different answers, depending on 

where they got the degree, and you would have seriously different 

questions about what they were qualified to do in the forensic 

arena, so that they typically have to be retrained for 6 to 12 

months once they have finally come to work in the laboratory. 

So I think you need all of those things. You need the development of standards in the forensic community by AAFS and by 

ASCLD. You need a quality assurance process and you need better 

education for forensic scientists. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Mr. Coonrod? 

Mr. COONROD. Quality is certainly an issue that we are all concerned about, and one of the things we have to recognize is less 

than one-half of our laboratories are currently accredited. The accreditation process provides the quality mechanism for our laboratories whereby, through the mechanisms of external proficiency 

testing, audits, review of courtroom testimony, different policies 

and procedures are developed by those laboratories that are actually accredited so as when those are implemented they provide a 

sound basis of quality for the laboratory to ensure that they are indeed providing the highest quality service. 

I believe that as more laboratories become accredited—and one 

of the things that is most important about the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Act is it does provide that laboratories utilizing monies from this must have applied for accreditation within 2 years, and I think that that is very critical in improving the quality of our Nation’s laboratories. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Mr. Petersen? 

Mr. PETERSEN. Well, Senator I agree with Mr. Coonrod, and certainly defer to these gentlemen in terms of their expertise about 

the accreditation of these crime labs. Obviously, the situation in 

Oklahoma City, if true, is despicable and hopefully isolated. I am 

not sure whether that is an accredited lab. 

Mr. COONROD. It is not. 

Mr. PETERSEN. It is not accredited. Certainly, these are the gentlemen who know how to best handle that situation. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. I appreciate those insights. 

With regard to the Oklahoma problem, which was troubling to 

anybody who cares about justice in America, Mr. Coonrod, you indicated that that was not an accredited laboratory. 

Mr. COONROD. That is correct, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. Do you have any suggestions about how a laboratory could better manage itself or be managed so that those 

kinds of events are less likely to occur? 

Mr. COONROD. Absolutely. 

Senator SESSIONS. What would you suggest? 

Mr. COONROD. Well, as I said, less than one-half of our Nation’s 

laboratories are accredited. This provides a very valuable mechanism whereby the accreditation process has a series of standards 

24

and principles by which those laboratories that seek accreditation 

must comply with those standards and criteria. They include, as I 

said, a series of quality assurance measures like having a quality 

manager and quality systems. 

One of the problems we face in our Nation’s laboratories today 

is we need 9,000 more forensic scientists, as I said, in order to be 

able to deal with the backlog we have. Many laboratories are faced 

with if I have one or two positions that I can hire, do I hire those 

one or two people as forensic scientists to deal with that backlog 

or do I hire a support person, known as a quality assurance manager? 

The unfortunate reality is our laboratories are dealing with a 

backlog and are concerned about getting the cases out and they 

have to put a sideline on hiring, let’s say, a quality manager, which 

is a key cornerstone of quality of our forensic laboratories and is 

required in seeking ASCLD lab accreditation. So they are making 

these hard decisions because they don’t have the money available 

or the resources available to be able to implement these quality 

systems which are part of the accreditation process. 

The accreditation process also has a very strong program on proficiency testing whereby laboratories actually utilize external proficiency test providers who are outside of the laboratory where tests 

are made. They are submitted to the laboratory and used to ensure 

that the quality of the laboratory exists. 

There is an audit mechanism whereby the laboratories must go 

through a very extensive audit program where inspectors come in. 

They come in and ensure that the policies and procedures established by that laboratory do meet quality standards, that these 

standards are scientifically valid and what they are doing is good 

science. One of the other things is courtroom testimony to ensure 

that there is follow-up, that these people are actually presenting 

themselves in court correctly. 

So to answer your question, yes, the accreditation process, I feel, 

would do an excellent job. 

Senator SESSIONS. Dr. Boyd, you mentioned quality assurance. 

Would you describe for us what you think a quality assurance program should be in an accredited lab? 

Mr. BOYD. I could talk to you about the DNA quality assurance 

program. What we are doing in quality assurance and the backlog 

reduction program is to take a part of the samples which are being 

tested in this case primarily by contract laboratories, and we take 

a percentage of those out and have another laboratory look at that 

analysis to make sure that it has been executed correctly and that 

they are getting the right kinds of results. 

I think that you have to establish as a matter of policy within 

any scientific activity some method for both internal and, when appropriate, external reviews of the quality of the work you have 

done. And I think one of the strongest such activities in the country today is the ASCLD laboratory accreditation process which 

brings in people not in that laboratory to come in and look at that 

laboratory’s process. 

I think you need those things together in laboratories to do that, 

but as long as we have half of our laboratories unaccredited, then 

I think we have some reason to suggest that things like the CoverVerDate Feb 1 2002 09:40 Mar 27, 2002 Jkt 078008 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\HEARINGS\78008.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
25

dell bill which requires that kind of accreditation to be the kinds 

of things we are going to need to improve and strengthen all of our 

labs. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Petersen, you have shown on your program a number of new and effective laboratory technologies. Would 

you describe some of those? And maybe I will ask these gentlemen 

if they are common around the country. 

Mr. PETERSEN. Well, we fortunately have a lot of fabulous technical advisers who are actually either former criminalists or current criminalists who work with us. Invariably, everyday they come 

into our lab and are just amazed. 

The other thing is our stuff is given to us by the manufacturers 

of those products. Just the other day, I believe it was Kodak that 

gave us an unbelievable camera, you know, a $30,000 digital camera that can do all kinds of stuff in the field and you can computer 

it back to the lab. I mean, it is just amazing equipment that obviously is quite expensive. We have a gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer. 

Senator SESSIONS. You have got it. Good. 

Mr. PETERSEN. Yes, we have got one for free, because, of course, 

they are promoting it. Often, I feel bad about it, quite frankly. We 

also have an unlimited amount of personnel; we call them ‘‘extras,’’

and they fill out all the rooms in our lab and they are all quite 

qualified to stare into the microscope. 

I am truly amazed at what these criminalists in this country do 

in terms of dealing with the criminal situation and the crimes that 

take place in this country and I realize how difficult it would be 

to not have this equipment. I mean, obviously we take great liberal 

stretches in terms of how we are able to put all this stuff together 

and solve our crimes in one evening. 

The amount of work and manpower and knowledge and equipment that is required to actually do it in reality is quite different, 

and it has just been very informative to me in the last several days 

in terms of looking at this issue how important obviously the assistance from the Paul Coverdell Act would—I mean, I can’t imagine us being able to go further without it. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I thank you for those good words. 

Keith, do you have anything to add to this as a leader of forensic 

scientists around the country? 

Mr. COONROD. Well, I agree with what Mr. Petersen says. Programs like this have brought to light forensics to the public community and that certainly has helped us, but I don’t think there 

is a laboratory that hasn’t gotten a phone call asking us to provide 

the service that they have seen on ‘‘CSI.’’

The disappointing thing is quite often the answer is, no, we can’t 

do that. We don’t have the technology. We haven’t bought or we 

don’t have available that piece of equipment, or the research and 

development has not been done to ensure that it would meet the 

standards in court of the technology that you have seen on that TV 

show. So it is sometimes frustrating, but enlightening, in that it 

does bring the public awareness of forensic science and what 

forensics sometimes can and cannot do. 

Senator SESSIONS. With regard to the Federal Government, 

Keith, you are not a part of that beast, but it strikes me, and it 

26

always has, that the Federal Government by virtue of being involved with all 50 States should not hesitate to play a role in research, in equipment development and that sort of thing, because 

each individual State has got its duties everyday to do those reports. 

Do you think the Federal Government could do a better job of 

helping do scientific research and provide training and that sort of 

thing for the labs around the country? 

Mr. COONROD. Well, first of all, the Federal Government is trying 

to do the best they can in providing that. Certainly, we have gotten 

support from many different Federal labs, but as we know, 90 percent of the forensic work is done by State and local laboratories. 

With the need that we have in education and training, what we 

need is actually more cooperative efforts with universities and 

crime laboratories, and there already have been discussions between universities and crime laboratories to provide the needed 

training and education. They have occurred in various different 

States such as Illinois, West Virginia, New York, Florida and California, to name a few. 

What we need is we need to expand on those discussions so actually we have, let’s say, regional training centers which also can be 

worked with different forensic laboratories and assisting so we 

work collectively in helping to train and provide education and 

training. 

Right now, our training is done on a mentoring basis, basically 

one on one in the laboratory. Laboratories do not have the resources available to tie up a person to train one-on-one for sometimes, let’s say, a questioned documents exam that can take 2 to 

3 years’ worth of training. They are not only tying up the examiner 

to work with a trainee, but also the equipment that that laboratory 

needs to perform its analysis. Laboratories cannot afford to utilize 

their limited resources. 

Senator SESSIONS. Dr. Boyd, would you briefly like to answer or 

make any comment on that? 

Mr. BOYD. Well, a significant part of what we are trying to do 

is to develop new tools with a focus on affordability, which makes 

that a real challenge. It is important to note that while, for example, the Department of Defense may spend $200 million or so on 

a single aircraft or piece of equipment, we have today the largest 

forensic research and development budget in the history of the 

United States and that comes, including DNA, to probably less 

than $10 million total, out of which we are now trying to do things 

like develop a new DNA micro chip that can do the processing for 

a matter of a few dollars. 

We figure if this thing costs more than $15 per sample, it is not 

going to work because they are not going to be able to afford it. 

These laboratories actually have to make hard decisions between 

buying film for their cameras or buying new equipment. 

We are also working with New York, for example, in the Albany 

crime laboratory in trying to take some things that we developed 

for telemedicine to reduce the costs of medical care in prisons and 

apply it in forensic sciences, where we call it teleforensics. 

We are actually working with NASA to see if we can take some 

of these long-distance kinds of analytical devices they have develVerDate Feb 1 2002 09:40 Mar 27, 2002 Jkt 078008 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\HEARINGS\78008.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
27

oped, make them affordable and put them into systems so that a 

local crime laboratory that doesn’t have a Henry Lee or a Keith 

Coonrod available can make a link to Keith and say, can you help 

me, can you look at this, can you help me figure this out, can you 

remotely help analyze that, can you make a connection to a laboratory to do that. 

We are now trying to expand that demonstration project which 

has worked very well in New York to a number of other States, but 

it is going to take continuing effort to continue to address the development of these technologies. The only one in which the Federal 

Government has invested substantial money, and it has made a 

difference in the United States because it has invested that money, 

is DNA and that is the model, that is the success. 

The difference DNA has made, I think, is an example of the difference R and D in the forensic sciences could make in other areas, 

as well, in that 97 percent of cases that don’t involve DNA. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well said. I think those are excellent points. 

Mr. Petersen, we will be seeing you, if you won’t be seeing us as 

often. We thank you gentlemen for coming, and thank you very 

much for what you do with your program. I think it does help restore confidence in justice in America. In a big big country of nearly 300 million people, we will have some problems. Everything 

won’t go perfectly, but day after day the forensic laboratory scientists that I have dealt with year after year are men and women 

of the highest integrity and I have never doubted the quality of 

their work. I think that is important for us to recognize, particularly when we see a problem develop. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PETERSEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

We will take our next panel, and I think we have got a good 

table now of true experts. 

Senator Durbin, we are glad you have joined us. I was about to 

introduce the panel, but do you want to make an opening statement first? 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate coming 

together with you on this bill that we are cosponsoring, the Paul 

Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Act. 

We have DNA testing and a lot of other technology to unlock the 

secrets of forensic evidence and to learn whether we should put 

people behind bars or set them free. But unfortunately, as I am 

sure the Chairman has made clear, our crime labs are critically 

backlogged. 

We will hear from Mr. Michael Sheppo, with the Illinois State 

Police, about the situation we are facing in our State of Illinois 

where we have 11 forensic labs, 9 of which are operated by the Illinois State Police. They oversee the third largest system of crime 

labs in the world, surpassed only by the FBI and Scotland Yard. 

Recent data from the Illinois State Police shows a total of 8,965 

forensic evaluations backlogged in the month of July; 1,069 of these 

backlogged cases were DNA cases, and almost 1,000 of these cases 

28

were over 30 days old. The laboratories just can’t keep up. This 

kind of backlog dilutes the benefits of forensic testing to criminal 

investigations. In many cases, the trail is allowed to run cold. 

Forensic evidence can tell us the truth. DNA, for example, can 

literally tell us whether people should be freed or kept behind bars. 

We need to use this technology, and use it effectively. 

I am going to put the rest of my statement in the record in its 

entirety, with the approval of the chairman, and look forward to 

the testimony of the panel. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. I do appreciate your support on 

this bill, and we just heard from the previous panel how less than 

half the labs in America are accredited. This bill will require them 

to either be accredited or be moving toward accreditation, so I 

think that could be a good end of this legislation. 

Let me introduce the panel and we will just go down the list and 

hear from each one of you. 

Mr. Richard Townsend is with the Utah Department of Public 

Safety’s crime lab in Salt Lake City. Mr. Michael Sheppo is with 

the Illinois State Police Division of Forensic Sciences. We just 

heard about your office. 

Dr. Eric Buel is Director of the Vermont Forensic Laboratory in 

Waterbury, Vermont. 

Do you know Senator Leahy? 

Mr. BUEL. Just a little bit. 

Senator SESSIONS. He is a good one to know. 

Dr. Jamie Downs is Director and Chief Medical Examiner of the 

Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences in Auburn, Alabama. 

War Eagle, Dr. Downs? 

Dr. DOWNS. War Eagle. 

Senator SESSIONS. Dr. Downs, among other things that he does, 

has been working on the recovery of the remains of the individuals 

inside the Hunley submarine in South Carolina, which is his home 

State. 

Dr. Milton E. Nix, Jr. is the Director of the Georgia Bureau of 

Investigation. We appreciate you, Mr. Nix. You have been here 

working on this bill for a long time. I know you and Paul Coverdell 

believed in it, and it is a pleasure for me to be able to make a difference in making it a reality. 

Dr. Michael Yura is Director of the Forensic Identification Program at West Virginia University, in Morgantown, West Virginia. 

Thank you, Dr. Yura, for being here. 

So, Mr. Townsend, we will hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD J. TOWNSEND, DIRECTOR, UTAH 

BUREAU OF FORENSIC SERVICES, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 

Mr. TOWNSEND. Thank you, Senator. 

It is my distinct honor and privilege to appear before the Committee to discuss this subject which has become a vital component 

in criminal justice investigations. I am going to attack my testimony from an anecdotal story, inasmuch as I am not a scientist. 

I am a police officer and investigator, and as such am Director of 

the Utah State Criminalistics Laboratory System. 

In July 1999, two very brutal crimes occurred in the western 

part of Salt Lake Valley. The first involved the sexual assault of 

29

a female victim during a home invasion. After raping and terrorizing the victim for a lengthy period of time, the suspect attempted 

to destroy bodily fluid evidence using catsup and hand lotion. 

When police investigators were summoned to the crime scene, 

the victim underwent a physical examination by a nurse practitioner in order to capture any physical evidence left by the suspect. 

A rape investigation kit was delivered to the State criminalistics 

laboratory, and scientific analysis provided a DNA profile of the 

suspect in spite of his attempt to destroy the evidence. 

Two weeks later, in the same general vicinity of the sexual assault, a second victim was brutally raped and this time murdered. 

In this particular case, the suspect set the dead victim’s bed on fire 

and when police investigators responded to the crime scene, only 

a burned out torso was left of the victim. 

Although the victim’s body had been mostly consumed by the 

fire, bodily fluids were extracted from the victim which ultimately 

led to the DNA profile of the suspect. In an instant, the DNA profiles from both of these crime scenes were compared and an exact 

match was made. The same suspect was responsible for these 

atrocities. Sadly, the murder victim was a well-known stage actress 

who had performed hundreds of times in front of Utah audiences. 

The entire west side of Salt Lake County was traumatized by 

these two incidents. Once it was discovered both of these crimes 

were committed by the same individual, law enforcement was fearful of a serial rapist and killer on the loose. Sheriff Aaron Kennard 

put his entire police agency on high alert and extra patrols in the 

west side neighborhoods. 

Approximately 1 week after the murder of the second victim, a 

deputy sheriff stopped an individual who generally matched the description of the suspect from the composite drawing given by the 

rape victim. The deputy felt he had enough probable cause to arrest the subject. Within a few hours, a police lineup was conducted 

and the rape victim picked this individual out whom the deputy 

had arrested. 

The sheriff and all police agencies throughout the Salt Lake Valley were greatly relieved that the dangerous individual had been 

captured and taken off the street. The sheriff indeed called a news 

conference in order to calm the community’s nerve. A crime lab 

state member was sent to the jail in order to extract a blood standard from the suspect in order to make a positive DNA match from 

the evidence collected at the two crime scenes. 

Everyone was shocked when the results came back negative, indicating this particular individual was not responsible for these two 

crimes. Indeed, many police officials and others questioned the 

DNA analysis from our crime lab and felt that we had made a mistake. 

Due to the exact nature of the science surrounding DNA and, I 

might add, all of the other evidence that we have talked about, 

from fingerprints, to trace, to drug analysis, the crime lab staff was 

certain that this was not the individual who had committed these 

crimes. 

The first rape victim recognized she had picked out the wrong individual from this lineup and gave a second composite sketch drawing to an artist. A correctional officer at the Utah State Prison was 

30

walking down a hallway and noticed the sketch of the suspect 

hanging on a bulletin board. She immediately recognized the drawing as being very similar to an individual who had been paroled 

from prison some 6 months earlier. She immediately contacted the 

detective in charge of the investigation. 

The investigator contacted the crime lab, indicating he had a 

solid lead. In a wonderful twist of fate, the crime lab had received 

a blood standard from this suspect upon being paroled from prison. 

States across the country, as you know, are taking blood standards 

from convicted and paroled offenders in order to place their DNA 

profiles into the CODIS system, or Combined DNA Index System. 

I immediately authorized my staff overtime pay to work on the 

DNA profile throughout the night. An ‘‘attempt to locate’’ was put 

out on the identified offender because an exact match was made 

after the DNA profile was done. 

This particular case captures all the essential elements of DNA 

technology. First, DNA evidence tied two serious crimes together. 

Second, DNA evidence exonerated an innocent individual. Third, 

using DNA technology along with the wonderful advantages of the 

combined DNA indexing system, a multiply convicted and extremely dangerous individual was taken off the streets of Salt Lake 

City. During his stay in prison, this individual has confessed his 

incidents of terror had only just begun. 

The advantages of DNA evidence processing, along with all the 

other issues that the distinguished first panel discussed, are so vitally important to law enforcement. I commend this Committee for 

the work that you are doing and hope that you will continue on 

this path. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Townsend follows:]

STATEMENT OF RICHARD J. TOWNSEND, DIRECTOR, UTAH BUREAU OF FORENSIC

SERVICES

It is my distinct honor and privilege to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss a subject that has become a vital component in criminal justice 

investigations. In July of 1999, two very brutal crimes occurred in the western part 

of the Salt Lake Valley. The first involved a sexual assault of a female victim during 

a home invasion. After raping and terrorizing the victim for a lengthy period of 

time, the suspect attempted to destroy bodily fluid evidence by pouring ketsup and 

hand lotion into the victim’s genitalia. When police investigators were summoned 

to the crime scene, the victim underwent a physical examination by a nurse practitioner in order to capture any potential physical evidence left by the suspect. A rape 

investigation kit was delivered to the State Criminalistics Laboratory. Scientific 

analysis provided a DNA profile of the suspect, in spite of his attempt to destroy 

the evidence. 

Two weeks later, in the same general vicinity of the sexual assault, a second victim was brutally raped and murdered. In this particular case, the suspect set the 

dead victim’s bed on fire and when police investigators responded to the crime 

scene, only a burnt out torso was left of the victim. The Medical Examiner was summoned to the crime scene for the purposes of swabbing the victim for any potential 

bodily fluid evidence. Although the victim’s body had been mostly consumed by the 

fire, bodily fluids were extracted from the victim which ultimately led to a DNA profile of the suspect. In an instant, the DNA profiles from both of these crime scenes 

were compared and an exact match was made. The same suspect was responsible 

for these atrocities. Sadly, the murder victim was a well-known stage actress who 

had performed hundreds of times in front of Utah audiences. 

The entire west side of Salt Lake County was traumatized by these two incidents. 

Once it was discovered both of these crimes were committed by the same individual, 

law enforcement was fearful of a serial rapist and killer on the loose. Sheriff Aaron 

Kennard put his entire police agency on high alert and ordered extra patrols in west 

31

side neighborhoods. Approximately one week after the murder of the second victim, 

a deputy sheriff stopped an individual who generally matched the description provided to law enforcement by the first rape victim. Although traumatized by this incident, the victim was able to provide a composite drawing of the suspect which was 

broadly distributed throughout Utah and surrounding states. The individual stopped 

by the deputy had an extensive criminal history in property crimes including robbery, burglary, et and several other thefts. The deputy felt he had enough probable 

cause to arrest the subject. ’ Within a few hours a police line-up was conducted and 

the rape victim picked the individual out who the deputy had arrested. The Sheriff 

and all police agencies throughout the Salt Lake Valley were greatly relieved that 

a dangerous individual had been captured and taken off the street. The Sheriff 

called a news conference in order to calm the community’s nerves. A Crime Lab staff 

member was sent to the jail in order to extract a blood standard from the suspect 

to make a positive DNA match from the evidence collected from the two crime 

scenes. Everyone was shocked when the results came back negative, indicating this 

particular. individual was not responsible for these two crimes. Indeed, many police 

officials and others questioned the DNA analysis from the Crime Lab and felt we 

had made a mistake. Due to the exact nature of the science surrounding DNA, the 

Crime Lab staff was certain this was not the individual who had committed the 

crimes. The Sheriff was not convinced and continued to hold this subject in jail. 

The first rape victim recognized she had picked the wrong individual out from a 

police line-up and provided a second composite drawing to a sketch artist, with finer 

details of the subject’s eyes and facial features. The second composite drawing was 

re-issued and posted in law enforcement agencies throughout the west. A correctional officer, at the Utah State Prison, was walking down a hallway and noticed 

the sketch of the suspect hanging on a bulletin board. She immediately recognized 

the drawing as being very similar to an individual who had been paroled from Prison some six months before the two crimes were committed. She immediately contacted the detective in charge of the investigation. The investigator contacted the 

State Crime Lab indicating he had a solid lead. In a wonderful twist of fate, the 

Crime Lab had received a blood standard from this subj ect upon being paroled from 

Prison. States from across the country are taking blood standards from convicted 

and paroled offenders in order to place DNA profiles into the Combined DNA Index 

System (CODIS) database. I immediately authorized overtime pay for the DNA analysts to examine this particular blood standard. In less than 24 hours, an exact 

match was made from the blood sample taken from the paroled offender and the 

DNA evidence left at the two crime scenes. An Attempt To Locate was put out on 

the identified offender and he was arrested by a local law enforcement agency less 

than 24 hours after the identification was made. 

This particular case captures all of the essential elements of DNA technology. 

First, DNA evidence tied two serious crime scenes together. Second, DNA evidence 

exonerated an innocent individual. Third, using DNA technology, along with the 

wonderful advantages of the Combined DNA Indexing System, a multiply convicted 

and extremely dangerous individual was taken off the streets of Salt Lake City, 

Utah. During this last stay in Prison, this individual has confessed his incidents of 

terror had only just begun. 

Senators, the advantages of DNA technology cannot be overstated. It has to be 

considered the most significant breakthrough science has made to assist law enforcement in identifying perpetrators of crime. This is only one case of numerous 

I could cite where DNA evidence has been the key to solving serious crimes. DNA 

has far exceeded law enforcement investigators expectations in identifying perpetrators of crime. However, there are challenges to this technology which include staying abreast of changing equipment and processes, along with funding this expensive 

analysis and retaining highly qualified personnel. The instruments involved in DNA 

are expensive but are essential in decreasing the turnaround time in evidence analysis. The Committee can have a profound influence on the direction this country is 

taking with DNA technology. I recognize my testimony may be considered as only 

anecdotal, but I assure you the funding of DNA technology and equipment for laboratories across the country will be one of the most significant criminal justice decisions this committee will make. The Utah Bureau of Forensic Services and statewide law enforcement applaud your efforts and encourages you to continue on this 

course of DNA funding.

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. That is a great story, Mr. Townsend. I think it is something that we do hear too often, and I think 

sometimes eyewitnesses get shaky. Those things are not perfect, 

but a good DNA analysis is hard to argue with. 

32

Mr. Sheppo, we are delighted to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL G. SHEPPO, BUREAU CHIEF, ILLINOIS STATE POLICE DIVISION OF FORENSIC SERVICES, FORENSIC SCIENCES COMMAND, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 

Mr. SHEPPO. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, Honorable Senators of the Senate Judiciary Committee, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Michael G. Sheppo. I am 

a Bureau Chief with the Illinois State Police Division of Forensic 

Services, Forensic Sciences Command, the immediate past president of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, and 

the president of the board of directors of the National Forensic 

Science Technology Center. 

Allow me to begin by first thanking the Committee for passing 

last year the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act. This important piece of legislation is a tribute to Senator 

Coverdell, as well as a recognition of the crucial need to support 

and improve forensic sciences nationwide. 

I began my career in forensic sciences in the early 1970’s in the 

Georgia laboratory system and was initially paid with Federal 

funds from the Law Enforcement Assistance Act. At that time, 

LEAA funding was used by some law enforcement agencies to establish, expand, and sometimes improve crime laboratories. Unfortunately, the LEAA and similar later programs did not specifically 

address all of the critical needs of the Nation’s laboratories. 

The NFSIA is the first comprehensive piece of legislation which 

addresses all the aspects of our work—drug chemistry, toxicology, 

post-mortem medical examinations, latent print and firearms examinations, DNA analysis, trace evidence, and microscopic and document examinations. 

During my 30-year career, I have been fortunate to have worked 

in two States that have supported their forensic science laboratory 

systems. However, today, in Illinois and throughout our Nation, we 

are facing a crisis, a crisis caused by a shortage of forensic science 

resources. 

In the 21st century, the criminal justice system relies heavily 

upon the forensic sciences as an integral part of the investigative 

and judicial process. While billions of Federal dollars have been 

spent on virtually every aspect of the criminal justice components, 

the highly technical and very expensive forensic sciences have received very little Federal support. 

In most States and municipalities, funding has simply not kept 

pace with the increasing demands for crime laboratory usage. This 

neglect has resulted in severe backlogs in forensic laboratories nationwide. For example, since 1990 the average U.S. forensic laboratory has experienced an increase in caseload of 23 percent, while 

budgets have grown only 10 percent and staff size by only 9 percent. This problem becomes even more significant considering the 

fact that most laboratories have long experienced resource shortages. 

Further compounding the caseload growth, the backlogs and the 

new technologies, the most important variable in crime laboratory 

operations is quality assurance, and the cornerstone of that is labVerDate Feb 1 2002 09:40 Mar 27, 2002 Jkt 078008 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\HEARINGS\78008.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
33

oratory accreditation. It is the fundamental step in the process of 

quality assurance. 

But due mainly to the high costs of becoming accredited, only 5 

in 10 forensic laboratories have now reached the accreditation 

mark. To meet accreditation standards, laboratories must upgrade 

their facilities, purchase or improve equipment, enhance analytical 

techniques, and add professional and support staff. All of these 

standards and laws that have been enacted in good faith by Federal and State governments also exhaust some of the resources of 

the forensic sciences laboratories. 

The Illinois State Police forensic laboratory system is the third 

largest system in the world. In 1982, we became the first accredited laboratory system. We have an extensive training program, a 

systemwide quality assurance program, and a research and development program. However, backlogs and turnaround times continue to increase. We find it necessary to implement service reductions, and the implementation of new technologies stretches our resources and challenges our ability to provide timely services. 

The Illinois State Policy has reviewed our ability to provide quality services to the citizens of Illinois and has determined that there 

are three organizational areas that we must address over the next 

5 years, the first being staffing. In order to process our current 

caseload and maintain our forensic data bases, an additional 160 

scientists and support personnel are required. The total cost for 

these personnel is in excess of $41 million, and $17.5 million is 

needed in operational funding to support them. 

The second area is training. Due to the attrition and retirement 

of individuals who began their career in Illinois in the 1970’s, we 

could lose potentially 190 personnel by the year 2005. In order to 

properly train their replacements, the Illinois State Police is proposing a Forensic Science Institute. The Institute would be centrally located in Illinois and can potentially serve as an initial 

training site for Illinois and the whole Midwest region of our Nation. 

The initial training of forensic scientists is a considerable challenge and the Illinois State Police has developed and implemented 

a training program which has been recognized for its excellence. 

Facility construction for the Institute would cost approximately 

$42.3 million, with additional monies for equipment in the neighborhood of $2.2 million and $6.2 million for staffing. 

The last area of improvement in Illinois is in facilities. Shortterm renovation for expanded services is needed in all nine of our 

laboratories. We estimate that to cost approximately $20.5 million. 

Additionally, major facility renovations in Chicago and new laboratory facilities in Joliet, Springfield, the Metro-East and St. Louis 

area, and Carbondale are also necessary. 

Funding through the NFSIA certainly would help address our 

budgetary shortfalls in Illinois. I know that forensic science laboratories throughout our Nation are facing similar and probably greater problems. I also know that our forensic scientists can have a 

profound effect on the lives of all Americans. Our highly discriminating technology and data bases can identify perpetrators of 

crimes and stop them from committing additional offenses. But the 

34

same wonderful technology can also exonerate those individuals 

falsely accused of a crime. 

Your help is needed to enable our forensic scientists to provide 

critical scientific information to the criminal justice system. I want 

to thank the Committee for your support in the passage of the 

NFSIA and respectfully request your support in the appropriations 

process. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sheppo follows:]

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL G. SHEPPO, BUREAU CHIEF, ILLINOIS STATE POLICE, DIVISION OF FORENSIC SERVICES

Chairman Hatch, Senator Leahy, honorable members of the Senate Judiciary 

Committee, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to begin by first thanking the committee 

for passing last year the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act 

(NFSIA). This important piece of legislation is a tribute to Senator Coverdell as well 

as a recognition of the crucial need to support and improve the forensic sciences nationwide. 

I began my career in the forensic sciences in the early 1970s in the Georgia laboratory system, and was initially paid with federal funds through the Law Enforcement Assistance Act (LEAA). At that time, LEAH funding was used by some law 

enforcement agencies to establish, expand, and improve crime laboratories. Unfortunately, the LEAH and similar later programs did not specifically address all of the 

critical needs of forensic science laboratories. The NFSIA is the first comprehensive 

piece of legislation which addresses all aspects of our work—drug analysis, toxicology, post-mortem medical examinations, latent print examinations, firearms examinations, DNA analyses, trace evidence and microscopic examinations, and document examinations. 

During my thirty-year career, I have worked as a chemist and serologist; served 

as the first director of the Augusta, Georgia crime laboratory; and in 1985 began 

my career in Illinois as an Assistant Bureau Chief in charge of the seven Illinois 

State Police operational laboratories. I have been fortunate to have worked in two 

states that have supported their forensic science laboratory systems. However, today 

in Illinois and throughout our nation, we are facing a crisis—a crisis caused by a 

shortage of forensic science resources. 

In the 21th century, the criminal justice system relies heavily upon forensic science 

services as an integral part of the investigative and judicial process. While billions 

of federal dollars have been spent on virtually every other criminal justice component—police officers, the courts, prisons, and information technology—the highly 

technical and expensive forensic sciences have received very little federal support. 

In most states and municipalities, funding has simply not kept pace with the increasing demand for crime laboratory analyses. This neglect has resulted in severe 

backlogs in forensic laboratories nationwide. For example, since 1990, the average 

U.S. forensic laboratory has experienced an increase in caseload of 23 percent, while 

budgets have grown only 10 percent and staff size by only 9 percent. This problem 

becomes even more significant considering the fact that most laboratories have long 

experienced resource shortages, and the demands by the criminal justice system to 

implement new crime fighting technologies such as the Combined Offender DNA 

Identification System (CODIS) stretch existing resources to intolerable limits. 

Further compounding the caseload growth, backlogs, and added new technologies 

is the issue of quality—the most important variable in the operation of forensic laboratories. Many forensic science professionals are concerned that the growing demands on laboratories have, or can have, a negative impact on the quality of the 

results achieved. Laboratory accreditation (which is voluntary) is generally accepted 

as the fundamental step in quality assurance and consistency in forensic science 

processes. But, due mainly to the costs associated with accreditation, only five in 

ten forensic laboratories are now accredited. To meet or exceed the stringent standards and proficiency testing requirements established by accreditation, most laboratories must upgrade facilities, purchase or improve equipment, enhance analytical 

processes, and add professional and support staff. 

Additionally, federal and state governments have set and mandated certain analytical standards and enacted laws which have fiscally impacted the nation’s forensic science laboratories. Examples of these include the standards promulgated by 

the Department of Justice’s DNA Advisory Board (DAB), standards set by federally 

sponsored scientific and technical working groups (SWGS/TWGS), state laws which 

35

require the creation and/or expansion of forensic databases, and federal and state 

laws which impact the analytical testing of controlled substances. All of these standards and laws are enacted with good intentions and are beneficial. However, their 

implementation often exhausts the limited resources of our nation’s forensic science 

laboratories. In Illinois an amendment to the Criminal Code requiring that additional offenders be included in the ISP CODIS would require approximately $0.5 

million/year in additional funding for us to analyze and enter these samples. 

HOW WOULD NFSIA FUNDING BE USED IN ILLINOIS? 

The Illinois State Police forensic science laboratory system is the third largest forensic system in the world. In 1982, we became the first accredited forensic laboratory system, and look forward to our fourth reaccreditation in 2002. We have an extensive training program, a systemwide quality assurance program, and a research 

and development program. However, backlogs and turnaround times continue to increase; we find it necessary to implement service reductions; and the implementation of new technologies stretch our resources and challenge our ability to provide 

timely services. In Illinois, there are two additional forensic science laboratories, the 

DuPage County Sheriff s Department Crime Laboratory and the Northern Illinois 

Police Crime Laboratory. Both of these accredited laboratories face the same resource challenges that we face. 

The Illinois State Police has reviewed our ability to provide quality and timely 

forensic science services to the criminal justice system in Illinois. Three organizational areas have been identified that will require significant additional monetary 

support during the next five years: 

1) Staffing—In order to process the current caseload, the increase in CODIS database samples, and the increase in firearms submissions for the Integrated Ballistic 

Identification System (IBIS), an additional 160 scientists and support personnel are 

required. The total cost for these personnel over a five-year period is approximately 

$41 million. To train these additional people, buy equipment and supplies, and fully 

support the new and expanded techniques, approximately $17.5 million in additional operating funds are needed over the next five years. 

2) Training—Due to attrition and the retirement of individuals who began their 

careers in the early 1970s, we could potentially lose as many as 190 personnel by 

2005. In order to properly train their replacements and the additional personnel 

needed to meet operational needs, the ISP is proposing the establishment of a Forensic Sciences Institute (FSI). The FSI would be centrally located in Illinois and 

could potentially serve as a training resource for Illinois, and the whole midwest region of our nation. The initial training of forensic scientists is a considerable challenge, and the Illinois State Police has developed and implemented a training program which has been recognized for its excellence. The proposed FSI would not only 

meet our needs, but would provide trained forensic scientists for laboratories outside 

of Illinois. The facility, administrative offices, dormitories, and the training area 

construction costs for the FSI is approximately $42.3 million. Equipment lease purchase costs are estimated at $2.2 million/year over a five-year period. Personnel 

costs at full operation are estimated to be $6.2 million per year. 

3) Facilities—The Illinois State Police forensic science laboratory system is made 

up of eight operational laboratories and a research and development laboratory. 

Short-term renovation for expanded services is needed at each facility which would 

require $20.5 million in funding. Additionally, major facility projects over the next 

five years include an addition to the Chicago Laboratory (FSC–C) and new laboratory facilities at Joliet, Springfield, Metro-East (St. Louis), and Carbondale. 

Funding obtained through the NFSIA would certainly help address the Illinois 

State Police budgetary shortfalls cited in the above three areas. I know that forensic 

science laboratories throughout our nation are facing similar problems. I also know 

that the forensic sciences can have a profound effect on the lives of all Americans. 

Our highly discriminating technology and databases can identify perpetrators of 

crimes and stop them from committing additional offenses. But the same wonderful 

technology also can exonerate those individuals falsely accused of a crime. Your help 

is needed to enable our nation’s forensic scientists to provide this critical scientific 

information to the criminal justice system. I want to thank the committee for supporting the passage of the NFSIA and respectfully request your support in the appropriation process.

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Sheppo. I understand you 

have a flight that you are going to need to catch before long. 

Senator Durbin, if you have any questions that you would like 

to ask now, it is a little out of turn, but that would be all right. 

36

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, just so Mr. Sheppo will have a 

chance to catch his flight and get back to Illinois. 

Can you give me an idea of how long it takes for your division 

to process a typical forensics analysis request? 

Mr. SHEPPO. Yes, sir. It would depend upon the type of analysis. 

Right now, it is taking somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 to 10 

months for a typical DNA case to get processed, as an example. 

That has been improved actually through State and Federal funding that we have received from at one point 16 months, although 

we are able to meet the needs of critical, rush cases to the law enforcement community when necessary. 

In other areas, it would depend on the discipline. In drug chemistry, for example, we can turn cases over generally within 30 days. 

We have the staff to do that at the present time. 

Senator DURBIN. Are you able to give us any kind of an estimate 

of the cost of each of these services that you provide? 

Mr. SHEPPO. Yes, sir. I think overall, more or less for the 9 laboratories, our personnel services for 1 year is $28 million, $11 million in operational costs. In addition to that, there are some funds 

that we utilize that also help us make it through the year. 

Senator DURBIN. Specifically, let’s say on DNA testing, have you 

broken that out in terms of the equipment that is dedicated to it 

and the individuals? Have you costed out what each test would cost 

the taxpayers? 

Mr. SHEPPO. Depending upon the size of the case, a sample, for example, could be anywhere from $350 to $500 when you are looking at actually doing it. Of course, when you are doing more and 

batching samples, that cost does come down. 

Senator DURBIN. I will just close with this comment on the Forensic Institute that will be a source, we hope, of future personnel, 

people who would be dedicated to this field. It appears that this is 

going to be a growing field. My guess is we are here today talking 

about DNA and a few years from now we will be talking about 

something else, some other test that has been devised that will test 

science and lead us, I think, toward better appreciation of the 

truth. 

I thank you very much for coming. 

Mr. SHEPPO. I thank you, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. Dr. Buel? 

STATEMENT OF ERIC BUEL, DIRECTOR, VERMONT FORENSIC 

LABORATORY, WATERBURY, VERMONT 

Mr. BUEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very honored to be 

here today to offer support for the Paul Coverdell National Forensic 

Sciences Improvement Act. I thank you for the opportunity to express my views on the need for such legislation for our laboratory 

and for the forensic community as a whole. 

Forensic laboratories provide critical information to the criminal 

justice system. Without analyses conducted by forensic laboratories, many cases would go untried, many police investigations 

would be stalled, innocent individuals may not be exonerated, and 

criminals would be on the street victimizing our citizens. 

The criminal justice system is a puzzle. Forensic science represents a significant piece to that puzzle that must be approVerDate Feb 1 2002 09:40 Mar 27, 2002 Jkt 078008 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\HEARINGS\78008.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
37

priately supported. Supporting a greater police presence to fight 

the drug problem must be balanced with additional resources to 

the laboratories to provide the drug analysis necessary for court action. 

Vermont has seen a 130-percent increase in arrests for heroin in 

just 3 years. The drug problem in Vermont is real and demands 

across-the-board support. The forensic laboratory must not be forgotten when the challenge of meeting the demands of the criminal 

justice system are addressed. 

The challenge of improving and expanding services comes with a 

cost. Instrumentation is expensive and requires regular maintenance. Many forensic analyses are complex and require considerable training and experience. New techniques and technologies continue to drive our science. We cannot sanction the use of this new 

science without appropriate training, but we are asked to provide 

the latest methods to the people we serve. 

We would not ask an engineer with minimal training or outdated 

tools to design a bridge. We must not ask forensic scientists to perform analyses without proper training and instrumentation. We 

must do everything we can to supply the training and tools necessary to provide the types of analysis the people of our State and 

country expect and deserve. 

The analytical tools and methods employed in the analysis of evidence should be housed in facilities designed for 21st century 

science. The establishment of well-designed forensic laboratories in 

each State capable of supporting well-trained staff should become 

a priority. 

Vermont is a small, rural State with a population of about 

600,000. The crime rate in Vermont is relatively low, but we have 

seen an increase in the submission of sexual assault cases, other 

violent cases and drug cases. Case submissions requesting DNA 

analysis have nearly doubled in 3 years. Each DNA case takes considerable time and effort. Additional staff is required to keep up 

with current casework. Other forensic disciplines have encountered 

similar staffing shortages as a result of casework increases and 

changes in analytical procedures. 

As the Senator pointed out, we are housed on the third floor of 

a building constructed in 1941 as part of a State mental hospital. 

At times, it seems that we belong there. A study conducted on our 

facility detailed many problems with our building. 

Our laboratory must often repeat DNA analytical testing as a result of room temperature fluctuations which cause quality control 

problems with our instrument. Basically, the temperature goes up 

and down and the instrument doesn’t run properly. The laboratory 

has about half the space it needs. 

Forensic science takes its ideas and techniques from other fields 

and incorporates those that have merit within its own complement 

of protocols. The field is constantly engaged in finding new and better techniques to allow more information to be obtained from smaller evidentiary items. This quest has brought us to a point where 

the sweat from a hat band left at a crime scene could reveal the 

identity of a rapist, or fluorescent dyes used to locate fingerprints 

on old evidence, and where small fragments of paint can identify 

a car from a hit-and-run. 

38

The field of forensic science has stepped up to the plate to offer 

the methods and techniques required to analyze the evidence found 

at crime scenes. We as a society need to make this science a priority, to allow every citizen who is the victim of a crime and every 

individual who is accused of a crime the opportunity to have the 

evidence associated with that crime analyzed by a well-trained, 

well-equipped team. It can and should be done. 

I am concerned about the quality of life in Vermont and know it 

will diminish if crime is allowed to grow and impact the citizens 

of the State. The Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act will allow laboratories to improve the quality and 

timeliness of the forensic sciences services provided in that State. 

The forensic laboratory does make a difference to the quality of 

life, and with NFSIA our laboratory will do everything it can to expand and improve its services to ultimately bring the best possible 

forensic analysis to the people of the State of Vermont, who should 

expect nothing else. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Buel follows:]

STATEMENT OF ERIC BUEL, PH.D., DIRECTOR, VERMONT FORENSIC LABORATORY, 

VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, WATERBURY, VERMONT

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Eric Buel, Director of the Vermont Forensic Laboratory. Our laboratory is the only forensic laboratory in the State of Vermont. The 

forensic services we provide to the citizens of Vermont include the traditional forensic disciplines such, as fingerprints and drug analysis, and also modern DNA analysis. The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors has accredited our laboratory and we follow national standards in the analytical procedures we perform. 

I am here today to offer support for the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences 

Improvement Act and I thank you for the opportunity to express my views on the 

need for such legislation for our laboratory and for the forensic community as a 

whole. 

Forensic laboratories provide critical information to the criminal justice system. 

Without the analyses conducted by forensic laboratories many cases would go untried, many police investigations would be stalled, innocent individuals may not be 

exonerated, and criminals would be on the street victimizing our citizens. The criminal justice system is a puzzle with interlocking pieces. Any piece removed, and the 

puzzle is incomplete. Forensic science represents a significant piece to that puzzle 

that must be appropriately supported. Supporting a greater police presence to fight 

the drug problem must be balanced with additional resources to the laboratory to 

provide the drug analysis necessary for court action. Vermont has seen a 130% increase in arrests for heroin in just three years. The drug problem in Vermont is 

real, and demands across-the-board support. The forensic laboratory must not be 

forgotten when these issues are addressed. 

I started my forensic career some twenty years ago as a bench chemist performing 

drug and body fluid analyses. Instruments in those days were unsophisticated, typically inexpensive, and many types of analyses didn’t require an instrumental approach. Our analysis of body fluids led to courtroom testimony in which linking a 

suspect to a piece of evidence with a statistic of 1 in 10 was considered powerful 

testimony. Today methods for the analysis of body fluid evidence can, in essence, 

uniquely link a suspect to a crime. Minute traces of evidence that were considered 

analytically insignificant now yield valuable information. 

About 10 years ago DNA analysis became available and many forensic laboratories across the country began to offer this service. The ability to offer truly powerful testimony concerning the source of biological stains put forensic science in the 

spotlight. Experts from outside the forensic community critically appraised the analyses that were performed. Other forensic disciplines soon found their work evaluated and critiqued. The entire forensic community began to form working groups 

that reviewed and made recommendations concerning protocols and procedures. 

Laboratories with an eye towards improving current services began to implement 

these recommendations and sought to expand the services provided to the criminal 

justice system. 

39

The challenge of improving and expanding services comes with a cost. Much of 

the instrumentation now considered routine had not been invented or perfected for 

forensic applications twenty years ago. This instrumentation is expensive, requires 

regular maintenance, and must be replaced after a certain defined lifetime. Many 

forensic analyses are complex and require considerable training and experience. Forensic fingerprint and firearms examiners require years of training to allow them 

to proffer testimony in court. The ability to obtain a DNA profile from a drop of 

blood the size of a pinhead and offer testimony in court concerning the relevance 

of that result takes considerable training and experience. New techniques and technologies continue to drive our science. We cannot sanction the use of these new 

sciences without appropriate training, but we are asked to provide the latest methods to the people we serve. We would not ask an engineer with minimal training 

or outdated tools to design a bridge. We must not ask forensic scientists to perform 

analyses without proper training and instrumentation. We must do everything we 

can to supply the training and tools necessary to provide the types of analysis people of our state and country expect and deserve. 

The analytical tools and methods employed in the analysis of evidence should be 

housed in facilities designed for 21 St century science. These facilities must be constructed to address contamination issues, instrument needs, variable analytical demands, and worker safety. Old or poorly designed facilities may compromise proper 

evidence analysis. Appropriate facilities should be constructed specifically for forensic science with adequate space to perform the wide variety of forensic examinations 

encountered in the field. Working environments that allow for safe and healthy 

working conditions should not be considered a luxury, but should be standard in all 

laboratories. Support personnel should be available to allow highly trained scientists 

to concentrate on casework analysis without ancillary distractions. The establishment of well-designed forensic laboratories in each state capable of supporting welltrained staff should become a priority. 

Vermont is a small rural state with a population of about 600,000. The crime rate 

in Vermont is relatively low compared to that of the nation. However, we have seen 

an increase in the submission of sexual assault cases, other violent assaults, and 

drug cases. Case submissions requesting DNA analysis have nearly doubled in three 

years. Each DNA case takes considerable time and effort; and additional staff is required to keep up with current casework and to expand into the analysis of nonsuspect DNA samples for inclusion into the national DNA database known as 

CODIS. Other forensic disciplines have encountered similar staffing shortages as 

the result of caseload increases and changes in analytical procedures. Years ago a 

simple dusting with powder sufficed to check a piece of evidence for latent fingerprints. Now new technologies allow us to find prints that dusting cannot reveal 

through the use of a superglue chamber and fluorescent dyes. Use of new technologies throughout the laboratory results in better, more thorough analysis, but requires additional examination time. Today we find that an evidentiary item may undergo many examinations to provide the forensic scientist with the most information 

possible. These additional exams coupled with increases in caseload place additional 

demands upon the forensic scientist, mandating that managers ask for increases in 

staff and training to appropriately meet the growing demands for service. 

Vermont’s forensic laboratory is housed on the third floor of a building constructed 

in 1941 as part of a state mental hospital designed to house mental health patients. 

A study conducted on our facility published in the spring of 2000 detailed many 

problems with our existing facility. In short the building was never designed to 

house a laboratory and lacks, for instance, proper ventilation, space, and environmentally controlled rooms for instrumentation. Our laboratory often must repeat 

DNA analytical testing as room temperature fluctuations cause quality assurance 

problems with our instrument. This results in time delays for court-required casework, reduces the number of total cases that may be completed, and increases the 

overall cost per DNA analysis. Health and safety problems also exist. The laboratory 

has about half the space it needs to do the work currently performed let alone allowance for growth. The ASCLD accreditation team informed us that our facility probably would not pass the expected inspection standards in 2004, our reaccredidation 

date. 

Forensic Science takes ideas and techniques from other fields and incorporates 

those that have merit (after much evaluation) within its own complement of protocols. The field is constantly engaged in finding new and better techniques to allow 

more information to be obtained from smaller evidentiary items. This quest has 

brought us to a point where the sweat from a hatband left at a crime scene could 

reveal the identity of a rapist, where fluorescent dyes are used to locate fingerprints 

on old evidence, and where small fragments of paint can identify a car from a hit 

and run. The field of forensic science has stepped up to the plate to offer the methVerDate Feb 1 2002 09:40 Mar 27, 2002 Jkt 078008 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\HEARINGS\78008.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
40

ods and techniques required to analyze the evidence found at crime scenes. We as 

a society need to make this science a priority, to allow every citizen who is a victim 

of crime and every individual accused of a crime the opportunity to have the evidence associated with that crime analyzed by a welltrained, wellequipped team. It 

can and should be done. 

I am concerned about the quality of life in Vermont and know it will diminish 

if crime is allowed to grow and impact the citizens of the State. The Paul Coverdell 

National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act will allow laboratories to make necessary progress towards facility and instrumentation modernization. Together these 

enhancements will improve the quality and timeliness of the forensic science services provided in the State. The forensic laboratory works in conjunction with police, 

state’s attorneys, and the courts to assist the criminal justice system fight crime. 

The forensic laboratory does make a difference to the quality of life and, with 

NFSIA, our laboratory will do everything it can to expand’ and improve its services 

to ultimately bring the best possible forensic analysis to the people of the state of 

Vermont who should expect nothing less.

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Dr. Downs, we are glad to have you. I have visited at least two 

of your laboratories and I have seen that they are crowded and 

busy. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES CLAUDE UPSHAW DOWNS, M.D., DIRECTOR/CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER, DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC SERVICES, STATE OF ALABAMA, AUBURN, ALABAMA 

Dr. DOWNS. Well, we very much appreciate your coming and seeing our facilities, and thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Committee, for allowing us the privilege of coming before you today. I 

speak today on behalf of our Nation’s medical examiners and coroners, and please accept our sincere appreciation and gratitude for 

this opportunity. 

I think it is highly significant that members of the forensic 

sciences community come before you today mere days following the 

successful prosecution of the perpetrator of one of the most cowardly acts on record; that is, the bombing deaths of children in a 

church. 

In a nutshell, the investigations conducted by forensic scientists, 

medical examiners and coroners are targeted to collecting sufficient 

evidence from the examination of crime scenes and from the autopsy examination of broken and bloodied bodies to provide the 

court with sufficient, credible scientific evidence to ensure that justice is done. We are impartial scientists and physicians charged 

with the awesome responsibility of determining how and why someone met their end. 

Regrettably, due to limited resources, most medical examiners 

and coroners do not have sufficient staff and equipment to perform 

at an optimal level. This shortfall adversely affects our criminal 

justice system because the lack of needed materials and personnel 

hinders the pathologist’s ability to expedite reports in criminal 

cases. Such reports are necessary for successful criminal prosecution. 

Suspects, innocent until proven guilty, sit in jail awaiting their 

day in court. In Alabama, that wait recently has been as long as 

30 months, this despite our Constitution’s guarantee of the right to 

a speedy trial. 

While we oftentimes think of forensic matters as they relate to 

high-profile cases—mass disaster, terrorism, homicides and the 

41

like—I would like to speak for a moment on other forensic pathology issues that might be underappreciated. 

While perhaps less important at least to some than the high-profile cases, overall most of the cases that medical examiners deal 

with are those involve the sudden, unnatural, suspicious death of 

an adult or child. In short, the medical examiner/coroner investigation is the final word as to whether or not a death is due to natural 

causes, foul play, or preventable means. If the medical examiner 

can assist by preventing even one additional death, then the resources invested in the system are worth it. 

In dealing with the victims of tragic, sudden death and their 

families, the forensic pathologist plays a critically important role in 

the lives of innumerable other people—the surviving family members, friends, neighbors, the community at large, the police, the 

courts; in short, all of us. 

To illustrate a typical non-homicide investigation, allow me to 

share a situation I was involved in just 2 weeks ago. The case involved the untimely death of a 6-month-old baby who had been 

born prematurely. The mother awoke one morning to find the child 

dead in bed. Both parents were obviously distraught at their loss, 

and yet they, as well as the investigators, wanted to know what 

had happened. 

The autopsy was performed, and 4 months later they still had no 

answers. The reason for the delay was that the toxicology lab—that 

is the area that looks for drugs and poisons in the blood—was 

backlogged and could not analyze the sample more quickly. Imagine the grief, frustration and anger of not knowing why your baby 

had been taken away from you. Imagine that feeling every day for 

a month, 2 months, 3 months, 4 months. Imagine in some areas 

where that analysis doesn’t get performed for a year simply because of lack of resources. This is even more tragic when we realize 

that it only takes a week to actually perform the analysis once we 

get around to working the evidence. 

In the end, the autopsy and scene analysis allowed us to determine that the child did die from accidental suffocation, that there 

was not foul play involved, and allowed us to reassure the parents 

there was nothing that they could have done, given the circumstances, to prevent their child’s untimely demise. 

But this case affects law enforcement agencies that are involved 

in the investigation. They can then target their resources, which 

are also limited, to investigate the homicides, the important cases 

that they need to spend their resources on. 

It is not at all uncommon for us as medical examiners to get calls 

from families requesting insurance payments for burials; they need 

a death certificate expedited. It is shameful that the answer to 

these problems is merely a matter of resources, money. 

Different systems need different things, depending on the particular concerns of the area. Some might need an adequate building, others modern, efficient equipment, others more personnel. 

The real strength of the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences 

Improvement Act is that it allows different forensic systems to establish a plan in deciding how their particular population would be 

best served. 

42

We were reminded of the medical examiner component of this 

law by the untimely and tragic death of the bill’s namesake, Senator Coverdell, who was called home far too soon. His passion was 

for justice and truth. Those core principles are the essence of this 

law. Providing the resources so that forensic examinations and autopsy reports can be completed in a timely manner will allow more 

efficient use of all of our resources. 

By fully funding the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences 

Improvement Act, the Pledge of Allegiance’s assurance of justice for 

all can be fulfilled—justice for those suspects awaiting a speedy 

trial, those loved ones awaiting closure, and those in financial need 

awaiting insurance benefits. Most importantly, it will help ensure 

the rights of those who did not choose or desire to become homicide 

victims whose lifeless bodies cry out from their graves for a swift 

resolution to their cases so that their attacker can be put behind 

bars and so that their families can begin the healing process. That 

surely is justice for all. 

Mr. Chairman, Committee members, I thank you very much for 

your interest in this matter and appreciate your past and continued support. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Downs follows:] 

[Additional material is being retained in the Committee files.]

STATEMENT OF JAMES CLAUDE UPSHAW DOWNS, M.D., DIRECTOR/CHIEF MEDICAL

EXAMINER, DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC SCIENCES, STATE OF ALABAMA

Thank you Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the committee for the 

privilege of coming before you to address this distinguished body. I come before you 

today on behalf of our nation’s Medical Examiner and Coroner community; please 

accept our sincere gratitude and appreciation for this opportunity. 

As you are no doubt aware from the many important and pressing matters that 

come before the committee on a regular basis, there is a tremendous interest in all 

the forensic sciences, including medical examiner/coroner activities. I think it highly 

significant that members of the forensic sciences community come before you today, 

just a few days following the successful prosecution of the perpetrator of one of the 

single most cowardly acts on record—the bombing murder of children in a church. 

In a nutshell, the investigations conducted by all forensic scientists, medical examiners, and coroners is targeted to collecting sufficient evidence—from the examination of the crime scenes and from the autopsy examination of the broken and bloodied bodies—to provide the courts with sufficient credible scientific evidence to ensure that justice is done. We are impartial scientists and physicians charged with 

the awesome responsibility of explaining how and why a fellow human being’s life 

has been taken away. 

Regrettably, due to limited resources, most medical examiners and coroners do not 

have sufficient staff and equipment to perform at an optimal level. This shortfall 

adversely affects our criminal justice system because the lack of needed materials 

and personnel hinders the pathologist’s ability to expedite reports in criminal cases. 

That report is necessary for successful criminal prosecution. A suspect—innocent 

until proven guilty sits in jail awaiting their day in court. In Alabama, that wait 

recently has been as long as thirty months. This despite our constitution’s assurance of the right to a speedy trial. 

While we oftentimes think of forensic matters as they relate to high profile cases—mass disasters, acts of terrorism, homicides and the like—I would like to 

speak on other forensic pathology issues that might be underappreciated. While perhaps less important, at least to some, than high profile cases, overall most of our 

cases involve investigations involve sudden, unnatural, and suspicious deaths of 

adults and children. In short, the medical examiner/coroner investigation is the final 

word as to whether or not a death is due to natural causes, foul play, or preventable 

means. If the medical examiner can assist by preventing even one additional death, 

the funding invested in the office has been wellspent. In dealing with the victims 

of tragic sudden death and their families, the forensic pathologist plays a critically 

important role in the lives of innumerable other people—the surviving family members, friends, neighbors, the community at large, the police, the courts, . . . . 

43

To illustrate a typical non-homicide investigation, allow me to share a situation 

I was involved in just two weeks ago. This case involves the death of a 6-monthold baby, born prematurely. The child was healthy and had been doing well until 

one morning when the mother awoke to discover her lifeless child’s body. Both parents were obviously distraught at their loss. And yet they—as well as the investigators—wanted to know what had happened. The autopsy was performed and four 

months later, they had no answers. The reason for the delay is that the toxicology 

lab, that area that looks for drugs and poisons in the blood, was backlogged and 

could not analyze the sample any more quickly. Imagine the grief, frustration, and 

anger of not knowing why your baby had been taken from you. Imagine that feeling 

every day for a month. . .two months. . .three months. . .four months. Imagine in 

some areas where that analysis takes over a year simply because the medical examiner laboratory does not have the resources available to perform the test more 

quickly. This is even more tragic given that in most cases it takes less than a week 

to actually perform the test. Eventually, four months after the fact, and only because they called to request assistance, the toxicology testing was completed. In the 

end, the autopsy and scene investigation allowed determination that the child had 

died from an accidental suffocation and that no foul play was involved. This is vitally important to the parents in reassuring them that there was nothing they could 

have done differently, given the circumstances. 

This case then affects the law enforcement agencies involved, who can then save 

their resources to investigate homicides and suspicious deaths. It also affects any 

insurance benefits that might be pending the results of the autopsy. It is not at all 

uncommon to have urgent calls from families pleading for an autopsy report for insurance purposes so that they can pay for the burial expenses or make the payment 

on their home. Another area of public concern is death due to infectious disease, 

such as meningitis. The community at large needs to know if there is a potential 

concern for transmission of this potentially lethal disease. Likewise, the medical examiner may be able to determine through autopsy, toxicology, and drug analysis if 

a ‘‘bad batch’’ of drugs is circulating in the community. 

It is shameful that the answer to the problem is simply a matter of providing adequate resources. Different systems need different things, depending upon the particular needs of the area served. Some might need an adequate building. Others perhaps modern and more efficient equipment. Still others may require additional personnel. The real strength of the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act is that it allows different forensic systems to establish a plan in deciding 

how their particular population would best be served in allocating new resources. 

We are reminded of the medical examiner component of this law by the untimely 

and tragic death of the bill’s namesake, Senator Coverdell, who was called home far 

too soon. His passion was for justice and truth. Those core principles are the essence 

of this law. Providing the resources so that forensic examinations and autopsy reports can be completed in a timely manner will allow more efficient use of all our 

resources. By fully funding the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act, the pledge of allegience’s assurance of ‘‘justice for all’’ can be fulfilled—

justice for those suspects awaiting a speedy trial, those loved ones awaiting closure, 

and those in financial need awaiting insurance benefits. Most importantly, it will 

help ensure the rights of those who did not choose or desire to become homicide victims—whose lifeless bodies ciy out from their graves for a swift resolution to their 

case so that their attacker can be put behind bars and their families can begin the 

healing process. That is surely justice for all. 

I thank you for you kind consideration of this matter and your interest in trying 

to help our nation’s crime laboratories and medical examiners.

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Dr. Downs. Well said, and it is 

good to be reminded that medical examinations and other aspects—

that it is more than just crime. There are families and personalities 

and lives at stake. 

Mr. Nix, it is good to see you again. We are delighted to hear 

from you. 

STATEMENT OF MILTON E. NIX, JR., DIRECTOR, GEORGIA 

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DECATUR, GEORGIA 

Mr. NIX. Thank you, Senator Sessions, and thank you so much 

for your visionary leadership. I think we all recognize that we 

44

would not be here today absent your hard work and the research 

that you have done on this problem. 

I am honored to be on this distinguished panel. I am not a scientist, I am not a doctor. I don’t have a Ph.D. in chemistry or biology, but I can tell you that it didn’t take me very long after I was 

appointed by then Governor Zell Miller to realize the greatest problem facing the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and our agency was 

providing adequate crime lab resources for the State of Georgia. 

For all practical purposes, we are the sole provider of forensic 

services to 159 sheriffs’ offices and over 500 police departments in 

Georgia that service a total population of about 8 million. We provide medical examiner services for 143 of Georgia’s 159 counties. 

What I discovered when I came back to Georgia after 23 years 

with the FBI was a State and local criminal justice system that 

was absolutely dependent on the work being done by a State crime 

lab that was not adequately funded or staffed. With increasing demands for quality, productivity and timeliness, but faced with inadequate resources, what I saw was an absolute formula for disaster. 

I saw a system that was not accredited. We had no structured quality system in our laboratory. 

As a result of what I saw, we looked for solutions outside the 

State of Georgia. I turned to my counterparts in other States. In 

1997, under the leadership of Commissioner Tim Moore, with the 

Florida Department of Law Enforcement, 11 State law enforcement 

representatives formed the States Coalition to discuss common 

challenges that we were facing. 

What we determined is that we were all facing the same problem, and that was a problem with inadequate resources in our 

crime labs, and I can tell you that this issue has been the priority 

of the Coalition ever since. We developed and fought for the concept 

of Federal funding for our crime labs because this is a national 

issue and it clearly affects the timely delivery of justice in our 

country. 

Please remember that 95 percent of all crime lab services that 

are delivered in this country are delivered at the State and local 

level, not by the FBI, not by DEA, ATF, the Secret Service, but by 

State and local crime labs across the country. 

Currently, the lack of resources is causing laboratories across the 

country to be serious bottlenecks for justice. Now, through organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 

the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, the States 

Coalition, and certainly the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations, efforts have been made to address the resource problem in 

our labs at the Federal level. 

You ask why is Federal support so critical in solving the crime 

laboratory crisis. No. 1, crime labs have never played a more critical role in the administration of justice in our country. Because of 

the new technological advances and computerized ballistics identification and imaging, DNA, automated fingerprint identification 

system and many other areas, we are looking at resource potential 

that can solve crimes, can identify offenders as well as the innocent, and literally prevent our citizens from suffering at the hands 

of society’s most dangerous criminals. Our crime labs can provide 

45

timely leads that solve crimes, and we must develop and take full 

advantage of that potential. 

Having spent 37 years on the law enforcement side of our Nation’s criminal justice system, you may find this an unusual statement from me, but I am in absolute, total agreement with the National Association of Defense Attorneys when it comes to quality 

and accuracy of crime lab examinations and analysis. It is imperative that absolutely accurate and quality examination standards 

must be applied to each and every piece of evidence analyzed. No 

corners can be cut, regardless of backlogs. 

Just remember that without a strong sense of quality, public confidence in our labs is undermined, and in turn so is justice. Because of GBI’s emphasis on quality and a hundred percent peer review of all cases, in 1999 our caseload expanded to a backlog of 

over 35,000 cases. Some of these cases were taking 6 to 8 months 

to complete. Suspects were waiting in jail because crime lab reports 

had not been submitted. However, we could not, we would not and 

we did not compromise quality for expediency. Quality is the cost 

of doing business in forensics, and the citizens of our country deserve nothing else. 

Why is this a Federal issue? The timely administration of justice 

demands it. The work being done by crime lab scientists everyday 

can have the impact of opening or closing a cell door forever. The 

work has to be done in each and every case with perfection. There 

is no room for error. 

Victims of violent crime deserve the timely application of appropriate and most technologically advanced forensic resources. Until 

that happens, the closure they seek to the horror of being victimized is unfairly delayed. Falsely accused suspects deserve to be 

cleared with all due speed. Just imagine the horror of being accused of a rape, of sexually violating a child or perhaps a murder, 

knowing full well that there was evidence that had been submitted 

to the crime lab that if it was timely analyzed the results would 

be there and an innocent person could be set free. 

Because the Federal Government has made a commitment to 

strong drug enforcement, Federal monies pour into State and local 

drug enforcement programs. But who works that evidence? Who 

does the work that those multi-jurisdictional task forces submit? 

Remember that 40 to 50 percent of crime lab analysis relates to 

drug identification. 

The Federal Government has recognized the importance of such 

programs as DNA by supporting the CODIS program through the 

FBI and creating a DNA data base available for nationwide access. 

The CODIS program is a wonderful program and it is paying dividends everyday in solving crimes. Enormous amounts of Federal 

dollars have been spent on the law enforcement side, providing 

more police officers. We have got 100,000 new police officers out 

there that are being trained and they are submitting evidence to 

our crime labs everyday. Somebody has got to do that work. 

The funding will support areas that are tailored for State and 

local crime labs for equipment, for forensic education training, laboratory information management systems that can increase productivity by 20 to 25 percent, accreditation and quality assurance programs, laboratory facility improvements, and personnel enhanceVerDate Feb 1 2002 09:40 Mar 27, 2002 Jkt 078008 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\HEARINGS\78008.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
46

ments. I can assure you that full funding for this bill will return 

a tremendous investment. 

In closing, I look back to the words in our Constitution that calls 

for Government’s role in ensuring the domestic tranquility. In forensic science and our crime laboratories, we can have the tools to 

ensure that justice is properly served, that the innocent are set 

free, and that the guilty are identified and convicted. 

Never before have we been able to offer so much return for such 

a small investment, and I encourage you to support full funding for 

the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act. It 

was an honor and privilege for me to sit side by side with him and 

talk about the needs of the criminal justice system. He was a student of the system and he was a student of identifying problems 

and identifying solutions, and I thank you for taking up his vision 

and moving forward with it in such an effective way. 

I apologize for going over. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nix follows:]

STATEMENT OF MILTON E. NIX, JR., DIRECTOR, GEORGIA BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

In 1993, after being appointed as Director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation 

by then Governor Zell Miller, it quickly became clear to me that the greatest challenge we faced as an agency was providing adequate resources for the GBI Crime 

Lab. 

What I discovered when I came back to Georgia after 23 years with the FBI was 

a local criminal justice system that was absolutely dependent on the work done by 

a state crime lab that was neither adequately funded nor staffed. 

With increasing demands for quality, productivity, and timeliness but faced with 

inadequate resources to work with, I saw a formula for disaster. As a result, we set 

out to try to fix the problem in Georgia. In the process, we looked outside of our 

state for solutions. 

In 1997, 11 state law enforcement agency representatives formed the State’s Coalition to discuss common challenges we were facing. Quickly, one common problem 

came to the forefront—the lack of resources in our crime labs. This issue has been 

the priority of this coalition ever since. We developed and fought for the concept of 

federal funding for our crime labs because this is a national issue and clearly affects 

the delivery of justice in our country. Ninety-five percent of all crime laboratory 

casework in this country is done at the state or local level. Currently, lack of resources is causing crime laboratories across the country to be bottlenecks for justice. 

Now through organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, the States’ Coalition and 

the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations, efforts have been made to address the resource problem in our labs at the federal level. Why is federal support 

so critical in solving the Crime Laboratory Crisis? 

Crime labs have never played a more critical role in the administration of justice 

in our country. Because of new technological advances in ballistics identification and 

imaging, DNA, and many other areas, we are looking at a resource that can solve 

crimes, identify the offenders as well as the innocent and literally prevent our citizens from suffering at the hands of society’s most dangerous criminals. Our crime 

labs can provide timely leads that solve crimes every day. We must develop and 

take full advantage of that potential. 

You may find this an unusual statement, but I am in total agreement with the 

National Association of Defense Attorneys when it comes to quality and accuracy 

of crime lab examinations and analysis. It is imperative that absolute accurate and 

quality examination standards must be applied to every piece of evidence analyzed. 

No corners can be cut regardless of backlogs. Without a strong sense of quality, public confidence in our labs is undermined and, in turn, so is justice. 

Because of GBI’s emphasis on quality, peer review of cases and assurance that 

the work is right, our case backlog exploded to over 35,000 cases in 1999. Some 

cases were taking as much as 6—8 months to complete. Because some suspects 

waited in jails for lab reports to complete, justice could not be served; however, we 

could not compromise quality for expediency. Quality is a cost of doing business in 

forensics and the citizens of our country deserve nothing less. 

47

WHY IS THIS A FEDERAL ISSUE?

• The timely administration of justice demands it. 

• The work being done by crime lab scientists everyday can have the impact of 

opening or closing a cell door forever. This work must be done with perfection 

each and every time. 

• Victims of violent crime deserve the timely application of appropriate forensic resources. Until that happens, the closure they seek to the horror of being victimized is unfairly delayed. 

• Falsely accused suspects deserve to be cleared with all due speed. Imagine the 

horror of falsely being accused of a rape or other sexual offense while at the 

same time knowing you could be cleared if evidence submitted to a crime lab 

was expeditiously processed. 

• Because the federal government has made a commitment to strong drug enforcement. Federal moneys pour into state and local drug enforcement programs but 

who works the evidence in those cases? Forty to fifty percent of crime analyses 

relates to drug identification. 

• The federal government has recognized the importance of such programs as DNA 

by supporting the CODIS program through the FBI—creating a DNA database 

available for nationwide access. 

• Large amounts of federal money have been spent on the law enforcement side, 

providing more police officers for local agencies. We totally agree that this is 

vital but you must also consider who works the increasing numbers of cases 

submitted by these additional police officers. 

• The funding will provide support in areas that tailor to the needs of state and 

local laboratories: 

Equipment 

Forensic Education/Training 

Laboratory Information Management Systems 

Accreditation/Quality Assurance Programs 

Laboratory Facility Improvements 

Personnel Enhancements 

• For the dollars spent, the return is tremendous. Justice is better served; officers 

have the tools to identify, arrest and convict suspects; and the innocent are set 

free in a timely manner. 

In closing, we look back at the words of our Constitution that calls for government’s role in insuring domestic tranquillity. In forensic science and our crime laboratories, you have the tools to insure that justice is properly served; that the innocent are set free and the guilty identified and convicted. Never before have we been 

able to offer so much return from such a small investment. I encourage your support 

of full funding of the National Forensics Sciences Improvement Act. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue today.

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Nix. Those were excellent 

comments, and I thank you for recalling for us Paul Coverdell’s 

leadership. It was a good bill and something that I had known for 

a long time that we needed to do better about crime lab support, 

and it was an opportunity for this Congress to do something. I 

think we responded well and now we need to get it funded. 

Dr. Yura, we are delighted to have you with us from West Virginia. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL T. YURA, DIRECTOR, FORENSIC 

IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, 

MORGANTOWN, WEST VIRGINIA 

Mr. YURA. I really appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak to you concerning the funding of the 

National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act of 2000. As you know, 

this piece of legislation was passed and sign into law last year, but 

it was not included in this year’s budget to support this critical 

piece of legislation. We would greatly appreciate your support in 

providing the appropriate funding for this activity. 

48

I am currently the Director of the Forensic Identification Program at West Virginia University, in Morgantown, West Virginia. 

The primary impetus for the development of our forensic identification program was that there was a great need for educational programs not only within the State of West Virginia, but the United 

States and throughout the world that specifically trains people and 

individuals and grants degrees in the area of forensic identification. 

The FBI, in response to a major training and educational void, 

requested that West Virginia University develop these degree programs in forensic identification, with academic concentrations in latent fingerprints examiner, forensic chemistry, biology and toxicology within our forensic investigative science major, and within 

our biometrics, including DNA and molecular biology. 

Therefore, this program was created in December 1998 and graduated its first class last Sunday, May 13, 2001. We currently have 

140 students who have come to our campus and enrolled in this 

program. These new programs address the current and future 

needs of individuals with increased scientific expertise in identification technologies and forensic science. They will be employed in the 

domestic law enforcement community, forensic laboratories, the 

FBI and other Federal agencies, as well as the biometrics industry. 

The use of advanced identification technologies and forensic 

science technology within the forensic community and security industry has created a significant need for scientifically trained persons with technical skills in the forensic disciplines, computer 

science, engineering, biometrics, natural sciences and 

criminalistics. 

Educational recommendations from technical working groups 

from the National Institute of Justice have required that identification specialists hired in the new millennium have the appropriate 

college background. The combination of these educational recommendations and significant advances in forensic identification 

and forensic science has created a significant demand for welltrained forensic specialists. 

But another issue we are helping to solve is that of rural States 

having access to forensic science. Small States like West Virginia 

have unique problems in the development of our forensic laboratory 

capacity. The State of West Virginia has only one crime lab under 

the West Virginia State Police. 

Because of the geography of our State, bringing evidence to the 

crime lab involves considerable loss of time and manpower because 

of the significant travel distances necessary to get evidence to laboratory personnel. Because there is only one crime lab, cases have 

been handled on the basis of time submitted and nature of the 

case, therefore causing significant delays in the processing of other 

cases in need of speed and professional resolution. 

We are currently developing plans for a major renovation and development in our current law in South Charleston, West Virginia, 

as well as the creation of a regional crime lab in north central West 

Virginia. This would allow the State to be divided into two major 

portions, providing quality and speedy response to evidence from 

our law enforcement community. 

Development of these facilities can only be accomplished through 

this type of legislation. The State of West Virginia cannot manage 

49

the creation and upgrade of these forensic facilities under current 

State economics. There are many small, rural States like West Virginia which need the support of this type of legislation to keep up 

with new technology and develop crime labs and forensic facilities 

comparable to the larger States, as well as facilities similar to the 

expansion currently going on at the FBI in the creation of their 

new crime lab in Quantico, Virginia. 

Like the Federal Government, demands for processing scientific 

forensic evidence has grown and will continue to grow geometrically. As technology has been developed for the processing of evidence such as fingerprints and DNA, crime labs have not been able 

to keep up with all the innovations necessary to provide the public 

with timely and professional analysis of forensic evidence. 

We would greatly appreciate your support in providing the broad 

forensic community, including various disciplines such as medical 

examiners and other forensic specialists, with the most updated 

tools and facilities available. This will help convict the guilty and 

also provide swift exoneration of those persons wrongly accused. 

Scientists in the forensic community take a neutral stand in the 

processing of evidence gathered by the State and local police agencies. They provide the highest-quality, impartial forensic processing 

which will greatly benefit the community at large. 

This piece of legislation is critical for all forensic laboratories 

that provide the necessary technical processing, from latent fingerprints to the expanded emphasis on digital evidence. Funding of 

this legislation will provide support for these activities, as well as 

upgrading and development of professional forensic experts to help 

them maintain the highest quality of academic and scientific 

knowledge. 

I thank you for your time and support. The funding of the National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act will have a monumental 

impact on the forensic community and law enforcement agencies 

for years to come. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yura follows:]

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL T. YURA, PH.D., WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, FORENSIC

IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak with you concerning the funding of the National Forensic Science 

Improvement Act 2000. As you know, this piece of legislation was passed and signed 

into law last year but this year’s budget does not include the appropriate sum of 

funding to support this critical piece of legislation. We would greatly appreciate your 

support in providing the appropriate funding for this activity. I am currently the 

Director of the Forensic Identification Program at West Virginia University in Morgantown, West Virginia. The primary impetus for the development of the forensic 

Identification program was that there is currently no program within the State of 

West Virginia, the United States, or throughout the world that specifically trains 

individuals and grants degrees in the area of forensic identification. 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in response to this major training and 

educational void requested that West Virginia University (WVU) develop degree programs in Forensic Identification with areas of academic concentration in Latent Forensic Examiner, Forensic Chemistry, Forensic Biology, and Forensic Toxicology 

within the major of Forensic and Investigative Science and within the Biometric 

major include DNA/Molecular Biology. Therefore this program was created in December 1998 and graduated its first class on May 13, 2001. 

These new programs address the current and future need for individuals with increased scientific expertise in identification technologies and forensic science. They 

50

will be employed within the domestic law enforcement community, forensic laboratories, the FBI, and other federal agencies, as well as the biometric industry. The 

use of advanced identification and forensic science technology within the forensic 

community and security industry has created a significant need for scientifically 

trained persons with technical skills in the forensic discipline, computer science, engineering, biometrics, natural sciences, and criminalistics. Educational recommendations from a National Institute of Justice Technical Working Group (TWG) have 

been made requiring that identification specialists hired in the new millennium 

have the appropriate college background. The combination of these new educational 

recommendations and the significant advances in forensic identification and forensic 

science has created a significant demand for well-educated forensic specialists. Another issue that we are helping to solve is that of rural and small state’s justice 

system having access to forensic science. Small states like West Virginia have some 

unique problems in the development of our forensic laboratory capacity. 

The State of West Virginia has only one crime laboratory under the West Virginia 

State Police. Because of the geography of our state, bringing evidence to the crime 

lab involves considerable loss of time and manpower because of the significant travel distances necessary to get the evidence to our laboratory personnel. Because there 

is only one crime lab, cases have to be handled on the basis of time submitted and 

nature of the case, therefore, causing significant delays in the processing of other 

cases in need of speedy and professional resolution. We are currently developing 

plans for a major renovation and development of our current crime lab in South 

Charleston, West Virginia as well as the creation of a regional crime laboratory in 

North-central West Virginia. This would allow the state to be divided into two major 

portions providing quality and speedy response of evidence from the law enforcement community. The development of these facilities can only be accomplished 

through this type of legislation. The State of West Virginia cannot manage the creation and upgrade of our forensic facilities under the current state economics. There 

are many smaller rural states like West Virginia who need the support of this type 

of legislation to keep up with new technology and to develop crime lab and forensic 

facilities comparable to some larger states as well as facilities similar to the expansion currently underway by the FBI in the creation of their new crime laboratory 

in Quantico, Virginia. Like the federal government, the demands for processing scientific forensic evidence has grown and will continue to grow geometrically. 

As technology has been developed for the processing of evidence, such as fingerprint and DNA evidence, crime labs have not been able to keep up with all of the 

innovations necessary to provide the public with timely and professional analysis of 

forensic evidence. We would greatly appreciate your support in providing the broad 

forensic community, including various disciplines such as medical examiners and 

various forensic specialists, with the most updated tools and facilities available. This 

will help convict the guilty and also provide swift exoneration of those persons 

wrongly accused. Scientists in the forensic community take a neutral stand in processing evidence gathered by state and local police agencies. They provide the highest 

quality impartial forensic processing which will greatly benefit the community atlarge. This piece of legislation is critical to all forensic laboratories that provide the 

necessary technical processing from latent fingerprints to an expanded emphasis on 

digital evidence. Funding of this legislation will provide the support for these activities as well as the upgrading and development of professional forensic experts to 

help them maintain the highest quality of academic and scientific knowledge. 

I thank you for your time and your support. This funding in support of the National Forensic Science Improvement Act will have a monumental impact on the forensic community and law enforcement for many years to come.

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Dr. Yura, and thank you, all of 

you. I appreciate very much your coming and sharing your time 

and expertise and background on this important subject. 

You know that the Federal Government is not going to fund all 

the forensic laboratory demands in America. They really should 

not. The States have undertaken that and done that pretty well, 

but we do spend a lot of money on law enforcement in Washington. 

I think there is a growing concern that sometimes it is used to take 

over criminal justice rather than support it. 

To me, there is no takeover, there is nothing but a real form of 

assistance. So I think that is what good public policy should be 

about. We analyze the needs in criminal justice and we see what 

51

we can do consistent with good public policy and respect for States’

roles and responsibilities. I think we are on the right track here. 

Mr. Nix, you head the GBI and the laboratory is a part of the 

GBI? 

Mr. NIX. It is one of our three divisions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Three divisions? 

Mr. NIX. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is the Georgia Bureau of Investigation 

which, by the way, is an outstanding investigative agency, of which 

I know you are quite proud. You have an investigator and they go 

out and make a case. Maybe there is ballistics analysis that needs 

to be done on a weapon, or maybe there is a drug analysis that 

needs to be done. 

How does it impact an investigator when he submits that evidence off to a laboratory and months go by before he receives an 

answer? 

Mr. NIX. Well, the more timely the evidence can be analyzed, the 

better lead value that is to the investigator. There is just so much 

that the investigator cannot do until that work has been done. You 

know, in the DNA area there may very well be a focus of one individual, that circumstantial evidence is pointing to that person. But 

if that DNA evidence can be accurately analyzed, you are going to 

know whether or not you are heading down the right road or 

whether or not you need to redirect resources. The same thing is 

true in the ballistics area. 

We have talked about the DNA and some of these areas, but we 

haven’t even given any attention to some of the very basic things 

that we do in the lab. There has been so much Federal attention 

given to DUI and deaths on our highways. Just a simple DUI case 

can’t go forward until we have done our work in the crime lab. 

That is a big part of what we do. 

Senator SESSIONS. My observation is it has got to be demoralizing to an officer’s enthusiasm if he is ready to make a breakthrough in a case and take the case for prosecution, but he can’t 

get his analysis back to see if it is drugs or see if the hair was a 

match or something like that. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. NIX. Yes, Senator. In Georgia, I have been very privileged to 

work for two visionary Governors. I was appointed by Governor 

Miller and reappointed by Governor Roy Barnes, and both of them 

were students of the criminal justice system and they realized the 

direction that we were headed in. And as we were able to educate 

our legislature, we have made vast improvements in our delivery 

of crime lab services. I know what dollars can do in providing a solution. 

And you say, well, why are you here if, in Georgia, so much 

progress has been made? Well, last year the legislature passed legislation that requires us to take DNA samples for our data base for 

all convicted felons. We will have anywhere from 35,000 to 50,000 

new DNA cases this year. I think every crime lab and every law 

enforcement agency such as GBI is being faced with cyber crimes. 

There are very few crime laboratories in the country that have the 

capability of dealing with cyber crimes. 

52

In a lot of places, law enforcement and prosecutors are turning 

their backs on some very serious crimes in that area because there 

isn’t anybody in the crime lab who can do the work. 

Senator SESSIONS. Does anyone else want to comment on that? 

Mr. Sheppo or Mr. Townsend, what is it like for the prosecutor or 

for the investigator if there is a delay at the laboratory? 

Mr. TOWNSEND. Well, I absolutely concur with Director Nix’ statement. In the State of Utah, our prosecutors are demanding 

less than a 30-day turnaround time, which makes it an extremely 

difficult brick wall that we face. If we don’t meet that, then many 

times charges are dismissed. In fact, we had a significant case dismissed just last week for this very reason. We just simply could not 

meet the demands and so the prosecutor dismissed the case. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I know that is true in Alabama. I know 

Dr. Downs has been working to get more funding, but we are in 

a funding crisis, a proration in the State, so the funding that we 

would like to see increased may not be as great as he would like 

to see. 

I do know that when you are waiting 60, 90 days on a routine 

drug case, in my view, to get the maximum impact on a routine, 

not a large drug case, you need prompt turnaround. The individual 

needs to be arrested. If he is guilty, he needs to be brought into 

court promptly and something done. He doesn’t have to be sent 

away for 25 years, perhaps, but he needs to be brought in and confronted. 

But if you are talking 60, 90, 120 days before you get the lab 

back and then the next trial docket is another 4 or 5 months down 

the road, then you have gone a year before this case is processed 

effectively. I think that undermines law and justice. 

Dr. Buel? 

Mr. BUEL. We have found a rippling effect to this on the police 

officer. If he submits fingerprint evidence to us and we don’t get 

a chance to analyze that, he may go to another scene and not collect the fingerprint evidence that he should because he knows that 

it is not going to come back in a timely fashion. 

So it compounds, too. Some of the evidence may not come in because they are not getting the reports back. So that affects the citizen, the homeowner who expects us to go there and collect the evidence and bring it in and find the B and E, which affects us all 

to some extent at some point. When somebody breaks in and we 

see the ‘‘CSI’’ folks going in with their magic wands, they expect 

us to find the fingerprints and analyze those and make the hits. 

But with an overburdened crime lab, it becomes hard to do that. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is a good observation. 

Do any of you sense that State legislators that you deal with or 

your friends and colleagues do are becoming better informed on the 

need for improving funding for laboratories? I think we are behind 

the curve there, or the politicians were for some time. 

Dr. Downs? 

Dr. DOWNS. In Alabama, we certainly have been in the forefront 

of trying to educate our State legislators. Through the assistance 

of Attorney General Bill Pryor and our Governor, we have tried to 

get the word out there. Our legislators do understand, but as you 

pointed out, we are in a serious funding situation within the State 

53

and try to be all things to all people simply can’t be done. We have 

made strides. We have a long way to go and this will put us over 

the top, the full funding for the Paul Coverdell bill. 

Senator SESSIONS. Any other comments? Mr. Sheppo? 

Mr. SHEPPO. Also, in Illinois, I would echo exactly what Dr. 

Downs has said. We have had our laboratory directors work with 

our State legislators and it has helped. Of course, there is still a 

long way to go. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, this is not going to solve all your funding problems. As one of you has said, it is just not enough to solve 

the crisis you are facing. In a way, it provides some quick-fix 

money, an infusion of money for 5 years, enough money to make 

a difference, if not solve all your problems. 

Perhaps it can be part of a highlighting of this issue that gets 

the attention of our State and local officials, because in my experience if we can’t keep our laboratories at the highest possible quality level where an examiner has the time to do a complete and accurate analysis and still get it back to the investigating agency in 

a short period of time, then the system really isn’t working well. 

For the amount of money we spend in all of law enforcement, 

from jails to police and everything in between, you are still a very 

small part of that budget. You could double your budget and it 

wouldn’t really impact the criminal justice budget in most States. 

Any other comments? 

Mr. YURA. I would like to make one comment echoing the same 

thing. In the State of West Virginia, Governor Wise and our new 

Superintendent of the State Police, Colonel Hill, have the same 

thing. They are acutely aware of these issues. They came into office 

with the idea of trying to solve it. 

I think everyone is so sensitive to these issues. It is a critical 

time for all of us because of the awareness level, and you see television shows that highlight it and the expectation of truth. Everyone wants that, and it is just providing that support system so we 

can actually go out and both train those individuals to work as well 

as provide the services, as laboratories are supposed to. 

Mr. NIX. Senator, there is just an acute need for training facilities. About a year-and-a-half ago, we could not hire enough firearms examiners and we couldn’t find anyplace that we could send 

scientists to become firearms examiners. I was able to partner with 

Tim Moore of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and 

both of us kicked in about $150,000 to train firearms examiners. 

But there is a real need for training facilities that we can send our 

scientists to. 

I think that there is a place here for the FBI. The FBI has done 

such a good job through the years with the FBI National Academy. 

I think there is a need on the national level for a national academy 

of forensics, a place that we can send our crime lab scientists for 

advanced training. There is always going to be a need for continuous training as new innovations come down the line, and we want 

to cross-train scientists from one discipline to another. I think this 

really be a wonderful legacy for a new administration coming in to 

take a strong look at that as a possibility. But in the meantime, 

we have got to have the funds on the State and local level to get 

54

the work in the door and out so that there is not a bottleneck to 

our system. 

Senator SESSIONS. That was a good suggestion, Mr. Nix. I have 

often felt that there is a healthy role. The FBI Academy is a very 

good model, but it takes only a very few people for specialized matters, and maybe expanding that would be a good contribution. 

Do all of you see that if you were able to expand your labs—who 

was that who said we need 9,000? 

Dr. DOWNS. Nationwide. 

Senator SESSIONS. Nationwide. Are there 9,000 people out there? 

Is there enough training and salaries sufficient to attract enough 

people? 

Mr. SHEPPO. Yes, sir, I think there probably are enough scientists out there, but they would have to be trained. That is why 

exactly what Director Nix has said is so applicable. It is important 

to find these scientists and then have them properly trained so that 

they can come into a laboratory and we don’t have to spend years 

training them. That down time in training really hurts as far as 

case productivity. 

Mr. YURA. That is why the FBI came to us because they recognize exactly what Mr. Nix is saying. There was an incredible need 

that they saw out there not just for the FBI; it is at the State and 

local level. They asked us to begin those kinds of programs because 

they could just see the near future, let alone the distant future, 

and the demand for these types of highly qualified personnel. 

Senator SESSIONS. I want to thank each of you. This has been a 

very worthwhile hearing. I believe that we will receive some fruit 

from it. 

On behalf of Senator Hatch, I want to make clear that the record 

will be kept open for 2 weeks so interested persons can submit additional material, any of you or any of the Senators could. 

I also want to offer into the record a letter that Senator Jon Kyl 

has asked that we make part of the record from the city of Phoenix 

Police Department talking about technology and the matters that 

we are dealing with today. Senator Kyl has been a strong advocate 

of good, effective law enforcement. 

If there is nothing else on our agenda, I will say again how much 

we appreciate your testimony, and we will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow:] 

[Additional material is being retained in the Committee files.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Questions submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary 

QUESTIONS FOR PANEL II WITNESSES

1. What is the laboratory accreditation process for your states and what other 

types of external reviews do your laboratories undergo? 

2. What is your method for resolving disagreements among examiners over forensic methods or the interpretation of results? 

3. What is your work assigned, is terms of principal and auxiliary examiners, and 

who is responsible for the preparation of reports? 

4. What are the training requirements for your personnel? 

5. How do you guard against prosecutoria1 bias? 

6. Brain Fingerprinting is the use of computer-based technology to identify the 

perpetrator of a crime by measuring brain-wave responses to crime relevant words 

55

or pictures (memory and encoding related multificated electroencephalographic responses), which are elicited when the brain processes noteworthy information that 

it recognizes. According to the technology’s proponents, when details of the crime 

that only the perpetrator would know are presented, a MERMER is emitted by the 

brain of the perpetrator. The brain of an innocent suspect would not emit a 

MERMER because these would be not be a recognition of the information presented.

A. Are you familiar with the Brain Fingerprinting technology? If you are, 

do you have an opinion on the validity of this technology? 

B. Is this technology being used in your laboratories, and if so, how successful has it been?

7. How do your crime labs maintain the integrity of the chain of custody, so that 

evidence is not compromised? 

8.How do you preserve evidence containing DNA for use in later testing and for 

how long do you keep such evidence?

Questions submitted by Senator Feingold 

f QUESTIONS FOR DAVID BOYD (PANEL I) KEITH COONROD (PANEL I) AND ALL PANEL

II WITNESSES

Question 1: On May 11, 2001, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld of the Innocence 

Project wrote in the New York Times that ‘‘Conventional hair analysis. . . is subjective junk science. . . .Unsound techniques survive because forensic science has been 

woven into the culture of prosecution and insulated from routine quality assurance 

standards we impose on medical testing labs. . . .Too often, forensic laboratories 

are run by law enforcement officers in lab coats.’’ Scheck and Neufeld conclude, in 

part, by suggesting that forensic labs should be independent agencies, serving as 

independent fact finders for both the prosecution and the defense. Do you agree with 

this suggestion? Why or why not? 

QUESTIONS FOR KEITH COONROD (PANEL I) AND ALL PANEL II WITNESSES

Question 1: The Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act contains a provision that expresses the sense of the Congress that states that receive 

these grants should agree to ensure post-conviction DNA testing in appropriate 

cases. When we are talking about the possibility of an innocent person sitting in 

prison, even death row, fairness and justice demand that we allow post-conviction 

access to DNA testing.

(a) What is the current status of post-conviction access to DNA testing in 

your state? 

(b) What role have you played in urging this important reform in your 

state?

Question 2: One problem sometimes faced by people seeking to prove their innocence is that the biological evidence has not been stored properly or, even worse, 

has been discarded by the state.

(a) What procedures do you have in place in your lab to store biological evidence? 

(b) Once a conviction has been obtained, how do you maintain the integrity 

of the biological evidence and store it? 

(c) In your state, how long is the state crime lab required to store biological 

evidence of a convicted offender? 

(d) What are the procedures that your state crime lab follows in the event 

that the defense seeks access to the biological evidence and needs it transResponses of Eric Buel to questions submitted by the Committee on the 

ferred to a forensic lab retained by the defense?

fJudiciary 

Answer 1: We follow the ASCLD accreditation process. ASCLD sets standards, for 

training of personnel, quality assurance programs, documentation and security of 

56

evidence. Part of the ASCLD process is to ensure that laboratories have written procedures, which are followed in all of the areas of testutb performed. The DNA unit 

follows DNA Advisory Board (DAB) guidelines. External proficiency testing occurs 

in each discipline followed by blind proficiency testing yearly in each discipline. In 

addition, external review of the DNA unit occurs every other year

Answer 2: There are seldom disagreement, about methods, in that procedures are 

described in the standard operating protocols. Concerning the interpretation of a result, examiners must review the material and if the examiners do not reach an 

agreement the supervisor is consulted. More testing may then be suggested. If there 

is still doubt/nonagreement the test may be called inconclusive or the supervisor 

may consult with additional examiners from outside agencies. Our procedures require that a number of tests have two ‘‘readers’’, where two trained analysts must 

agree on the conclusions

Answer 3: Examiners work only within his/her discipline and work the oldest 

cases first unless the supervisor assigns a priority, based on court or investigative 

needs. The examiner prepares a report, which is peer reviewed and administratively 

reviewed before it is released.

Answer 4: Training requirements are detailed in training manuals and were reviewed during the accreditation process. The trainee must undergo training in the 

specific methods used in the forensic community and in the laboratory. This includes passing a competency test prior to undertaking casework. The DAB specifies 

that DNA analysts have specific areas of training including biochemistry, genetics, 

statistics and molecular biology.

Answer 5: The analyst examines evidence and provides the data obtained from 

that analysis. The procedures used are well established and the results must be 

supported by worksheets showing the test results. The worksheets and notes are 

available for review by the defense. Our policy provides that we try to maintain a 

portion of the evidence for future testing by the defense if they have reason to question our work.

Answer 6: Brain fingerprinting:

i. About a year ago I read some material on this subject. At that time, I 

felt that insufficient research had been conducted to prove the technique 

scientifically reliable. It may have promise, but I was not convinced at the 

time. 

ii. Not used in our laboratory

Answer 7: Chain of custody of evidence is maintained through a paper record that 

records each transfer of evidence. We have secure and appropriate storage spaces 

for evidence and employ handling procedures that minimize the possibility of contamination or sample mix up

Answer 8: Biological evidence is dried and placed into a plastic bag with desiccant. 

The package is heat sealed and maintained at -20 C for at least one year. After that 

time it is returned in a sealed state to the submitting agency. In a dried and sealed 

condition it should be useful and available for future testing for years.

Responses of Eric Buel to questions submitted by Senator Feingold 

f Answer 1: Many forensic laboratories are under agencies such as a department 

of public safety or other criminal justice type organization. Some laboratories have 

managers who are police officers or civilian managers who report to a police officer. 

In Vermont we have a civilian director who reports to a civilian director of Criminal 

Justice Services who in turn reports to a civilian commissioner. Our laboratory employs one sworn officer in the capacity as a liaison between the laboratory and police 

departments. All examiners in our laboratory are civilians. These examiners perform the examinations and report what they find. Most forensic laboratories have 

civilian examiners who are scientists. These scientists are trained to report their 

bindings, without prejudice. The accreditation process reviews protocols, training 

and quality assurance issues. The National Forensic science Improvement Act will 

force laboratories to become accredited or they will not be able to receive the funds. 

This will be a very motivating force to drive laboratories towards accreditation. Concerning conventional hair analysis, this must be performed by only well trained examiners whose work is peer reviewed. Improper training will lead to an improper 

analysis in any field. In the medical field, cancer cells are misdiagnosed in 1 out 

57

of 71 cases, and are misclassified in 1 out of 5 cases. Training is imperative in any 

field and NFSIA will assist labs get appropriate training 

POST CONVICTION TESTING: 

a) No law currently exists in the state. If a request were made for this, we would 

honor the request. 

b) We have discussed this issue with the Vermont Defender General’s office and 

are currently seeking model legislation to offer for the next legislative session. 

STORAGE OF EVIDENCE: 

a) Biological evidence is dried and placed into a plastic bag with desiccant. The 

package is heat sealed and maintained at -20 C for at least one year. After that 

time it is returned in a sealed state to the submitting agency. In a dried and sealed 

condition it should be useful and available for future testing for years. 

b) We usually do not know when a conviction has been obtained. As described 

above after about one year, the evidence is returned in a sealed pouch, which will 

maintain DNA evidence for a considerable length of time. 

c) No Vennont statues exist for the length of time required to store biological evidence. 

d) The evidence does not belong to the laboratory but belongs to the submitting 

agency. Once the submitting agency is informed of the request from the defense, we 

obtain a written release from the submitting agency and a written request from the 

defense concerning the samples that need to be transferred and the laboratory that 

will be receiving the samples. We then will transfer a portion of the sample to the 

forensic laboratory retained by the defense. The defense may ask the court to order 

such a transfer and then we would only require a letter from the defense directing 

us as to which samples need external testing and the forensic laboratory retained 

for the external analysis.

Responses of J.C. Upshaw Downs, M.D. to questions submitted by the 

Committee of the Judiciary 

f 1. The National Forensic Sciences Training Center (NFSTC) accredits our DNA 

Labs (4). In the past, the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) bas 

accredited our Forensic Pathology (medical Ewer) Labs (4). The NAME accreditation 

was dropped several years ago due to a lack of resources necessary for compliance 

with accreditation guidelines, viz, most toxicology reports should be completed within 30 days per NAME guidelines while in Alabama the delay is routinely 3 to 6 

mouths and in some areas, over 12 months. 

None of the other laboratory disciplirm are accredited. 

External reviews have included the examination and analysis of quality control 

samples submitted by Collaborative Testing Service and Check Samples. 

2. Methods for resolving disagreements among examiners include: 

a) Review by peers within the same lab or between labs in the state system. This 

is accomplished under the auspices of the Discip Chief , [technical leader—the state 

system’s senior scientist in a particular area of the forensic sciences (DNA, 

fmearmshoolmarks, illicit drugs, toxicology, trace evidence)] for the respective scientific discipline. This method is used in over 95% of all cases. 

b) Review by recognized peers from a laboratory outside the state’s system. 

In, all cases the Discipline Chief reports the findings and recommendations to a 

Deputy Director who reports same, with recommended course of action, to the Director. Tire Director decides if further action is required. The Discipline Chief makes 

the technical decision and determines the appropriate method of reporting after the 

Director is satisfied that all pertinent issues have been addressed. 

3. Work is assigned through the Laboratory Director to each laboratory’s Section 

Chief (the individual lab’s senior scientist in a particular area of the forensic 

sciences). In all disciplines except Toxicology, the work is assigned to each qualified 

examiner who performs the examination/analysis, prepares the report and testifies 

in court. The trainees in, each section are supervised by the Section Chief and qualified examiners. 

In order to maxinize the throughput of casework, the toxicology sections operate 

differently. In each of the Toxicology Sections (3) the Section CWef assigns work to 

the other examiners, supervises their work, prepares all reports and testifies in all 

court cases. 

58

4. The training requirements include a mbttum of on-the-job training, attendance 

at various schools and sennanars and other activities that follow a protocol set by 

the respective Discipline Chief The protocols follow national standards set by the 

Technical Working Groups of the various disciplines. In order to verify scientific veracity and impartiality in testimony, this training also includes courtroom procedures and testimony in a moot court setting. 

5. Prosecutorial bias is avoided in the same manner as is defewe bias. Our agency 

is a separate entity of state gont that is not attached to any law enforcement agency. The department of Forensic Sciences is a separate agency in the executive 

branch, answering to the Governor. The Director’s position is apolitical—the Director can only be removed from ofce for an impeachable offense. 

Departmental reports are public record and contain a scientific description of evidence examined with a clearly demarcated Werpretation of said evidence. Personnel 

are trained to be open and unbiased to both prosecution and defense. Department 

personnel meet individually with either or both sides in an adversarial criminal proceeding to review findings and interpretations of evidence. 

No fees or benefits come to the Department as a direct result of the reports and 

examinations conducted by the agency. 

Evidence analyses, including post conviction DNA analyses, are available on request and at no fee, to either side in a criminal proms. In order to ensure that limited samples are not consumed in testing and that the results will. have some bearing on the outcome of the case, this testing is coordinated with both parties in such 

an instance.

Responses of J.C. Upshaw Downs, M.D. to questions submitted by Senator 

fFeingold 

Question 1: Should forensic labs be independent agencies serving as independent 

fact finders for both the prosecution and defense 

Answer: The Department of Forensic Sciences of the State of Alabama is proud 

to act as such an independent agency. In so doing, we believe we provide an ideal 

model fox the operation of a state forensic laboratory system. The Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences has been independent since its inception in 1935. The creation of state’s forensic system, was tied, in large part, to a tragic miscarriage of 

justice related to evidence—biological (DNA) evidence. The cases of nine young 

Black men (known as ‘‘the Scottsboro Boys’’) unjustly convicted of rape pointed out 

the absence of a competent impartial evidence collecting and interpreting agency 

within the state. 

Our scientists are certified as peace officers and have the power to enter any 

crime scene for the purpose of securing evidence. All reports of our investigations, 

both on the scene and in the lab, are public record. Departmental reports of analyses clearly indicate factual results and scientific expert opinions based on those results. It has always been our policy to entertain any request by the defense to examine evidence in, a case in which we are involved by virtue of an initial request by 

an investigating law enforcement agency. 

Consultation with counsel for prosecution and defense is another area of our scientific neutrality- On request, department scientists will meet privately with representatives for either or both sides, separately or together. During these sessions, 

the scientist way be requested to provide scientific commentary and/or observations 

to prove or disprove certain theories proffered by counsel. Attorneys for either side 

may review all scientific data used in formulating reports arid opinions during these 

consultations. The content of such meetings is held in strict confidence, unless counsel requests or agrees to release of information. 

The same spirit affects courtroom testimony by Departmental employees. Impartial scientists are not ethically allowed to ‘‘shade the results’’ or to take sides in any 

adversarial action. Scientific truth is scientific truth. Our reputation is one of true 

impartiality. Both prosecution and defense have complimented The Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences for being truly independent finders of scientific fact, 

no matter to whom the benefit. 

Question 1a: What is the current status of post-conviction DNA testing? 

Answer: Post-conviction DNA testing is available, just as is pre-conviction testing, 

on request. It has always been our policy to entertain any request by the defense 

to examine evidence in a case in which we are involved by virtue of an initial request by an investigating law enforcement agency. 

Question b: What role have you played in urging this reform? 

59

Answer: We have not taken a pro-active role in national reform on availability of 

post conviction DNA testing, primarily because Alabama’s Department of Forensic 

Sciences DNA laboratories have an active case backlog of over 20 months. Put another way, if Alabama’s labs were to receive no new evidence at all, we already have 

almost 2 years worth of evidence in criminal cases awaiting analysis, 

Fundamentally, we agree that DNA cars provide powerful evidence in criminal 

proceedings. It should be given the same weight in exonerating suspects as in implicating the guilty. One must remember that DNA is only one item of evidence considered in a criminal case. Other evidence and testimony is often presented 

Rarely, court. Rarely, DNA evidence has shown a convict was not the donor of a 

sample in a particular case. This result has been used to free those falsely convicted 

fox a crime they did not commit. The Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences applauds those who have helped secure freedom for those unfortunate few who have 

been wrongly imprisoned. 

One must understand why DNA evidence was not available and/or was not used 

in such cases. Most instances where an individual has been freed based on post-conviction. DNA evidence involve old cases. The injustice of today is based on the inadequacy of the past. In short, just a few years ago, the power of DNA evidence—for 

inclusion and exclusion of suspects—was not recognized. This lack of knowledge was 

a significant factor in the failure to secure DNA testing in many of these older 

cases. 

Ignorance of the significance of DNA and other scientific evidence is no longer the 

issue. Of far greater concern to scientists is the failure to sufficiently fund crime 

laboratories and medical examiners to deal with evidentiary issues today. We now 

know the value of DNA arid forensic evidence. It is not only recognized by the courts 

but often is expected by juries. As a society, it is unconscionable to have the ability 

to perform such a specific test—one that can literally mean the difference between 

life and death—and to not perform a competent analysis in a timely manner. The 

answer simply comes down to a lack of available resources. 

The constitution of these United States guarantees the right to a speedy trial and 

assures justice for all. Sufficient funding to staff and accredit forensic laboratories 

is in the national interest if we truly value these core principles. 

THE INADEQUACIES OF TODAY MUST BE ADDRESSED BEFORE THEY BECOME THE

INJUSTICES OF TOMORROW. 

Question 2a: What are your procedures for store biological evidence? 

Answer: Generally, biological evidence is stored in secure, climate-controlled environments following guidelines mandated by national standards. Some items are 

stored as dry stains in paper containers at room temperature, others are stored 

under refrigeration, and others are frozen. 

Question b: How is the host-conviction evidence stored and its integrity maintained? 

Answer: If any evidence remains in our custody after conviction, it is stored much 

the same as described in 2(a) above. The integrity is maintained at all times in secure, limited-access areas; the chain of custody is documented through the use of 

written receipts housed in the respective case files. Evidence that passes through 

our system is usually returned to the submitting agency upon completion of the examination/analysis, along with any special instructions for long-terra storage. 

Question c: How long are convicted offender biological stains stored? 

Answer: Blood samples from convicted offenders (prisoners, parolees, probationers, 

and those seeking pardons) are stored in dried stain form in a secure area for an 

indefinite period of time. 

Question d: What procedures must be followed by the defense in order to obtain 

biological evidence for testing by another lab? 

Answer: Normally a defense attorney obtains a court order outlining the items to 

be released and the conditions under which they are to be released, viz. directly to 

the attorney or transferred by our lab to another (defense) lab. We make the transfer utilizing normal chain of custody procedures documented by written receipts and 

shipping documents. The reports concerning our analysis of evidence are public 

record and the defense lab has access to them in that manner or through the defense attorney.

f60

Response of National Institute of Justice to a question submitted by 

Senator Schumer 

Question: How many unexamined rape kits remain in storage awaiting DNA testing nationally and in New York State? 

Answer: Nationally, there are approximately 180,000 unexamined rape kits. At 

this time, there are approximately 2,000 unexamined rape kits in the State of New 

York. In New York State, there are approximately 6,000 rape kits collected annually.

Responses of Milton E. Nix, Jr. to questions submitted by Senator Feingold 

fQUESTIONS FOR PANEL 11 WITNESS: 

Answer 1: On May II, 2001, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld of the Innocence 

Project wrote in the New York Times that ‘‘Conventional hair analysis. . .is subjective junk science. . .Unsound techniques survive because forensic science has been 

woven into the culture of prosecution and insulated from routine quality assurance 

standards we impose on medical testing labs. . .Too often, forensic laboratories are 

run by law enforcement officers in lab coats. ‘‘Scheck and Neufeld conclude, in part, 

by suggesting that forensic labs should be independent agencies, serving as independent fact finders for both the prosecution and the defense. Do you agree with 

this suggestion? Why or why not? 

Most crime laboratories perform extensive scientific testing on hair evidence. A 

conclusion on hair evidence that is as definitive as that obtained from DNA is not 

possible. However, the use of properly scientific analyzed hair evidence can add valuable information for the judicial system. Forensic sciences has been evolving just 

as other sciences continue to evolve as new technologies and techniques are discovered and developed. Forensic science laboratories have always been after the truth 

through science. Their function is in criminal justice system is to provide independent scientific fact. There have been countless reports issued by crime laboratories across the county that have led law enforcement to the guilty person while 

exoernating the innocent. In most cases, the public only hears about the crime laboratory when an individual is prosecuted. The public does not hear about the scientific reports that do not support prosecution of an individual. 

Almost all forensic scientists are scientists. Today, there are very few individuals 

practicing forensic science that do not have a science type degree. Accreditation programs such as ASCLDLAB support standardization and quality assurance. Such 

groups as the American Board of Criminalistics (ABC) support individual certifications. Forensic laboratories prove the identity of a drug compound beyond any scientific reasonable doubt. Medical testing laboratories do not. 

Forensic crime laboratories are fact finders of the truth. Their reports are used 

by both the prosecution and the defense. 

In Georgia, the defense has the ability to question any results reported by the 

state’s crime laboratory through a policy of independent examinations using, in 

many cases, the very same scientific instrumentation used by the state. 

The next question is who pays for a defense crime laboratory? In has been the 

practice and custom in the United States that defense counsel is not provided by 

the public except in special needy case situations. As crime laboratories are the fact 

finders of truth, their reports are used by the criminal justice system by both the 

prosecution and the defense. 

Answer 2: The Paul Coverdell NFSIA contains a provision that expresses the 

sense of the Congress that states that receive these grants should agree to ensure 

post-conviction DNA testing in appropriate cases. When we are talking about the 

possibility of an innocent person sitting in prison, even death row, fairness and justice demand that we allow post-conviction access to DNA testing.

(a) What is the current status of post-conviction access to DNA testing in 

your state? 

In the State of Georgia, post-conviction access to DNA testing can by granted by court order as outlined in Georgia law. 

(b) What role have you played in urging this important reform in your 

state? 

61

Georgia Bureau of Investigation has supported this reform and assisted in 

the passage of the bill containing this provision.

Answer 3: One problem sometimes faced by people seeking to prove their innocence is that the biological evidence has not been stored properly, or, even worse, 

has been discarded by the state.

(a) What procedures do you have in place in your lab to store biological evidence? 

The GBI Division of Forensic Sciences crime laboratory retains blood samples for one year after the year of submission. All other evidence is returned 

to the submitting law enforcement agency after DNA analysis is completed. 

If the only remaining DNA is what was used in the testing, the testing 

sample is retained indefinitely at the laboratory. 

(b) Once a conviction has been obtained, how do you maintain the integrity 

of the biological evidence and store it? 

Following DNA analysis, evidence is returned to the submitting agency. If 

the only remaining DNA evidence is what was used for testing, then the 

laboratory retains the sample in a freezer indefinitely. 

(c) In your state, how long is the state crime lab required to store biological 

evidence of a convicted offender? 

The GBI Division of Forensic Sciences crime laboratory stores convicted offender DNA samples indefinitely. 

(d) What are the procedures that your state crime lab follows in the event 

that the defense seeks access to the biological evidence and needs it transferred to a forensic lab retained by the defense? 

If the laboratory were still in possession of the evidence, it would be transferred as per court order and Rules and Regulation of the Board of Public 

Responses of Michael G. Sheppo to questions submitted by the Committee 

Safety for Independent Examinations.

on the Judiciary 

fQUESTIONS FOR PANEL II WITNESSES: 

Question 1: What is the laboratory accreditation process for your states and what 

other types of external reviews do your laboratories undergo? 

Answer: The Illinois State Police forensic science laboratory system was first accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) in 1982 and has subsequently received re-accreditation 

every five years. External DNA audits are conducted every other year. We additionally require that each laboratory director inspect their laboratory each year using 

ASCLD/LAB and internal criteria. Also, each laboratory is inspected annually by an 

Illinois State Police, Division of Forensic Services, Forensic Sciences Command inspection team. Included on the inspection team are external auditors who we believe 

add a different perspective in evaluating our laboratory operations.

Question 2: What is your method for resolving disagreements among examiners 

over forensic methods or the interpretation of results? 

Answer: Disagreements may be resolved by discussions between the examiners to 

come to a common decision—if that is not possible, then a peer review board is 

formed to review the disagreement and resolve the issue. The peer review board is 

made up of the quality review coordinator for the section, two analysts chosen by 

the examiner who do not work in the examiner’s laboratory, the training coordinator 

for the section, and one analyst chosen by the quality assurance program administrator. This board meets and reviews the issue and renders a decision, which is final 

upon approval by the commander. 

For a case already reported to an agency, if no agreement can be reached between 

the analysts, separate reports may be issued which explain/cover the individual 

merits or reasons made for the conclusions reached. This would also require the 

commander’s approval. 

Forensic Science Command Policy EVH 9—Case Analysis and Reporting Errors 

and Situation Reports is attached. Specifically paragraph III.D.2. addresses the 

Quality Assurance Review Board process. The Quality Manual QM 7—Quality Assurance Measures also addresses quality measures for situations in which there is 

a disagreement with a technical review of reports.

62

Question 3: How is your work assigned, in terms of principal and auxiliary examiners, and who is responsible for the preparation of reports? 

Answer: The Illinois State Police’s forensic science laboratory system employs both 

forensic scientists and evidence technicians. The forensic scientists are responsible 

for all analytical work and report preparation. Evidence technicians may handle evidence and prepare reagents, but are not involved in critical analysis, analytical interpretation, nor do they issue reports.

Question 4: What are the training requirements for your personnel? 

Answer: Applicants for forensic scientist positions must have, as a minimum, a 

bachelor’s degree in a science such as chemistry or biology. Each applicant is required to pass a pre-employment written test in the targeted specialty area of interest (e.g., drug chemistry, forensic biology/DNA, patterned evidence such as latent 

prints and firearms). An oral interview is conducted, and if selected for hiring, the 

individual is pre-screened for any additional criteria such as DNA Advisory Board 

course work requirements. 

Upon hiring, new employees enter a structured formal training program under 

the leadership of a training coordinator in the specialty area in which they will 

work. The training program consists of modules with specific goals and objectives. 

Each module requires the student to pass criteria tests that can be written and/or 

practical in nature, demonstrating theory, practical knowledge and analytical skills. 

Students must successfully pass a module before beginning another module. Modules include: theoretical information, demonstration of analytical techniques on 

practice cases and/or non probative cases, 100 percent passage of a final set of unknowns before beginning supervised casework, final mock trails and/or oral boards, 

and a specified period of supervised casework. Each training program has a specific 

length of time for completion. Written academic criteria, which establishes grading 

guidelines as well as student continuation in a program, are strictly followed. Appropriate modifications to the training program are made for individuals we hire 

with experience at another forensic science laboratory and for individuals within the 

Forensic Sciences Command who wish to change specialties and if the command has 

an operational need to permit cross-training. Academic criteria for that program is 

also attached.

Question 5: How do you guard against prosecutorial bias? 

Answer: Prosecutorial bias is something that all forensic scientists need to be 

aware of and ever vigilant to avoid. All forensic scientists must strive to report all 

the scientific facts in an understandable manner so that the information can then 

be used by the judicial system to determine an individual’s guilt or innocence. The 

Illinois State Police starts stressing the importance of impartiality with novice forensic scientists. All of our forensic scientists attend a week long Courtroom Demeanor Training that teaches them their role in the judicial process. The scientists 

also attend an ethics seminar which stresses the need to accurately report all scientific findings. These basic principles are stressed throughout the forensic scientist’s career. To ensure all scientific findings are reported accurately and completely, the Illinois State Police has a thorough quality assurance program that includes case file reviews, random reanalysis of already reported cases and court room 

testimony monitoring by supervisors. Part of the quality assurance program also includes the use of court cards which are given to the prosecutor, defense attorney 

and the judge by each forensic scientist who testifies so that those individuals can 

evaluate and comment on the testimony given by our scientists.

Question 6: Brain Fingerprinting is the use of computer-based technology to identify the perpetrator of a crime by measuring brain wave responses to crime-relevant 

words or pictures presented on a computer screen. These brain wave responses are 

called MERMERs (Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted 

Electroencephalograph icResponses), which are elicited when the brain processes 

noteworthy information that it recognizes. According to tile technology’s proponents, 

when details of the crime that only the perpetrator would know are presented, a 

MERMER is emitted by the brain of the perpetrator. The brain of an innocent suspect would not emit a MERMER because there would not be a recognition of the 

information presented. 

A. Are you familiar with the Brain Fingerprinting technology? If you are, do you 

have an opinion on the validity of this technology? 

Answer: I am not familiar with Brain Fingerprinting technology. 

B. Is this technology being used in your laboratories, and if so, how successful has 

it been? 

Answer: We are not using Brain Fingerprinting technology in the Illinois State 

Police laboratory system.

63

Question 7: How do your crime labs maintain the integrity of the chain of custody, 

so that evidence is not compromised? 

Answer: The Illinois State Police laboratory system has in place a number of evidence handling policies which guide personnel in the proper receipt, handling, analysis, storage and ultimate disposition of evidence submitted. Policies include: receiving evidence in a sealed condition, maintaining evidence seals while in vault storage, limited vault access, limited access to analytical work areas, chain of custody 

records are maintained, clean techniques are observed, buildings and work areas 

have security plans and devices, employees undergo extensive background checks including drug screening, protocols are in place to detect extraneous DNA and for the 

running of blanks between samples to ensure no carry over from a previous analysis 

occurs. A representative sampling of these policies are included as attachments. 

The Illinois State Police laboratory system regularly monitors evidence handling 

through a number of mechanisms such as internal inspections, both announced and 

unannounced, external inspections, employee observation and performance reviews, 

quality assurance reviews such as case file reviews and random reanalysis.

Question 8: How do you preserve evidence containing DNA for use in later testing 

and for how long do you keep such evidence? 

Answer: Evidence received in criminal cases is kept in the laboratory evidence 

vault under proper storage conditions (room temperature, refrigerator, or freezer, 

depending upon the type of evidence) until the case is analyzed and the case questions are answered. The evidence is then returned, along with any pertinent directions concerning evidence storage conditions, to the original submitting law enforcement agencies for appropriate evidence disposition.

Responses of Michael G. Sheppo to questions submitted by Senator 

fFeingold 

Question 1: On May 11, 2001, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld of the Innocence 

Project wrote in the New York Times that ‘‘Conventional hair analysis . . . is subjective junk science . . . Unsound techniques survive because forensic science has been 

woven into the culture of prosecution and insulated from routine quality assurance 

standards we impose on medical testing labs. . . To often, forensic laboratories are 

run by law enforcement officers in lab coats.’’ Scheck and Neufeld conclude, in part, 

by suggesting that forensic labs should be independent agencies, serving as independent fact finders for both the prosecution and the defense. Do you agree with 

this suggestion? Why or why not? 

Answer: I do not agree with the suggestion that forensic laboratories should be 

independent agencies. I have had the opportunity to work for two law enforcement 

agencies during my thirty-year career as a forensic scientist and forensic science administrator. These agencies, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) and the Illinois State Police (ISP) both provide the vast majority of forensic science services to 

their respective state’s criminal justice systems. My experience in both agencies 

allow me to emphatically state that I have never known of a situation where scientific evidence was withheld, misinterpreted, or compromised to enhance the prosecution of a case. In fact, I am pleased to inform the committee that I have had 

experiences in both agencies in which law enforcement officials have relentlessly 

pursued scientific evidence that resulted in not substantiating the investigatory 

leads made by law enforcement personnel. I know that both the ISP and GBI advocate and practice unbiased investigations to include those scientific analyses performed in their forensic laboratories. 

In the ISP, for example, we strive to report all the scientific facts in an understandable manner so that the information can then be used by the judicial system 

to determine an individual’s guilt or innocence. The Illinois State Police starts 

stressing the importance of impartiality with novice forensic scientists. All of our 

forensic scientists attend a week-long Courtroom Demeanor Training that teaches 

them their role in the judicial process. The scientists also attend an ethics seminar 

which stresses the need to accurately report all scientific findings. These basic principles are stressed throughout the forensic scientist’s career. To ensure all scientific 

findings are reported accurately and completely, the ISP has a thorough quality assurance program that includes case file reviews, random reanalysis of already reported cases and courtroom testimony monitoring by supervisors. Part of the quality 

assurance program also includes the use of court cards which are given to the prosecutor, defense attorney and the judge by each forensic scientist who testifies so 

that those individuals can evaluate and comment on the testimony given by our sciVerDate Feb 1 2002 09:40 Mar 27, 2002 Jkt 078008 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\HEARINGS\78008.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
64

entists. Additionally, both the ISP and GBI laboratory systems are headed by individuals who are scientists who have worked in a forensic science laboratory. Finally, 

I believe that forensic science laboratories need the support of large organizations 

that are able to provide the necessary resources to adequately provide these expensive scientific services. As an independent forensic science agency, we would not 

have the political leverage to compete with other large state agencies. Even though 

we have needs in the ISP laboratory system, our laboratories have been a priority 

in our agency and have received resources on par with other department divisions.

Question 2: The Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act contains a provision that expresses the sense of the Congress that states that receive 

these grants should agree to ensure post-conviction DNA testing inappropriate 

cases. When we are talking about the possibility of an innocent person sitting in 

prison, even death row, fairness and justice demand that we allow post-conviction 

access to DNA testing. 

(a) What is the current status of post-conviction DNA testing in your state? 

Answer: Since 1998, section 116-3 of the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure of 

1963 (725 ILCS 5/116-3) has allowed a defendant to have physical evidence subjected to forensic DNA testing that was not available at the time of trial, if certain 

requirements are met (see attachment). To obtain DNA testing, a defendant must 

present a prima facie case that identity was the issue at trial, and that the evidence 

to be tested has been under a secure chain of custody. Testing is permitted if (1) 

the method of DNA testing requested is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community, and (2) ‘‘the results of the testing has the scientific potential to 

produce new, noncumulative evidence materially relevant to the defendant’s asser- tion of actual innocence.’’ On May 24, 2001, in People v. Savory (Docket No. 88786), the Illinois Supreme 

Court addressed the meaning of this criminal code requirement for what the results 

of DNA testing must have the potential to produce (see attachment). The case defendant, Johnny Lee Savory, had been convicted of the stabbing deaths of a Peoria, 

Illinois brother and sister in 1977. The evidence Savory wanted tested was blood 

stained trousers taken from his home by the police. At trial, the State had introduced the trousers as evidence; had contended Savory was wearing the trousers at 

the time of the murders; and had established the trousers had been stained with 

blood of the same type as the murdered sister. Savory alleged new DNA tests available since his conviction would establish the trouser blood was not the murdered 

sister’s. The State argued, and had won in lower Illinois courts, taking the position Savory 

was not entitled to the new DNA tests he sought. In the Illinois Supreme Court, 

the State contended the Criminal Code only allowed defendants to seek a new DNA 

test on old evidence when the tests results would completely vindicate them. The 

State pointed out that even if the new DNA tests Savory wanted established the 

blood stain on the trousers was not the dead sister’s, this did not mean Savory had 

not stabbed her to death. 

Writing for a unanimous seven justice Illinois Supreme Court, Justice Mary Ann 

McMorrow explained evidence which is ‘‘materially relevant’’ to a defendant’s claim 

of actual innocence is simply evidence which tends to advance the claim significantly. Justice McMorrow wrote, ‘‘Accordingly, we hold that section 116-3 is not limited to situations in which scientific testing of a certain piece of evidence would completely exonerate a defendant.’’ Justice McMorrow then moved on to rule that even 

given this fact, Savory was not entitled to the new DNA tests he requested. The 

bloodstained trousers, Justice McMorrow noted, were essentially a collateral issue 

at trial and were not central to the State’s evidence of Savory’s guilt. 

The consequence of the People v. Savory decision for justice in Illinois will be 

large. First, while past judges receiving prima facie case petitions might have been 

inclined to accept them at face value, in the future they should be more likely to 

look behind the defendant’s claims for what the evidence really will show. Second, 

lawyers representing prisoners alleging innocence regularly confront situations 

where information from evidence analysis may produce important facts, but will not 

totally exonerate their clients. These lawyers now have a ruling supporting ongoing, 

stepby-step attempts to collect facts that will accumulate and could be beneficial to 

people alleging wrongful convictions. 

(b) What role have you played in urging this important reform in your state? 

In 1998, the ISP, Division of Forensic Services, Forensic Sciences Command (DFS, 

FSC), supported the legislation that became section 116-3 of the Illinois Code of 

Criminal Procedure of 1963. With ISP backing, this legislation passed the Illinois 

General Assembly and was signed by then Governor Jim Edgar. The ISP, DFS, FSC 

top command’s position on this legislation was that anyone wrongfully convicted 

would want the opportunities this proposal provided to prove their innocence. At 

65

that time, the ISP, DFS, FSC top command understood the proposal would put additional demands on the ISP laboratory system’s personnel and equipment. The ISP 

provided the proposal’s sponsors and the governor with ‘‘best estimate’’ costs for 

these new analysis services, and followed with an explanation that what was really 

at issue was not costs, but was a matter of the fundamental fairness everyone had 

a right to expect from our criminal justice system.

Question 3: One problem sometimes faced by people seeking to prove their innocence is that the biological evidence has not been stored properly or, even worse, 

has been discarded by the state. 

(a) What procedures do you have in place in your lab to store biological evidence? 

Answer: Evidence received in criminal cases is kept in a sealed condition in the 

laboratory evidence vault under proper storage conditions (room temperature, refrigerator, or freezer, depending upon the type of biological evidence) until the case is 

analyzed and the case questions are answered. 

(b) Once a conviction has been obtained, how do you maintain the integrity of the 

biological evidence and store it? 

In most cases, the evidence has been introduced into court and therefore is no 

longer at the laboratory. If the evidence is not turned over to the court, the evidence 

is then returned in a sealed condition, along with any pertinent directions concerning evidence storage conditions, to the original submitting law enforcement 

agencies for appropriate evidence disposition. 

(c) In your state, how long is the state crime lab required to store biological evidence of a convicted offender? 

On June 23, 2000, Governor Ryan signed a bill (House Bill 4593) creating a uniform statewide evidence retention policy after the trial and conviction of a defendant. Responsibility to retain the evidence rests with the submitting law enforcement 

agency, not the crime laboratory. Retention times for the evidence vary depending 

upon the crime, from seven years following a conviction for a felony which requires 

the defendant’s genetic profile to be taken for comparison with a forensic DNA database of unsolved offenses, up to permanent retention for other specific convictions. 

(e) What are the procedures that your state crime lab follows in the event that 

the defense seeks access to the biological evidence and needs it transferred to a forensic lab retained by the 

When the defense seeks access to biological evidence, the ISP forensic science laboratories will, working through the state’s attorney’s office, either send the evidence 

directly to the defense forensic laboratory if all parties agree, or return the evidence 

to the submitting law enforcement agency where the defense can obtain the evidence to send it to a laboratory of their choice.

Responses of Richard J. Townsend to questions submitted by the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

fANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR PANEL II WITNESSES

Answer 1: In the state of Utah, Bureau of Forensic Services, in an accredited laboratory with the American Society of Crime Lab Directors—Laboratory Advisory 

Board. We became accredited in 1996 and are being inspected in July of 2001 (for 

reaccreditation during the next five years). Our laboratory system undergoes yearly 

internal and external reviews by AS CLDLAB approved auditors and we must 

present evidence of internal and external reviews on a yearly basis to ASCLD–LAB.

Answer 2: One hundred percent of our case analyses are technically and administratively reviewed. The peer review is generally conducted by a trained analyst in 

the discipline of the case. An administrative review is typically conducted by a peer 

or supervisor. Disagreements are resolved at the peer review level and, if necessary, 

a supervisor can interject his/her opinion on the results of the analysis.

Answer 3: All cases are assigned to principle criminaiists in each discipline, i.e., 

DNA cases to DNA criminalists, drug cases to chemistry criminalists, fingerprint 

cases to latent fingerprint examiners, etc. Each criminalist is responsible for his/her 

case reports which are logged into the Utah Evidence Tracking System.

Answer 4: Each new employee who will be doing case work undergoes an extensive training process in the discipline he/she is hired for. In drug chemistry, the typical training period is approximately one year, while it takes two years for a DNA 

analyst to become qualified and certified. There is a set training protocol for each 

66

discipline and every must undergo a certification process and pass proficiency examinations on a yearly basis.

Answer 5: Although the Bureau of Forensic Services is a section of the Utah Department of Public Safety, there is a pledge of mutual science in this laboratory system. We testify to scientific fact as determined by training, experience, instrumentation and education. Under no circumstances, are employees allowed to be persuaded 

or biased by the prosecution. By state statute, we are also obligated to perform analyses for the defense.

Answer 6a: I have never heard of Brain Fingerprinting technology. 

Answer 6b: No.

Answer 7: In Utah, we have developed a software program called the Utah Evidence Tracking System (VETS). Any piece of evidence brought to the Laboratory for 

analysis is bar coded prior to being accepted into the Laboratory system. All evidence must be properly sealed and labeled prior to being accepted by the evidence 

technicians.. Each time the evidence changes hands, a signature must be made on 

an evidence tracking sheet and the evidence is bar coded to the next examiner, who 

is assigned a personal bar code.

Answer 8: Biological fluids containing DNA evidence are preserved by freezing. If 

the sample being analyzed contains enough fluid for future analysis (either for reanalysis or defense analysis), the residual evidence is frozen. We store DNA profiles 

and DNA evidence indefinitely.

Responses of Richard J. Townsend to questions submitted by Senator 

fFeingold 

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR PANEL II WITNESSES

Answer 1: . To make a statement that ‘‘too often, forensic laboratories are run by 

law enforcement officers in lab coats’’ is both erroneous and offensive. As a law enforcement officer myself, one of the aspects I have admired most about the scientists 

who work in our forensic laboratory system is standing up for ‘‘the neutrality of the 

analysis’’ and going to the wall in defense of their analysis. It is a fact that at certain times police officers make an attempt to interject their opinions or persuade 

the analysis to go a certain direction. In my four years of being the Lab Administrator, I cannot cite one single case where that has been a factor in determining 

the results of the analysis. 

Answer 1a: This Laboratory System strongly supports post-conviction DNA analysis and is supported by Utah Senate Bill 172 which passed the 2001 general session of the Utah Legislature and is entitled ‘‘Post-Conviction DNA Testing’’. Answer 1b: I personally testified in favor in the passage of SB172 and the Bureau 

of Forensic Services currently has a board member serving on. the ‘‘Innocence 

Project’’ to screen any and all potential post-conviction DNA cases. 

Answer 2a: This Laboratory System does everything in its power to preserve DNA 

evidence in freezers. Many times, however, there is not enough of an evidentiary 

sample to preserve evidence after the analysis is completed. In certain cases, there 

is not even enough evidence preserved in order for it to be tested by a defense expert. 

Answer 2b: We continue to maintain the evidence by keeping it in a freezer. 

Answer 2c: There is no statutory mandate for the retention of biological evidence 

of a convicted offender in the state of Utah. However, we keep the evidence anyhow. 

Answer 2d : If enough of the evidence is present for defense expert examination, 

we will release the evidence to the defense in the very same way we release the 

analysis back to law enforcement and prosecutors.

Responses of Michael T. Yura to questions submitted by the Committee on 

fthe Judiciary 

Question 1: What is the laboratory accreditation for your states and what other 

types of external reviews do your laboratories undergo? 

Answer: The West Virginia State Police Forensic Laboratory is an accredited Laboratory through the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD). 

ASCLD accreditation is a voluntary process in which the lab demonstrates that its 

67

management, operations. personnel, procedures, equipment, physical plant, security, 

and health and safety procedures comply with established standards. 

According to ASCLD, the accreditation is part of the laboratory’s quality assurance program, which includes proficiency testing, continuing education, and other 

programs to help the laboratory provide better overall service to the criminal justice 

system. Accreditation is granted for a period of five years provided that a laboratory 

continues to meet ASCLD standards, including completion of the annual Accreditation Review Report and participation in proficiency testing programs as prescribed 

In order to maintain accreditation, a laboratory must submit a new Application for 

Accreditation every fifth year, and undergo another on-site inspection. Also, each 

section of the laboratory is required each year to undergo . proficiency testing conducted by ate outside source.

Question 2: What is your method for resolving disagreements among examiners 

over forensic methods or the interpretation of results? 

Answer: Currently, the West Virginia State Police Forensic Laboratory has no policy on resolving conflicts or disagreements of interpretations of results. However, efforts are in progress to address this with the intention of implementing a policy that 

will set a procedure for the handling of the types of matters.

Question 3: How is your work assigned, in terms of principle and auxiliary analysts, and who is responsible for the preparation of reports? 

Answer: Cases are assigned to qualified analysts as they are submitted to the laboratory. The Section Head of each laboratory department is responsible in overseeing that the work of each qualified analyst is completed as well as verified. As 

for the writing of the reports, analysts are responsible for writing up reports for the 

evidence that they analyzed Afterwards, each written report is subjected to both as 

administrative and technical review.

Question 4: What are the training requirements for you personnel? 

Answer: The West Virginia State Police Forensic Laboratory is composed of seven 

sections. Due to the differences in each section, the type of training required is also 

different; however, each person is required to meet a certain criteria through training in order fin meet the standards of a qualified analyst. Each person is subject 

rigorous on-the-job training, must regularly participate in specialized schools related 

to their field, undergo proficiency testing on a regular basis, and participate in continuing education in laboratory standards and procedures. Also the length of the 

training varies from section to section as the entry-level educational requirements.

Question 5: How do you guard against prosecutorial bias? 

Answer: Analysts within the West Virginia State Police Forensic Laboratory act 

as an interpreter of the evidence, not as an advocate of the prosecution or the defense. In court, the job of the analyst is to help the jury and other members of the 

court understand only what can be determined from the evidence- This philosophy 

is instilled into analysts during their training process and is continually strengthened during their career.

Question 6: Brain fingerprinting is the use of a computer-based tecnology to identify the perpetrator of a crime by measuring brain-wave responses to crime-relevant 

words or pictures presented on a computer screen. These brain wave responses are 

called MERMERs (memory and encoding related multifaceted 

electronencephalographic responses), which are elicited when the brain processes 

noteworthy information that it recognizes. According to the technology’s proponents, 

when details of the crime that only the perpetrator would know are presented, a 

MERMER is emitted by the brain of the prepetrator. The brain of an innocent suspect would not emit a MERMER because there would not be recognition of the information presented. 

A. Are you familiar with the Brain Fingerprinting technology? If you are, do you 

have an opinion on the validity of this technology? 

B. Is this technology being used in your laboratories, and if so, how sucessful has 

it been? 

Answer A: Yes, members of the West Virginia State Police Forensic Laboratory 

are familiar with the new technology of Brain Fingerprinting. As mentioned in the 

statement above, it is a type of program developed by Dr. Lawrence Farwell of the 

Harvard Medical School that fingerprints brain waves of a suspect as they relate 

to crime-related information. According to the results of studies conducted, Brain 

Fingerprinting appears to be a new valid technology in the criminal justice system. 

According to results, Farwell Brain Fingerprinting has proven 100% accurate in 100 

tests conducted, including tests done on FBI agents, US intelligence agents, and for 

the US Navy. Also Brain Fingerprinting was presented in an Iowa court and was 

found admissible by the judge. Three science utilized by the Farwell technique was 

evaluated under the Daubed standard and passed all four aspects of tie standard. 

68

Answer B: This technology is currently not being conducted in our laboratories. 

The Farwell Brain Fingerprinting technique is a new technology, and unfortunately, 

is only being used in a handful of laboratories across the nation.

Question 7: How do your crime labs maintain the integrity of the chain of custody, 

so that evidence is not compromised? 

Answer: The West Virginia State Police Forensic Laboratory operates under a 

strict guideline for chain-of-custody. As evidence is received, it is checked for proper 

packaging, which includes appropriate seals. An inventory is made of the evidence 

and it is resealed by the analyst and placed in a secure storage locker until processed. After processing, it is resealed until such time that it is returned in person 

or sent by certified mail. If the evidence is transferred to another section for examination, the appropriate documentation is made and follows the evidence. The packaging, the actual evidence, and any labels will be marked with the analyst’s case number and initials.

Question 8: How do you preserve evidence containing DNA for use in later testing 

and for how long do you keep such evidence? 

Answer: As is standard procedure, DNA evidence is kept in secure freezes at a 

constant temperature of -76° C. The West Virginia State Police Forensic Laboratory 

Biochemistry Section houses all DNA evidence indefinitely.

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

f Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Laboratory, Washington, DC 

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is very abundant in most human cells. Each cell literally has thousands of copies of MtDNA. This is contrasted to the two copies (maternal and paternal) of nuclear DNA present in most human cells such as semen, 

blood, and skin. The multitude of mtDNA copies present in tissue samples, however, 

increases the likelihood that some will persist intact in samples where nuclear DNA 

has been degraded by bacteria, sunlight, or other insults. Consequently, certain tissues (e.g., hair, bones, teeth) having little nuclear DNA often can be successfully 

analyzed for mtDNA when conventional DNA analysis would not be effective. 

MtDNA is passed to each generation through the maternal line and is most useful 

in abduction and assault cases (in which hairs may be recovered) and identification 

of human remains. Biological evidence recovered in missing persons cases is often 

in advanced stages of decomposition (with little or no nuclear DNA remaining intact). In such cases, mtDNA may be the only form of DNA testing possible. Because 

mtDNA is inherited through the maternal line, reference samples for comparison 

purposes can be collected from the mother or other living maternal relatives of the 

putative victim. Although it provides less statistically significant results than conventional DNA when matches are found, mtDNA is often the only means of analyzing degraded tissue and has proven to be a very powerful investigative tool in 

recent years. 

The FBI Laboratory began forensic mtDNA analysis in June 1996 after four years 

of research and validation. To date, nearly 700 cases have been completed and testimony has been provided in 26 states, Canada and Australia. As its success has 

grown, demand for mtDNA testing far outstrips the FBI Laboratory’s current or 

likely future capacity. Anticipating the need for other crime laboratories to develop 

their own mtDNA capabilities, in 1998, the FBI Laboratory began training forensic 

scientists in mtDNA analysis in a two-week course at the FBI Academy in Quantico, 

Virginia. So far, personnel have been trained from sixteen state and local crime laboratories, and three foreign countries. 

The FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) includes a Missing Persons 

Index which matches DNA profiles resulting from analysis of tissue samples containing nuclear DNA or mtDNA. Unfortunately, none of the 123 state and local laboratories currently participating in CODIS can take full advantage of the Missing 

Persons Index because they do not conduct mtDNA analysis required to enter 

mtDNA profiles in the Index. For CODIS to reach its full potential as an investigative tool, and if all the nation’s criminal justice system is to benefit from mtDNA 

testing, capacity must be expanded to provide nationwide coverage. 

The FBI Laboratory remains the only public crime laboratory conducting mtDNA 

testing—mostly for reasons related to funding. Although laboratory equipment required for mtDNA analysis is similar to other current methods for DNA analysis, 

three major factors significantly increase the cost and difficulty of establishing 

mtDNA analysis, even in crime laboratories with well-established DNA programs. 

69

First, and most significant, stringent quality assurance standards require dedication 

of separate rooms and laboratory equipment—which is expensive, consumes precious 

laboratory space, and cannot be used for other purposes. Second, supplies and laboratory reagents required for mtDNA are more expensive than for any other routine 

forensic analysis technique, including conventional DNA analysis. And, Third, 

mdDNA requires special software for data analysis which is relatively expensive. 

The FBI Laboratory proposes to establish a nationwide mtDNA laboratory network. As envisioned, the FBI Laboratory would administer a network of six to eight 

state and local crime laboratories that are Federally funded to provide mtDNA testing services to state and local criminal justice agencies. With new appropriations for 

program expenditures, the FBI will be responsible for selecting laboratories in the 

network, training personnel, providing annual funding, and assessing adherence to 

standards for quality assurance. 

To carry out program management responsibilities, including training and quality 

assurance for regional laboratories conducting forensic mtDNA analysis, the FBI 

Laboratory will require one GS-14 Program Manager, two GS-13/14 Examiners, two 

GS-11/12 Biologists and two GS-13/14 Quality Assurance Specialists. Funding for 

additional training equipment and related supply and reagent costs associated with 

mtDNA testing would also be required that would be similar to start up costs for 

a regional laboratory (i.e., approximately $1 million). Current equipment in the FBI 

Laboratory used for casework would be inappropriate for quality assurance testing 

necessary for monitoring the network laboratories. 

With appropriate support, several public crime laboratories in the U.S. could successfully conduct mtDNA in forensic casework. Such laboratories have already established testing programs for nuclear DNA and, with additional equipment and 

supply budgets, could provide mtDNA analysis within specified regions of the U.S. 

That way, all crime laboratories would have access to service that is close to home 

while avoiding duplication of mtDNA capabilities because mtDNA laboratories 

would be of sufficient size to operate efficiently. Thus, access to mtDNA would expand while minimizing overall costs to the nation.The FBI Laboratory estimates 

that the average start-up cost for each laboratory to prepare for mtDNA testing is 

approximately $1 million. This estimate is based on laboratory building enhancements, equipment needs, supply purchases, and training requirements. In addition 

to start-up costs, each laboratory will need an additional $100,000 - $200,000 annually for supplies and reagent related to mtDNA analysis.

2 genetic analyzers (sequencing, i.e., ABI 3100, ABI 377) ........................................................................................ 270,000

4 luminometers (mtDNA quantitation) ......................................................................................................................... 100,000

2 to 4 Taqman or Beckman CEs (post-PCR quantitation) ......................................................................................... 300,000

thermal cyclers, dedicated sampling equipment ........................................................................................................ 130,000

dedicated extraction, PCR and sequencing reagents .................................................................................................. 200,000

Estimated TOTAL ........................................................................................................................................ 1,000,000

PROSPECTIVE SITES FOR MTDNA LABORATORIES

The following state and local crime laboratories are recognized leaders in nuclear 

DNA testing and have the potential and desire to develop a mtDNA testing capability. Some have begun making laboratory renovations required for mtDNA testing. 

Many have sent analysts to the FBI Laboratory mtDNA school. This list is not inclusive of potentially qualified sites, but highlights possible participants in the program. 

Albuquerque Police Department Crime Laboratory 

400 Rorna Northwest, Albuquerque, NM 87102

Phoenix Police Department Crime Laboratory 

620 Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003

Arkansas State Crime Lab 

#3 Natural Resources Drive, Little Rock, AR 72215

Illinois State Police Research and Development Laboratory 

2060 Hill Meadows Drive, Springfield, IL 62702

Harris County Texas Medical Examiner’s Office 

1885 Old Spanish Trail, Houston, TX 77035

New York City Medical Examiner’s Office 

520 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016

Georgia Bureau of Investigation(GBI) Crime Laboratory 

Post Office Box 370808, Decatur, GA 30037

New York State Police Crime Laboratory 

1220 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12226

70

California Department of Justice 

626 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, CA 94710

Florida Department of Law Enforcement 

4211–A North Lois Avenue, Tampa, FL 33614

Virginia Division of Forensic Science 

1501 East Franklin Street, Richmond, VA 23219

Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory 

2102 West Encanto Boulevard, Phoenix, AZ 85009

Ohio BCI and Crime Laboratories 

Statement of Terry W. Fenger, Marshall University, Forensic Science 

P.O. Box 365, London, OH 43140

fProgram 

As director of the Forensic Science Program and the West Virginia, CODIS laboratory at Marshall University in Huntington, WV., I would like to congratulate Senators Hatch, Sessions, Leahy and Feingold on your efforts to fund the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act. The hearing on May 15, 2001 emphasized urgent needs of the forensic science community and how delayed testing 

of crime evidence is directly related to understaffed and minimally funded forensic 

laboratories. As many forensic scientists near retirement, it is even more imperative 

that a new generation of forensic specialists be trained in this technologically oriented field. 

With this objective in mind the Master’s degree granting program in Forensic 

Science at Marshall University has been working in close association with the West 

Virginia State Police. Under a Memorandum of Understanding Marshall’s Program 

has provided continuing education courses, in addition to courses that allowed 5 

State Police forensic scientists to graduate with Master’s degrees. Our relationship 

is unique and dates back to 1992. In addition, over the last 5 years 70 forensic scientists have graduated from the program and have been eagerly recruited by the 

forensic community. 

Marshall University’s Forensic Science Center is also responsible for performing 

the State’s DNA profiling for the state’s offender database under the authority of 

the WV State Police. Through the use of bar coding of offender samples and other 

secure methods, we are able to maintain confidentiality and meet standards issued 

by the DNA Advisory Board. 

As many new and exiting technologies become available for use in forensic 

science, the courts and the communities that we serve, expect that sophisticated instruments will be used to solve cases. The price tags on many instruments can be 

daunting and at the present time most local and even some state labs lack these 

capabilities. Furthermore, once the instruments are acquired extensive training and 

validations studies are necessary. Higher education can provide instrument training, which will allow crime laboratories to concentrate on casework and testifying 

in court. 

It is my opinion that Marshall University and the WV State Police have developed 

a beneficial association, which serves as a model for similar collaborations, nationally. We are maximizing the use of our limited resources, but we look to your leadership to for enhanced funding for forensic laboratories as we move into the next millennium. 

This statement is given on behalf of the May 15’, 2001 US Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act. 

We thank the Members of the Committee for this chance to explain the need for 

an increase in support for forensic science research and education. 

Forensic science is relatively young, with its roots stretching back only 150 years. 

Modern forensics and criminalistics is even younger, having emerged as a valid and 

accepted format of investigation during the early Twentieth Century, very much in 

parallel with Quantum Theory. Just as Newtonian Theory changed to Quantum 

Theory, so has forensics undergone an evolution, from looking at the large to the 

microscopically tiny. However, the importance of forensic science is in no way microscopic. Simply put, forensic science solves cases and catches criminals. It exonerates 

the innocent and convicts the guilty, even years after the crime has been committed 

and without the need for witnesses. 

‘‘The most tangible way in which science, especially chemistry, can be concerned 

with the well-being of society is its use in the maintenance of the fabric of society 

as expressed in constant vigil against crime.’’

71

BRITISH FORENSIC SOCIETY JOURNAL

Forensic science is the tool that allows the justice system to increase security 

through order, thus establishing peace in society. Order means fewer redundant arrests via the removal of recidivist criminals, and speedy and efficient trials without 

excess appeals due to the improper collection, handling, storage and analysis of evidence. 

It will be imperative, using the Coverdell Bill, to increase funding for the field 

of forensic science in general, and the National Institute of Justice in particular. 

There are several vital reasons for the advent of increased funding. First, there is 

a titanic backlog of unsolved and uninvestigated cases in the United States. Because 

of this backlog, there are a great number of repeat offenders that haven’t been 

caught and jailed. Second, there is also a need to develop new forensic science technologies. Criminals continue to gain access to better technology for use in their 

crimes, and so the justice system must endeavor to advance its own technology in 

order to capture them. More advanced technology will help deal with the escalating 

amount of scientific analysis casework. It will also help to deal with the increase 

of technology-related crimes including cyber-crimes. However, creating new forensic 

science technology will take time. Many labs lack equipment or have equipment that 

is outdated. These labs need access to current forensic technology simply to make 

them viable and accredited. Finally, investigators and scientists in the justice system need continuing education and the justice system, itself, needs more investigators and scientists. 

Large sums of money are currently being allocated for the creation of new police 

officers (including community policing), and new courts and community-based nonpolice justice efforts. By diverting a small percentage of these funds, combined with 

a modest increase in the general fund allocation for the Coverdell Bill, an estimated 

$50–100 million in new money could be raised for forensic science. These funds 

would allow forensic science to help the justice system solve and investigate more 

criminal cases, train personnel, and replace outdated equipment. Such benefits 

would make a large increase in new police officers unnecessary, allowing currently 

allocated funding to be distributed among existing police officers, thereby increasing 

salaries, and health and retirement benefits. 

Four specific groups will immediately benefit from increased forensic science funding: law enforcement personnel, courts, taxpayers, and government officials. Law enforcement personnel will see a decrease in the backlog of criminal cases as they gain 

the tools they need to investigate and solve crime. This also means an enhanced 

ability to catch and convict repeat offenders. Funding for forensic sciences means 

greater physical safety and less job-related stress to law enforcement personnel. 

These things combined will result in lower healthcare and worker’s compensation 

costs and increased job satisfaction. Courts will be able handle trials with speed and 

efficiency, leading to a larger throughput with lowered court costs, and ultimately 

fewer hearings and appeals. These substantially lowered court costs will mean that 

taxpayers will have less tax to pay for a more efficient and just legal system. In 

addition, this more efficient and just legal system will reduce crime dramatically. 

Reduced crime means reduced associated costs on society. These costs include 

healthcare, insurance, item replacement (due to theft and fire), and more. These 

benefits mean more satisfied taxpayers. More satisfied taxpayers mean an increase 

in political support and participation by satisfied constituents. With satisfied constituents government officials will be able to continue to enact programs and policies 

that advance health, education, and welfare in society. 

Once again, we thank the Members of the Committee for having had this chance 

to explain the need for an increase in support for forensic science research and education, including the National Institute of Justice, through the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act. 

James Kirchoff, Jonathan Lucke, Frank McManus, Francis Nottke 

Pima Community College, the University of Arizona, Opto-Forensic Technologies

Statement of the Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, D.C. 

fOVERVIEW

In August and September 1999, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and 

The Justice and Safety Center, Eastern Kentucky University (EKL1), conducted a 

survey of law enforcement agencies on behalf of the National Commission on the 

Future of DNA Evidence. The purpose of the survey was to estimate the number 

72

of rape or sexual assault cases with possible DNA evidence that have not been submitted for DNA examination and the reasons why that evidence was not submitted 

for testing. Eastern Kentucky University conducted a survey of smaller law enforcement agencies, while PERF examined the larger police and law enforcement organizations. The scope of inquiry was restricted to the examination of rape and sexual 

assault cases, based on the notion that DNA evidence was regularly considered in 

the course of those investigations. 

METHODOLOGY

For the purpose of analysis, a distinction was made between larger and smaller 

law enforcement agencies, since an agency’s size, resource base, and investigative 

experiences influenced how cases with DNA evidence were addressed. As a result, 

EKU examined a total of 153 organizations where the population in the jurisdiction 

did not exceed 50,000 and the department employed ten officers or less. PERF conducted a survey of 1221aw enforcement agencies in which each department served 

a population of 50,000 or more or employed more than one hundred full time sworn 

and civilian personnel. While a final report related to smaller organizations has 

been prepared by EKU, results from their survey have been incorporated into this 

document for comparative purposes. 

A survey target list of larger polis agencies was drawn from the PERF membership directores, specifically from the category of ‘‘General Member.’’ General Members must meet the following criteria:

a. The executive head of a municipal, county or state-funded agency that 

provides general and basic police services; 

b. The agency must have at least 100 full-time employees, or serve a population of 50,000 or more people; and 

c. The executive head must have at least a baccalaureate degree from an 

accredited college or university.

Although the PERF membership list includes a number of international and national organizations, the agencies asked to participate in the survey were based in 

the United States, and having the authority to engage in criminal investigations 

where there existed a potential to examine evidence containing DNA. Organizations 

selected under the above criteria were divided into two groups. A minimum of 50 

agencies would supply answers to an in-depth telephone survey and the remaining 

qualifying agencies would be asked to respond through a shorter fax survey. 

The telephone survey consisted of a series of questions in a three-page format. 

The agencies were contacted by telphone and arrangements were made to send copies of the three page questionnaire for completion. Respondents would transmit 

their results by telephone to a PERF reqpresentative. This process was adopted because some of the survey questions required an examination of records that would 

involve research by the respondent. To ensure a minimum response quota of 50, a 

total of 73 agencies received copies of the telephone survey. Within the allotted time 

period of August 23 to September 17, 1999, 50 out of a possible 73 responses were 

received. 

The fax survey was sent to 125 agencies and 72 were received within the allotted 

time period of September 2 to 22, 1999. The fax format incorporated a truncated 

version of the telephone survey, comprising two pages of questions that looked at 

the number of rape kits in storage, the percentage of rape kits with potential DNA 

evidence that are tested, and factors which the agencies perceived to be barriers to 

submissions for DNA testing. 

RESULTS

DEMOGRAPHICS

Combining the EKU and PERF surveys resulted in a total of 275 responses. Table 

1 illustrates the originating states of the individual survey respondents, organized 

into the regional categories used in this study. Table 1 also shows the proportionate 

groupings by region along with the total number of responses. Representation across 

regions is roughly equal apart from the Southwestern states since this region is 

composed of fewer states than other regions.

Table 1: State and Regional Groupings 

Southeast Northeast West Southwest Midwest 

Alabama Connecticut Alaska Arizona Illinois 

Arkansas Delaware California New Mexico Indiana 

73

Table 1: State and Regional Groupings—Continued

Southeast Northeast West Southwest Midwest 

Florida Maine Colorado Oklahoma Iowa 

Georgia Maryland Hawaii Texas Kansas 

Kentucky Massachusetts Idaho Michigan 

Louisiana New Hampshire Montana Minnesota 

Mississippi New Jersey Nevada Missouri 

North Carolina New York Oregon Nebraska 

South Carolina Pennsylvania Utah North Dakota 

Tennessee Rhode Island Washington Ohio 

Virginia Vermont Wyoming South Dakota 

West Virginia Wisconsin 

79 56 52 24 64

28.7% 20.4% 18.9% 8.7% 23.3%

Municipal police agencies represented the largest number of survey respondents, 

with 76.4% reporting results. The second largest group, county sheriffs, represented 

18.9% of the total, or 52 agencies. County police, other agencies, state police, and 

university police agencies comprised the remaining agencies. Urban, rural and suburban organizations were included in the study. In terms of agency size, agencies 

with two to fifteen sworn personnel made up 35.6% of the total number, with the 

next highest proportion in the one hundred to four hundred sworn member agencies 

at 25.8% . Organizations of one thousand or more sworn members represented 6.2% 

of the survey population. Tables 2 and 3 present the distribution between agency 

types and the compositions of the agencies by sworn and civilian personnel.

Table 2: Agency Distribution 

Agency Type Number Percent 

County Police 8 2.9

County Sheriff 52 18.9

Municipal Police 210 76.4

Other 3 1.1 

State 1 .4

University 1 .4

Total 275 100

Table 3: Sworn and Civilian Personnel Distribution 

Sworn Personnel Number of Departments Percentage 

2–8 49 17.8

9–15 49 17.8

16–22 27 9.8

23–29 10 3.6

30–50 18 6.5

51–100 15 5.5

101–200 39 14.2

201–400 32 11.6

401–1000 19 6.9

1000+ 17 6.2

Total 275 100

Civilian

Personnel 

Number of

Departments Percentage 

0–6 106 38.5

7–13 33 12.0

14–20 12 4.4

21–27 10 3.6

28–75 48 17.5

76–200 41 14.9

201–500 13 4.7

500+ 12 4.4

74

Civilian

Personnel 

Number of

Departments Percentage 

Total 275 100

Population distribution values revealed that 62.2% of the agencies surveyed provided policing services to areas of 1,000 to 100,000 people, 12% of the survey group 

worked in areas with populations of 100,000 to 500,000, and 5.4% of the agencies 

were responsible for areas of 500,000 or more people. One agency failed to provide 

service population data. Table 4 presents the population variations and agency distributions between population groups.

Table 4: Population Distribution 

Population Number Percent 

1,000–13,000 104 37.8

14,000–26,000 30 10.9

27,000–39,000 14 5.1

40,000–50,000 15 5.5

50,001–100,000 63 22.9

100,001–250,000 22 8.0

250,001–500,000 11 4.0

500,001–1,000,000 8 2.9

1,000,000+ 7 2.5

Missing Data 1 .4

Total 275 100

The 275 agencies responding to the survey accounted for approximately 118,000 

employees, sworn and civilian, and a service population of nearly 46,000,000 people. 

DNA PROCESSING DATA 

The agencies were asked to respond to a series of questions related to their experiences with evidence and DNA testing and evaluation. In the first series, respondents were asked if their department assessed evidence to determine whether potential DNA samples could be present. In the overall analysis, 70.2% of all agencies 

surveyed revealed that they did assess evidence for potential DNA samples, 29.8%, 

indicated they did not make such assessments. Marked differences were seen when 

the practices of larger departments were measured against the practices of smaller 

organizations. The data revealed that within the group of larger organizations, 

86.9% would examine evidence with an eye to the potential of DNA analysis, while 

in the smaller agencies, only 56.9% would assess evidence for potential DNA. These 

differences can be attributed to the likelihood that more serious criminal offenses, 

those that could generate requests for DNA analysis, would be prevalent in the jurisdictions of the larger agencies. Additionally, training opportunities and a corresponding increased general awareness on the part of individuals in larger organizations may prove to explain the marked differences in practices. Table 5 illustrates 

the proportional variances.

Table 5: Assessment of Evidence for Potential DNA 

Total Number Total Percent Large Depts. Percent Small Depts. Percent 

No 82 29.8 16 13.1 66 43.1

Yes 193 70.2 106 86.9 87 56.9

Total 275 100 122 100 153 100

Many of the agencies (64%) indicated that they submitted evidence to the state 

laboratory for analysis. A large number (27.3%) either failed to respond to the question, or did not know where samples were sent. Six respondents, or 2.2%, used county laboratories, and private laboratories were used by an equivalent number of 

agencies at 2.5%. In 2.9% of the responses, samples went to combinations of state 

and private laboratories, or state and county laboratories. Where funds existed, 

some jurisdictions developed in-house laboratories. Three of the jurisdictions surveyed reported having or developing in-house laboratories: the Albuquerque Police 

Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff, and the Phoenix Police Department. 

75

The data illustrated, however, the predominance of the state laboratories as DNA 

testing centers.

Table 6: Laboratory Frequencies 

Laboratory Type Number Percent 

County Lab 6 2.2

Private Lab 7 2.5

State Lab 176 64.0

Private & State Labs 6 2.2

In-house Lab 3 1.1

State & County Labs 2 .7

Unknown 3 1.1

No Response 72 26.2

Total 275 100

When asked if their respective departments had policies regarding submissions of 

samples to laboratories, the data showed that nearly three quarters of the survey 

group have no specific policies (74.5%). Variations between larger and smaller departments showed that the larger departments were more likely to have a policy 

than the smaller departments. Table 7 illustrates the variations between larger and 

smaller departments.

Table 7: Policies Governing DNA Submissions 

Total Number Total Percent Large Depts. Percent Small Depts. Percent 

No 205 74.5 85 69.7 120 78.4

Yes 70 25.5 37 30.3 33 21.6

Total 275 100 122 100 153 100

Potentials for DNA evidence arising from reported rape or sexual assault incidents, and the number of cases that actually end up being analyzed for DNA, were 

explored through two specific questions. The first question sought to estimate the 

percentage of reported rape and sexual assault cases that have the potential for 

DNA evidence. An analysis of the total number of responses showed that most departments felt that DNA was potentially available in 25% or more of their cases. 

The real differences were seen in the breakdowns between larger and smaller departments. Within the group of larger departments, 78.7% felt that more than 25% 

of their rape and sexual assault cases had potential DNA evidence. Only 9% of the 

larger departments did not know how many cases could have DNA evidence. An 

analysis of the responses from smaller departments showed that only 47.6% of the 

departments felt that more than 25% of their rape and sexual assault cases had potential DNA evidence. A total of 30.1 % of the smaller departments, however, did 

not know how many cases could have DNA evidence. Table 8 presents the data obtained in relation to the first question.

Table 8: Percentage of Reported Rape and Sexual Assault Offenses That Have the Potential For 

DNA Evidence 

Total Number Total Percent Large Depts. Percent Small Depts. Percent 

No Resp. 1 .4 1 .7

0–10% 22 8.0 3 2.5 19 12.4

11–25% 26 9.5 12 9.8 14 9.2

26–50% 56 20.4 31 25.4 25 16.3

51–75% 55 20.0 30 24.6 25 16.3

76–100% 58 21.1 35 28.7 23 15.0

Unknown 57 20.7 11 9.0 46 30.1

Total 275 100 122 100 153 100

The second question considered the number of reported rape and sexual assault 

cases with potential DNA evidence against the number that are actually analyzed 

for DNA. With the larger departments, 45.1% saw 76-100% of their cases analyzed 

for DNA, while 34.6% of the smaller departments had 76-100% of their cases tested. 

Real differences surfaced under the ′′Unknown′′ category. Of the larger departments, 

14.8% did not know how many of their cases were actually analyzed. The smaller 

76

departments showed a higher percentage, with 34.6% not knowing how many of 

their cases were analyzed. Table 9 illustrates these values.

Table 9: Percentage of Reported Rape and Sexual Assault Offenses That Are Analyzed For DNA 

Evidence 

Total Number Total Percent Large Depts. Percent Small Depts. Percent 

0–10 34 12.4 10 8.2 24 15.7

11–25 29 10.5 23 18.9 6 3.9

26–50 23 8.4 12 9.8 11 7.2

51–75 9 3.3 3 2.5 6 3.9

76–100 108 393 55 45.1 53 34.6

Unknown 71 25.8 18 14.8 53 34.6

Missing 1 .4 1 .8

Total 275 100 122 100 153 100

Differences were also noted when the survey respondents were asked if they submitted DNA samples to the state offender database. The larger departments were 

more likely to submit DNA samples to a state offender database, with 85 or 69.7% 

responding in the affirmative. Of the smaller departments, 58 or 37.9% indicated 

that they make submissions to their state database. It should be noted that the survey of the smaller departments also included a question on submissions to a national database. Of those smaller departments that responded, 67% stated they did 

not make submissions, 7% indicated that they did make submissions, and 26% 

failed to answer the question. Table 10 presents the breakdown of submissions to 

the state database.

Table 10: Submissions to State’s Offender Database 

Total Number Total Percent Large Depts. Percent Small Depts. Percent 

No 1121 44.0 34 27.9 87 56.9

Yes 143 52.0 85 69.7 58 37.9

Missing 11 4.0 3 2.5 8 5.2

Total 275 100 122 100 153 100

The fifty larger agencies responding to the telephone survey were asked an additional question about laboratory acceptance guidelines. A larger number (62%) indicated that the laboratories have acceptance guidelines which may include stipulations such as requiring an offender or suspect profile, limitations onthe types of 

tests that could be performed, specific packaging procedures, or testing only for a 

specific group of offenses. In general, the more serious offenses would receive first 

consideration by the laboratories, supplanted only by cases with impending court 

dates. Cases with tight court-related time limits would be pushed forward in the 

queue of cases waiting for testing, creating the conditions for a backlog. Table t I 

illustrates the proportional responses.

Table 11: Laboratories With Acceptance Guidelines: Large Agency Telephone Survey 

Total Number Total Percent 

No 13 26

Yes 31 62

Unknown 6 12

Total 50 100

The survey process addressed the issue of case backlogs and the relationship to 

police perceptions of why DNA evidence may not be processed. One indicator of case 

backlogs is the number of rape kits remaining in storage, or left unprocessed for 

DNA testing. Two qualifiers must be attached to any examination of the number 

of unprocessed rape kits and relationships to backlogs in conducting DNA tests. 

First, in many jurisdictions, some rape kits are not processed for DNA testing because of cases categorized as unfounded, or where the victim failed or refused to attend court. Further, in some jurisdictions, approval to forward a sample for analysis 

rests with the prosecutor because of these court-related issues. Secondly, the total 

number of rape kits must be regarded as preliminary because of the various protocols around the storage and the accounting of the rape kits. Some jurisdictions store 

77

rape kits in laboratories and police property facilities, and others in area hospitals 

where the respective examinations occurred. In some instances, police agencies were 

only able to provide estimations because they had no accurate account of the number of kits in storage. Notwithstanding these issues, the number of stored rape kits 

still serves as a reasonable estimation of the magnitude of backlogged cases (restricted to rape and sexual assault offenses) relating to DNA analysis. Of the 232 

agencies that responded to the question, 14 or 5.4% of the total sample retained the 

largest number’’’ of rape kits, a total of 24,943 kits.

Table 12: Rape Kits Not Submitted For Processing 

Number of Rape Kits Not Processed Number of Depts. Percent of Sample Total Number of Unprocessed Rape Kits 

0 113 41.1 0

1–10 47 17.1 177

11–50 32 12 943

51–100 15 5.7 1183

201–500 11 4.2 4262

501+ 14 5.4 24,943

Totals 232 31,508

The survey subsequently examined the reasons why cases would not be submitted 

for DNA testing. The respondents were asked to consider a list of reasons, or commonly held beliefs, around the difficulties of having samples sent for DNA analysis. 

These reasons included: Cost/Financial Restrictions, Lack of Technology at the Designated Crime Laboratory, Backlog at the Laboratory, Laboratory Guidelines Restrict DNA Processing, Departmental Limitations to Cases with a High Likelihood 

of Prosecution, Department Awaiting New Technology that Would Enable Searches 

of CODIS, and Other Factors. Those completing the surveys were then asked to rate 

each of the reasons along a scale from 1 to 6, with 1 signifying the most important 

consideration and 6 being the least important consideration. The ‘‘Other Factors’’

category was included for commentary in the event none of the primary reasons applied in a department’s considerations. The exercise proved useful in terms of identifying the important issues, either experienced or perceived, facing law enforcement 

agencies when they consider submission of evidence for DNA analysis. The results 

were averaged, thus, the data portrayed in Tables 13 and 14, illustrate the most 

important considerations as lower values, the less important considerations as higher values. Table 13 compares the responses between the large (those with 50,000 

or more population or more than 100 full time employees) departments and the 

smaller agencies (with less than 50,000 populations). Table 14 illustrates the distinctions between departments with large backlogs (50 or more rape kits unprocessed) and departments with smaller backlogs (under 50 unprocessed kits).

Table 13: Reasons For Non-Submission—Large vs. Small Departments 

Reasons Large Depts. Small Depts. All 

Financial restrictions 3.73 3.88 3.80

Lack of laboratory technology 4.39 4.46 4.42

Backlog at laboratory 3.39 4.52 3.89

Lab guideline restrictions 3.43 4.89 4.09

Department limits cases 3.54 4.53 4.00

Department waiting for new technology 5.05 5.08 5.05

Table 14: Reasons For Non-Submission—Large Backlogs vs. Small Backlogs 

Reasons 50 & Over Under 50

Financial Restrictions 3.22 4.26

Lack of laboratory technology 4.42 4.61

Backlog at laboratory 2.87 4.28

Lab guideline restrictions 3.44 4.46

Department limits cases 3.63 4.26

Department waiting for new technology 4.88 5.07

The responses showed that backlogs at the laboratory and restrictions imposed at 

the laboratory or at departmental levels were cited as the predominant reasons for 

non-submissions. Backlogs and restrictions, moreover, were noted as important facVerDate Feb 1 2002 09:40 Mar 27, 2002 Jkt 078008 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\HEARINGS\78008.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
78

tors more frequently with the larger departments than the smaller agencies. Those 

with 50 or more rape kits in storage saw the laboratory backlogs as a problem more 

frequently than those with less than 50 rape kits in storage. For the agencies with 

50 or more rape kits in storage, moreover, backlogs at laboratories stand significantly apart from the other reasons with an average of 2.87. Financial restrictions 

are seen to occupy the second most important category, with laboratory and departmental guidelines as being the third and fourth most perceived or experienced impediments to DNA submissions. 

RESULTS FROM THE EXPANDED TELEPHONE SURVEY

From the telephone surveys of the larger agencies, it was revealed that in most 

cases, detectives in charge of the individual cases and secondly, their supervisors, 

would decide if evidence was suitable for DNA analysis. Many agencies relied on 

standard evidence collection techniques in reference to DNA samples. The survey revealed little formal training for investigators charged with the responsibility of collecting DNA samples, and national training standards for investigators were not 

evident. Crime Scene Technicians are more likely to have formal training in collection techniques and often made decisions on the viability of samples for DNA analysis, notwithstanding the detectives were officially recognized as the ones making 

the decision. In the absence of Crime Scene Technicians, investigating detectives 

would often consult with a supervisor when making decisions on evidence to be forwarded for DNA analysis.

Table 16: Who Decides What Evidence Will Be Submitted For DNA Analysis 

Position Number Percent 

Crime Laboratory Technician 4 8

Crime Scene Technician 2 4

Investigating Detective 35 70

District Attorney 2 4

Detective Supervisor 7 14

Totals 50 100

The group of larger agencies responding to the telephone survey was asked to 

identify the offenses for which DNA analysis would be considered if evidence were 

found. Of the 50 respondents, 6 agencies considered the possibility of DNA evidence 

when investigating all felonies, and 34 agencies considered DNA evidence only when 

investigating rapes and homicides. Indeed, agency representatives often advised 

that policies of their respective departments did not preclude DNA analysis for all 

qualified offenses, they merely acknowledged that submission of samples from an 

unrestricted list of crimes would unnecessarily burden the laboratory and delay the 

analysis of all samples, including those from serious crimes. Further complicating 

the issue of submissions for DNA analysis, 22 of the agencies stated that they do 

not submit DNA samples unless they have a suspect profile against which a comparison can be made from existing records, 25 stated that they submit samples in 

all cases, and 3 respondents did not know if their submissions were limited to those 

with suspect profiles. 

Costs are generally not assessed against the submitting police agency if a state 

or county laboratory conducts DNA testing. In some jurisdictions, county or district 

prosecutors would be responsible for the costs ofDNA testing after arraignment or 

if they wanted the sample to be tested at a private laboratory. If backlogs prevented 

samples from being tested with expediency, police agencies would often send the 

samples to private laboratories and assume the costs of the tests. Costs billed to police agencies from the private laboratories ranged from $1000.00 to $5000.00 per 

sample. Table 17 illustrates a breakdown of estimated costs as provided by survey 

respondents.

Table 17: Summary of Cost Estimates 

Illinois State Crime Lab $450 to $1000.

North Carolina State Crime Lab $50 to $2500.

Oklahoma State Crime Lab $50 to $100.

Texas State Crime Lab $50 to $150.

Johnson County Kansas Crime Lab $550.

Georgia State Crime Lab $600.

79

Table 17: Summary of Cost Estimates—Continued

Massachusetts State Crime Lab $600 to $800.

New Jersey State Crime Lab $1500.

Colorado State Crime Lab $130.

Westchester County Crime Lab (NY) $250 (paid by D.A.) .

Michigan State Crime Lab $50.

MiamiDade County Crime Lab $50.

South Carolina State Crime Lab $100.

Washington State Crime Lab $900.

Arizona State Crime Lab $50.

New York State Police Lab $1400 to $1500.

Hamilton County Coroner’s Lab (OH) $480 (by police) .

Erie County Central Police Lab (NY) $3000.

(Data provided by survey respondents) 

A comparison was made between the number of reported forcible rapes against 

the total number of untested: rape kits in storage from data supplied by the 50 

agencies that submitted responses to the telephone survey and Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) of the latest year, 1997. During 1997, forty-two of the fifty agencies reported 3133 incidents of forcible rape. The fifty agencies collectively had 8487 untested rape kits in storage over varying periods of time. Reported rapes for 1997, 

therefore, represent 36.9% of the total number ofrape kits in storage—The percentages remain relatively consistent when we considered the entire group (n = 122) of 

PERF respondents. In 1997, a total of 12,472 forcible rapes were reported in the 

UCR, and the 122 agencies indicated that they were collectively storing 31,292 untested rape kits. Reported rapes for the entire group represented 39.8% of the total 

number of stored and untested rape kits. The data show that reported rapes for a 

given year represent slightly over one third of the total number of rape kits in storage. 

CONCLUSIONS

Results of the surveys show that the predominant issue facing the national DNA 

analysis infrastructure is the perception or experience ofundercapacity. As the benefits of DNA analysl?, become known on a bi oader scale, further pressures will be 

directed to laboratories to increase their capacities. At the present time, case backlogs and policy guidelines are generally limiting DNA analysis to only the major 

crimes like homicide and sexual assault. The potential for DNA analysis to regularly 

assist in the clearance of other offenses is acknowledged, but the data and interviews suggest the need for more laboratories and qualified personnel to conduct the 

tests. 

The state crime laboratory system handles the bulk of DNA testing requests. In 

nearly 50% of cases for some of the larger agencies, DNA testing will be conducted 

only when a suspect profile is available. Submissions and comparisons of unknown 

suspect samples are not being done or are falling behind in priority. Generally, private laboratories are seldom used to assist with backlogs. The higher cost of sending 

samples to privately run laboratories limits the number of cases to those which are 

serious, only if a process is not available at a state laboratory or if expediency in 

testing is required. Given the higher costs for tests, the private laboratory system 

does not appear to be a viable adjunct to the state system in reducing the backlog. 

Remarkable differences exist between the larger and smaller agencies in their understanding of the potential for DNA analysis. Nearly 78% of the larger departments felt that more than 25% of their cases have DNA evidence, while only 48% 

of the smaller departments held a similar view. Additionally, only 9% of the larger 

departments had no knowledge of the potential for DNA evidence to their respective 

cases, while 30% of the smaller departments could not indicate the extent to which 

they felt DNA had an impact on cases. In reference to submissions to an offender 

database, 69.7% of the larger departments made submissions, compared to 37.9% 

of the smaller departments. As such, the data suggests a higher level of awareness 

and practice with DNA evidence with the larger law enforcement agencies. The 

value of DNA analysis to a broader spectrum of offenses is becoming widely accepted. As knowledge about the benefits of DNA analysis increases, especially to the 

smaller law enforcement agencies, so too will the requests for testing in other than 

the more serious cases. 

This survey suggests two key barriers must be overcome before the potential for 

the widespread use of DNA evidence in crime solution is realized. The first barrier 

80

is the perception on the part of law enforcement agencies that analysis capacity is 

limited. This study was not intended to determine the validity of this perception. 

If capacity is in fact limited, then capacity should be increased. If capacity is adequate, then an educational campaign needs to be conducted for law enforcement 

agencies. 

The second barrier is a result of perceptions of limited analysis capacity. The survey discovered that many agencies limit their submissions of DNA evidence only to 

cases with known suspects or offender profiles. Such policies and practices will 

change as perceptions of capacity limitations change.

Æ