U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

75–711 2012

S. HRG. 112–519 

IMPROVING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE SYSTEM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 18, 2012 

Serial No. J–112–86 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 3 

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

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 98 

WITNESSES 

Burns, Scott, Executive Director, National District Attorneys Association, Alexandria, Virginia ................................................................................................ 12 

Neufeld, Peter, Co-Director, The Innocence Project, New York, New York ........ 10 

Spriggs, Jill, Crime Lab Director, State of California and President, American 

Society of Crime Lab Directors, on behalf of the Consortium of Forensic 

Science Organizations .......................................................................................... 8 

Stoiloff, Stephanie, Commander Forensic Services Bureau, Miami-Dade Police 

Department, Miami, Florida on behalf of the International Association of 

Chiefs of Police ..................................................................................................... 5 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Scott Burns to questions submitted by Senators Franken and 

Klobuchar .............................................................................................................. 23 

Responses of Peter Neufeld to questions submitted by Senators Franken, 

Grassley and Klobuchar ...................................................................................... 27 

Responses of Jill Spriggs to questions submitted by Senators Franken, 

Klobuchar and Grassley ...................................................................................... 42 

Responses of Stephanie Stoiloff to questions submitted by Senators Franken, 

Grassley and Klobuchar ...................................................................................... 62 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Burns, Scott, Executive Director, National District Attorneys Association, Alexandria, Virginia, statement ............................................................................. 93 

Matson, Barry, Deputy Director, Alabama District Attorneys Association, 

ADAA Office of Prosecution Services, OPS, statement ..................................... 100 

Neufeld, Peter, Co-Director, The Innocence Project, New York, New York, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 109 

Spriggs, Jill, Crime Lab Director, State of California and President, American 

Society of Crime Lab Directors, on behalf of the Consortium of Forensic 

Science Organizations .......................................................................................... 117 

Stoiloff, Stephanie, Commander, Forensic Services Bureau, Miami-Dade Police Department, Miami, Florida on behalf of the International Association 

of Chiefs of Police, statement .............................................................................. 121 

ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Submissions for the record not printed due to voluminous nature, previously 

printed by an agency of the Federal Government, or other criteria determined by the Committee, list. 

Spriggs, Jill: 

http://www.swgfast.org and http://www.ncjrs.gov 

Stoiloff, Stephanie 

Joint ATF and SWGGUN Annotated Bibliography, http://www.afte.org 

(1) 

IMPROVING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

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

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

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Franken, Blumenthal, and Grassley. 

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

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Although Senator Grassley is here, he had to 

step back out for a minute, so we can start. I will continue on and 

then, of course, yield to Senator Grassley when he comes in. 

We are going to reconsider the important issue of how best to ensure the effectiveness and scientific integrity of forensic evidence 

used in criminal cases. Of course, it is essential to make sure the 

criminal justice system works for all Americans, for the defense 

and prosecution. 

Now, this is an issue that we have had as a priority in this Committee for years. It was an issue that formed a backdrop for the 

Committee’s work on the Innocence Protection Act and the Justice 

for All Act in the last decade, and we focused again on it in the 

last 3 years. 

The National Academy of Sciences published a report in February 2009 asserting that the field of forensic science has significant problems that urgently need to be addressed. I did not then 

and do not now view the Academy’s report as the final word on this 

issue but, rather, as a starting point for a searching review of the 

state of forensic science in the country. 

In the past several years, we have seen a continuing stream of 

exonerations of people convicted of serious crimes, some because of 

mistakes of counsel, but also some, too many, because of flawed forensic evidence. Kirk Odom, imprisoned in Washington, D.C., for 

20 years for a rape he did not commit based on faulty hair analysis, is just one recent, tragic example. Twenty years. Just last 

week, the Justice Department announced a sweeping review of 

thousands of cases to determine whether defendants were wrongly 

convicted based on flawed forensic evidence by the FBI lab in the 

1980s and 1990s. It has long been clear that action is necessary to 

ensure improved support for forensic science and meaningful national standards. 

2 

The Judiciary Committee’s process began even before the National Academy of Sciences report. The Committee held two hearings in 2009. We have conducted numerous meetings over the years 

with those on all sides of the issue—law enforcement, prosecutors, 

defense attorneys, forensic scientists, academic scientists, and 

many, many others. 

In 2011, I introduced the Criminal Justice and Forensic Science 

Reform Act—comprehensive legislation designed to build greater 

certainty and reliability into forensic science nationwide. The outreach continues after the introduction of the legislation. I have 

asked for feedback from all sides to try to find a consensus solution. 

One thing that has become very clear, though, is that, for all the 

serious problems that have been found and questions that have 

been raised, forensic practitioners are doing great work every day. 

I remember using many of them when I was a prosecutor. Laboratories and practitioners around the country follow sound procedures. They strive to be fair and accurate and produce vital evidence. I say that because I think it is important to recognize the 

good work that is done by so many, as well as to point out the significant gaps. We need a solution that builds on existing strengths, 

identifies weaknesses, and fills in those gaps. 

Strengthening forensic science is not something that tips the 

scale to one side or the other in the justice system. Forensic disciplines that have been proven to be reliable and that create total 

confidence will help law enforcement and prosecutors to identify 

and convict those guilty of serious crimes. But doubts about the reliability of some forensic analysis have led to successful challenges 

in court. Basically—and I want to put most of my statement in the 

record—it comes down to this. We want the accurate science. Forensic science is not designed to help one side or the other. It is 

designed just to be accurate and give the truth. If it exonerates 

people, then that is the right thing to do. If it convicts people because it is accurate, again, the right thing to do. The worst thing 

that can happen in society is if we convict the innocent or fail to 

convict the guilty. Let us have it accurate so that both sides when 

they come in can look at it and say, OK, the one piece of evidence 

we can be sure of is this forensic science. It benefits all sides. 

Now we are going to hear from a police lab commander, a State 

lab director, a prosecutor, and a founder of the Innocence Project. 

They are not going to agree on all of the details about how best 

to move forward, but I hope they will agree that action is necessary 

and, more to the point, will agree on many of the principles that 

should guide a legislative solution. 

I think there is widespread acknowledgment that every forensic 

laboratory nationwide should be accredited under recognized national standards and that forensic practitioners should be certified 

in their field based on appropriate training, education, and ability. 

That also means we have to dedicate resources to basic 

foundational research. 

Finally, there is a shared understanding that the forensic science 

community needs Federal support for capacity building, training, 

and development. We know the importance of harnessing the expertise of those here. The Justice Department is well positioned to 

3 

play this central role, but agencies like the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology and the National Science Foundation 

can help. 

So I have tried to bring all these thoughts into it, but the most 

important thing is I want consensus on a program that will allow, 

when a piece of forensic evidence goes in, that everybody, defense 

and prosecution alike, knows what the standards are and knows 

what they have before them. 

I will put my full statement in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. As I mentioned, Senator Grassley got here actually ahead of me. He is with us, and, Chuck, do you want to go 

ahead? 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Yes, I would like to make a statement. First 

of all, thank you. This is a very important hearing, and I join you 

in wanting to make sure that the forensic science system is as good 

as it can be. This is an important subject for our Committee since 

forensic science is the application of science in the courtroom, designed to identify the guilt and exclude the innocent. It is not about 

academic or pure scientific research. And I am pleased that we are 

able to have a consensus panel today. 

Years ago, I supported a whistleblower who exposed serious problems at the FBI crime lab, Dr. Frederic Whitehurst—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Dr. Whitehurst is here. 

Senator GRASSLEY [continuing]. And he is here in the room 

today, as you just said. Dr. Whitehurst risked his career to come 

forward with allegations about wrongdoing at the FBI crime lab. In 

the words of the Federal District Court for D.C., ‘‘Dr. Whitehurst 

has made a number of very serious challenges that call into question the scientific integrity of the FBI crime lab and the thousands 

of prosecutions that rely on evidence it has processed.’’ 

For his efforts, he was retaliated against by the FBI and spent 

years litigating with the FBI via the Freedom of Information Act 

trying to obtain documents outlining the retaliation that he faced. 

The disclosures Dr. Whitehurst made resulted in the Department 

of Justice IG investigation that recommended 40 changes to improve procedures at the lab, including accreditation by an outside 

body. Thanks to the actions of Dr. Whitehurst, cases where faulty 

procedures, flawed analysis, and improper testimony had been 

given were reviewed. Ultimately, Dr. Whitehurst’s case resulted in 

the Justice Department creating a regulatory process for whistleblowers to adjudicate their claims. That process is, unfortunately, 

broken and needs legislative correction. 

Additionally, more work needs to be done on the FBI crime lab 

and the Department of Justice review of past cases. Recently, the 

Washington Post found that a 2004 Justice Department review of 

flawed hair and fiber analysis at the FBI lab did not go far enough 

in identifying potential cases of wrongful convictions. And even in 

cases that were identified, Justice did not ensure that defense 

counsels were informed. So as a result, I joined you, Mr. Chairman, 

4 

in a letter to the FBI on this matter, but almost 60 days later, we 

have not received a response. 

The FBI publicly announced last week that it was expanding its 

review, but our request for basic information still has not been answered. So on Monday, I sent another letter with further questions. 

I expect answers to this serious matter to ensure that the problems 

Dr. Whitehurst uncovered are not continuing to this day. 

So I appreciate the importance of this hearing and the goal of improving the use of forensic science in the criminal justice system. 

Wrongful convictions are very rare, but they do happen, and flawed 

use of forensic science accounts for some of it. 

I want to be clear that I do not think forensic science as a whole 

is a problem. Forensic science has come a long way over the years. 

Most important was the development of DNA testing. Nowadays we 

do not even need outdated forensic discipline like hair comparison 

or blood matching, which accounts for most of the wrongful convictions due to flawed use of forensic science. Furthermore, the cases 

are usually the result of bad practice of forensic science, not the 

science itself. 

Unfortunately, there are those who claim that certain forensic 

sciences as a whole are invalid. These critics usually point to one 

famous case or another to indict the entire discipline. Example: 

After more than 100 years of critical contributions to public 

science, fingerprints are now called into question because of Brandon Mayfield’s incident. The Washington Post yesterday said that 

there is ‘‘uncertainty’’ with fingerprints as a whole. This latest attack is similar to the attacks which questioned whether DNA analysis was valid when prosecutors first tried to introduce that in the 

early 1990s. 

However, there is plenty of proof on the record that fingerprints 

are reliable. One study completed after the Mayfield incident found 

a 99.9-percent reliability by FBI examiners. And this study was 

published in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. That is why, as the Justice IG has pointed out, 

every Federal court of appeals that has addressed the issue has 

held that fingerprints are admissible as evidence. 

The criminal justice system is adversarial for a reason. Why? To 

help uncover the truth through questioning of evidence. It is a robust system with constitutional and other legal protections. 

Unlike the adversarial system, some have recommended that we 

turn over forensic study to the unelected and, often, unaccountable 

bureaucrats. 

From my work in the Senate with Federal Government whistleblowers, I can tell you that I would trust the adversarial court system before I trusted the Federal bureaucracy. What happens in a 

courtroom is public and claims are subject to cross-examination. 

Decisions about forensic science should not be made behind closed 

doors by people unelected in the bureaucracy. 

We have all seen how a supposedly neutral scientific regulatory 

agency, the FDA, handles honest disagreements. They do it, as I 

stated yesterday on the floor of the Senate, by spying on dissenters. 

I would hate for decisions on forensic science to fall prey to that 

bureaucracy as well. 

There are three main issues, therefore, that I want to examine: 

5 

First, how do we improve forensic science without throwing out 

the baby with the bath water? I do not want our efforts to improve 

the system to call into question the hard work that has already 

been done—or is being done every day—in the labs across the country. 

Second, what kind of improvements will be most efficient and effective? Should the Federal Government, which has some of its own 

problems—be regulating the States? Or should it get its own house 

in order first? 

And, last, how will any changes relate to existing policies and 

procedures? There is already a lot work going on to improve 

forensics. The DOJ-supported Scientific Working Groups for each 

discipline are crafting new standards for their members. Justice 

and other entities are funding more research. Labs are being accredited to strict national and international standards. And prosecutors, defense counsels, and judges are learning more about how 

to evaluate forensic evidence. Congress should be careful not to 

preempt all of that work. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Our first witness will be Stephanie Stoiloff, senior police commander of the Forensic Services Bureau at the Miami-Dade Police 

Department. Head of the lab, she oversees forensic labs and tests 

controlled substances, trace evidence, biological evidence, firearms, 

tool marks, and so on. She is a nationally recognized leader in forensic science. She is also the co-chair of the International Association of Chiefs of Police Forensic Science Committee. She is here on 

behalf of the IACP. She has lectured before the American Prosecutors Research Institute, the National Institute of Justice, teaches 

forensic biology, and she received her Bachelor’s of Science from 

the University of Florida, her Master’s from Florida International 

University. 

I apologize for the voice. The allergies seem to pop up as soon 

as it gets above 100 degrees in Washington. 

Ms. Stoiloff, please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE STOILOFF, COMMANDER, FORENSIC SERVICES BUREAU, MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

MIAMI, FLORIDA, ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 

Ms. STOILOFF. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 

Senator. My name is Stephanie Stoiloff. I serve as the commander 

of the Forensic Services Bureau for the Miami-Dade Police Department in Miami, Florida. I also serve as the co-chair of the Forensic 

Science Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. I am here today on behalf of the IACP, representing over 

22,000 law enforcement executives in over 100 countries throughout the world. In the United States, there are over 18,000 State, 

local and tribal law enforcement agencies with over 800,000 law 

enforcement officers. I am pleased to be here this morning to discuss the challenges currently confronting the forensic science community within the United States and the need for further resources 

and support of forensic science within the law enforcement community. 

6 

In February 2009, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report entitled, ‘‘Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: 

A Path Forward.’’ In January 2011, legislation was proposed to address some of the topics discussed in this report. The IACP, the 

Major Cities Chiefs Association, and the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies each have Forensic Committees comprised of law enforcement executives, laboratory directors, and private sector representatives from across the Nation. The three Forensic Committees, as well as members of the National Sheriff’s 

Association, have jointly discussed some concerns with the proposed legislation. Collectively, law enforcement appreciates that 

Senator Leahy and his staff recognize that the collaborative efforts 

of all stakeholders are a critical component of this legislation. This 

collaboration has been a positive process that has enabled the concerns of the State and local agencies to be heard. 

Over the past 30 years, the forensic science community has voluntarily established internationally recognized laboratory accreditation and professional certification programs. Law enforcement 

agencies have made considerable financial investments to support 

this voluntary accreditation, a program defined by the implementation and maintenance of rigorous quality assurance standards, in 

over 400 crime laboratories nationwide. 

The importance of forensic science to the investigation of a crime 

has police chiefs nationwide asking how we can better use these forensic resources and, further, how do we ensure scientific integrity? 

Forensic science is not the floundering profession that some may 

portray it to be. As with any scientific discipline, there is a perpetual need for support, improvement, and advancement. In fact, 

many of the improvements in forensic science have resulted from 

the commitment of law enforcement agencies and their executive 

leadership to sound forensic practices. Although many collaborations have been developed to address the recommendations brought 

forth in the NAS report, there are still several important concerns 

that need to be addressed. 

The first—and greatest—need is funding. The forensic community needs funding to perform the work conducted nationwide every 

day. The common question asked is: How much funding is needed? 

One billion dollars was allocated to address DNA backlogs. That is, 

$1 billion was allocated for one discipline alone that still is not able 

to completely manage the flood of evidence submitted for analysis. 

Have we now put a price on public safety? One billion dollars per 

forensic discipline would not be enough to address the need for accreditation, certification, research, education, and analysis. The forensic community itself requested the NAS report to be written to 

address the resource needs of forensic service providers. We know 

what the problem is. The question is: What is going to be done 

about it? 

The second need is leadership. The forensic community needs 

strong national leadership with the understanding that one size 

does not fit all. The needs of Federal, State, and local agencies are 

separate and distinct from each other. Our agencies and their forensic laboratories are at ground zero in the fight on crime. Most 

of these organizations have higher demands for service and fewer 

7 

resources available with which to wage that fight as compared to 

the larger State and Federal laboratories. 

Our agencies agree that all forensic service providers including 

stand-alone forensic units such as latent prints and crime scene 

units should follow quality standards and attain accreditation. Further, our agencies also agree that each forensic scientist must demonstrate competency in their discipline. Our law enforcement executives have the ultimate responsibility to ensure accurate and efficient delivery of forensic services. Strong national leadership can 

provide a comprehensive plan to incrementally introduce and implement the funding and other resources necessary to fulfill these 

goals. 

Third, more higher education programs and internships in forensic science should be established to assist the forensic science community. While forensic science has attracted nationwide attention, 

little funding has been funneled into higher education for forensic 

scientists. A common misperception is that forensic science is not 

a science. By definition, forensic science is the application of scientific knowledge and methodology to legal problems and criminal 

investigations. By its very nature, science is about new testing, 

new technology, and new applications of technology. How can we 

do what we do every day and do it better? New advances occur 

every day within universities nationwide. Forensic science research 

programs and educational opportunities support the investigations 

conducted daily by public safety agencies to protect its citizens and 

make its communities safer. 

In closing, Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement are 

utilizing every possible resource to provide public safety. The law 

enforcement community appreciates the opportunity to work with 

Senator Leahy and his staff to develop a workable solution that 

supports the needs of the forensic science community. These comprehensive discussions have covered all aspects of forensic science, 

including the incredible advances that have been realized in the recent past, the limitations of many historical procedures, opportunities for continued advancement, and the differences between theory, pop fiction, and real forensic evidence. It is our hope that these 

open discussions will continue, allowing everyone to accomplish the 

goal of providing the framework and resources necessary to maintain our existing capabilities and develop new technologies for the 

future. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you, and I appreciate your willingness to continue working with me and with my staff because we 

do want something that is going to work for all involved. And I 

think you point out the difficulties—we know what we have to do, 

but now we have to determine the steps we have to take to get 

there. 

Our next witness, Jill Spriggs, is the chief of Bureau of Forensic 

Services at the California Department of Justice. As the head of 

the bureau, she oversees 13 regional crime laboratories, the fourth 

largest DNA data bank in the world, specializes in DNA analysis, 

and has more than 23 years of professional experience in forensic 

science. She is here today representing the Consortium of Forensic 

8 

Science Organizations. She is an officer of that consortium. She 

works with the California Department of Justice’s Advance Training Center. She teaches and consults on cold cases. She is also 

president of the American Society of Crime Lab Directors and the 

treasurer of the California Association of Crime Lab Directors. 

Ms. Spriggs, we are delighted to have you here. Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF JILL SPRIGGS, CRIME LAB DIRECTOR, STATE 

OF CALIFORNIA, AND PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF 

CRIME LAB DIRECTORS, ON BEHALF OF THE CONSORTIUM 

OF FORENSIC SCIENCE ORGANIZATIONS 

Ms. SPRIGGS. Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, 

thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you today 

about forensic advancement. I am Jill Spriggs, the crime laboratory 

director for the State of California and the president of the American Society of Crime Lab Directors. However, I am here today representing the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations and 

speaking on behalf of the over 12,000 forensic service providers 

that our organization represents. 

I would first like to express my appreciation for your tackling of 

the daunting task of writing this legislation, which is very important to our community, as well as for the process you have created 

in drafting this legislation. You and your staff have been most extraordinarily open and collaborative. It has been a process that we 

greatly appreciate. We have been impressed by your office’s desire 

to listen and learn from the actual practitioners in the complex 

field of forensic science. You and your staff have truly understood 

that the application of the science is quite different from what may 

be written in a textbook or on TV, and we look forward to a continued productive dialogue. 

We have long since recognized that while our Nation’s crime laboratories and medical examiner offices are State and local entities, 

our science has no borders and it crosses into numerous jurisdictions. Continuity of processes is very important. In 1994, Congress 

passed the DNA Identification Act to provide Federal guidance to 

standards that would allow for the advancement and expanded use 

of DNA technology in order to utilize this groundbreaking technology in the most productive manner to the Nation’s criminal justice system. The Federal Government then took the leadership role 

in creating technical working groups consisting of Federal, State, 

and local forensic scientists, international members, academia, and 

independent consultants. One of the most visible groups is the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods, or SWGDAM. 

The role of this group is to ensure the uniformity of DNA standards 

and improve processes within the forensic human DNA laboratory 

community. 

Each discipline in forensic science also has a similar SWG group. 

However, these other disciplines have not enjoyed the widespread 

Federal support as the DNA analysis Scientific Working Group. Yet 

they comprise over 90 percent of the work conducted in our Nation’s lab system. The Nation’s crime lab and medical examiner 

systems need to be viewed and addressed as a single system that 

encompasses all disciplines. 

9 

At the core of our issue is the ability of the system to be flexible 

and responsive. Our Nation’s crime laboratories must have the capacity to process all the evidence that comes into the laboratories 

in a timely manner and with the utmost in quality and accuracy. 

This applies to all 13 disciplines. In fact, while DNA is the most 

popular in the media, our largest backlog and casework is, in fact, 

controlled substances. Many of our crime labs are drowning in synthetic drug cases. This is a perfect example of why we need Federal 

guidance and leadership. 

All labs and State legislatures are experiencing similar issues 

with identifying drugs to schedule, then be able to place these substances into their respective codes, have the crime labs in a position to analyze them, only to have the uncontrolled analogs to 

these drugs produced and distributed in a very efficient manner to 

circumvent the new legislation. 

We support the accreditation for all public and private crime labs 

and believe they should operate in accordance with ISO 17025 and 

other relevant ISO standards. We agree that these standards 

should evolve and advance as the science does and are encouraged 

by the discussions that we have had with your office regarding the 

continued utilization of these standards as we move forward versus 

starting over with federally established standards. 

A natural progression from the quality systems of the organization—in other words, accreditation—is the competency of the individual, or certification. We are supportive of an organized Federal 

role in enhancing the breadth of proficiency testing, but again do 

not believe that the process should begin from scratch. 

A National Research Strategy for comprehensive and targeted research of forensic science also must be pursued. It is critical, however, that there is input from the active practitioners in the field 

to ensure that the research is applicable to and necessary for the 

casework currently handled by crime labs and medical examiners. 

Also key to continued advancement of our science is a group of 

rigorous forensic science education programs both at the undergraduate and graduate levels. The well-established Forensic Education Program Accreditation Commission, or FEPAC, has for some 

time been credentialing these programs and does not need to be reinvented. 

Another key element of forensic science is that of death investigation. At present, roughly half of the country is utilizing a system of untrained or minimally trained lay coroners lacking requisite forensic training. The other half uses highly trained and certified forensic pathologist physicians functioning as medical examiners. This must be resolved so that the death investigation and all 

death investigation is equal. 

Finally, grants for forensic science must stem from the requirements of the community providing grants, and a process must be 

developed to ensure that grant funding matches the need. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, there is much 

precedent in other countries for guidance and assistance for forensic science, such as Australia and New Zealand where the National 

Institute of Forensic Science provides guidelines and coordination 

among the forensic science providers in those countries. In fact, it 

operates on a staff of six at the Federal level. We are supportive 

10 

of a model similar to this which will provide the much needed leadership, guidance, and experience to ensure the continuation of a 

quality system. Crime laboratories serve the public at large and the 

criminal justice system. In order to do this effectively, there must 

be an open line of communication between all parties in which 

quality forensic science comes first. 

Again, thank you for all that you have done, and we look forward 

to the continued discussion so as to achieve the much needed Federal leadership that we require in the field of forensics. Thank you. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you very much. What I am going 

to do is have each witness testify and then ask questions. 

Our next witness is Peter Neufeld, who is no stranger to this 

Committee. He has testified here before. He co- founded and co-directs the Innocence Project, an independent, nonprofit organization 

affiliated with the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law. He is a partner in the law firm of Neufeld, Scheck & Brustin. For the last 12 

years, he has served on the New York State Commission of Forensic Science. He has co-authored a number of books, influential 

books on the use of forensic evidence in criminal cases. Prior to his 

work with the Innocence Project, he taught trial advocacy at Fordham University Law School, a staff attorney at the Legal Aid Society of New York. 

Mr. Neufeld, please go ahead, and thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF PETER NEUFELD, CO-DIRECTOR, THE 

INNOCENCE PROJECT, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Mr. NEUFELD. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, and thank you, Senator Grassley, for inviting me. As you mentioned, I am the cofounder and co-director of the Innocence Project. We have special 

gratitude, obviously, for Senator Leahy, who for the last decade or 

more has been the staunchest advocate of wrongful conviction reform, not because simply he is concerned with the civil rights of the 

wrongly convicted, but also as a prosecutor he is aware personally 

how important it is to strengthen these disciplines as a matter of 

public safety. 

I also wish to introduce to the Committee right now two men 

who were wrongly convicted who were just exonerated in the past 

week. They are here with their very persevering and tenacious lawyer, Sandra Levick, from the Public Defender Service here in the 

District of Columbia. Both men are local D.C. residents. 

Kirk Odom, who is right behind me, was arrested in 1981 at age 

18 for a rape he did not commit. He has been exonerated through 

DNA quite recently. 

Santae Tribble, who is on the other side of Ms. Levick, was arrested at age 17 and convicted for a 1978 murder which he did not 

commit, only to be exonerated recently through DNA testing. 

Both of these innocent men were denied their youth, their families, their careers, and their liberty for far too long. Indeed, it took 

each man more than 30 years to prove their actual innocence. But 

I produce Mr. Tribble and Mr. Odom today because they have particular resonance for the issues before this Committee. 

11 

In both cases, microscopic hair evidence was analyzed by the FBI 

crime lab here in Washington. The trace unit of the FBI crime laboratory handled hair microscopy. In both cases, two different forensic examiners from the FBI erroneously declared an association between the crime scene evidence and these two men. And in both 

cases, more importantly for this committee, the FBI agents testified 

at trials in a manner inconsistent with what was then known as 

the limitations of the science. They both offered invalid testimony 

had been, as in another FBI agent in another case which Ms. 

Levick got an exoneration on a few years ago, also involving the 

FBI hair unit. 

Now, I mention these men—by the way, we have now found at 

least 11 FBI agents, so this is not simply a bad apple situation, 11 

different FBI agent hair examiners who produced scientifically invalid testimony, and I assume the number will grow as we acquire 

more and more transcripts over a 30-year period. 

And, Senator Grassley, with all due respect, the FBI continues 

to use hair microscopy to this day. They use the technique as a 

screening test before they do DNA testing. And what we at the Innocence Project are concerned about is the danger of false negatives 

just as much as we care about false positives. 

The point I want to bring up is that these gentlemen—and, by 

the way, one of the examiners was not just a staff examiner. He 

was the unit chief for the trace unit. 

The point is this: not that these are bad men. None of them are 

bad men. None of them had malice in their minds when they testified incorrectly in these cases and grossly exaggerated the probative value of the evidence. As a result, innocent men lost three 

decades of their lives. That is not the issue. The issue is for hair 

microscopy, when they testified, the FBI—and nobody in the 

United States had done the basic, essential research to validate 

that discipline and to validate the limitations of proper testimony. 

And there were no national standards for microscopy as to what 

would be appropriately testified to in a court of law. And to this 

day, in 2012, that research has still not been done. There are no 

national standards. And the danger of it happening still exists. 

And it is not just with hair microscopy. It is the other disciplines 

as well, the other impression disciplines that were listed in the National Academy of Sciences report, approximately a dozen disciplines. The basic applied and basic research has not been done. 

National standards do not exist. People are allowed willy-nilly to 

testify to statistics and probabilities for which there is no scientific 

basis. That is the purpose of the NAS report. That was their findings, and that is what they hope to accomplish. 

So it is not about bad individuals. It is about bad science, if you 

will, or at least poor science and the way it is being explained to 

juries. And that has not changed. 

The point that we want to make now is that not only do we want 

that kind of basic and applied research for validation purposes and 

standards for hair; we want them for all the disciplines. That is 

what the NAS report called for. It is all well and good that other 

speakers are here today talking about the importance of accreditation, the importance of certifying every individual in the laboratory, 

of expanding our educational programs and forensics. That is great. 

12 

It will be extremely helpful. But at the cornerstone of the scientific 

method, of the scientific method that is described in the NAS report, is unless you have the basic research done to validate these 

methods, to determine what are the proper parameters of testimony and of the science of how to interpret the data, unless you 

have standards, it is not going to work. 

You know, we think about forensic science a lot here because we 

are the Judiciary Committee. But think about something that is 

much closer to home. Imagine it was a clinical laboratory and the 

clinical laboratories were all accredited by the best accrediting organization in America, and all the employees in those laboratories 

were certified to the highest possible standards. But you as a father or you as a mother wanted to know whether or not your kid 

has strep throat, and so you have the kid sent to the doctor to have 

the kid’s culture tested, and while you are there, you find out that 

they never bothered to validate the test for strep throat. So even 

with the best accreditation and the best certification, you cannot 

have confidence in the data produced by that laboratory, and you 

as a mom or dad will not know what to do with your kid. That is 

the issue. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

We are going to have to go now to Scott Burns. We are going to 

have votes. Senators are going to have to leave. 

Scott Burns is the executive director of the National District Attorneys Association, who call themselves ‘‘the voice of America’s 

prosecutors’’ It is one of the largest professional organizations representing district attorneys, states’ attorneys, attorneys general, 

and county and city prosecutors. I was once one of the vice presidents of the National DAs Association. I gave up the opportunity 

for the glory of being president of it to substitute the anonymity 

of the U.S. Senate. But I enjoyed my years on the board. He was 

nominated by President Bush to serve as Deputy Director for State, 

Local, and Tribal Affairs at the White House Office of National 

Drug Control Policy. He served in that role until 2009 when he was 

selected to serve as the executive director of the NDAA, and, of 

course, he had been elected county and chief prosecutor of Iron 

County, Utah, for 16 years. 

Where is Iron County located? 

Mr. BURNS. The most beautiful place in the world, Senator. 

Southern Utah. 

Chairman LEAHY. Southern Utah is beautiful. Thank you. Mr. 

Burns, please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT BURNS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION, ALEXANDRIA, 

VIRGINIA 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grassley, and members of the committee. Like the other panel members, 

it is an honor to testify before you today on behalf of America’s 

39,000 prosecutors, and I think it is important to note up front 

prosecutors handle 95 percent of all criminal cases in this country. 

So for all of the Federal judges, U.S. Attorneys, Federal crime labs, 

13 

95 percent are State and local prosecutors, women and men primarily in small offices across the country, three or four fewer prosecutors in the office, which is why the National Academy of 

Sciences report is so interesting to us because, of all of the members, not one prosecutor was on the committee. The chairman, 

whom I am sure was extremely bright and talented, was an appellate Federal court judge, and appellate Federal court judges do not 

spend a lot of time in courtrooms trying cases and dealing with evidence. 

Since 2009, the committee and you, Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley have worked hard to gather all of the groups 

together, and that has not been easy because there are, as you 

know, many viewpoints on this. And I think getting all of us into 

this room is an accomplishment in and of itself. 

In early 2011, when you introduced Senate bill 132, NDAA had 

significant concerns with the bill, along with other groups. However, when the bill was first introduced, your staff and others intimated to us that they saw this as a ‘‘starting point’’ where shareholders could weigh in on what they agreed and disagreed on, and 

that has happened. We believe your approach to this massive undertaking was sound, and we appreciate both you, Chairman 

Leahy, and ranking member Grassleyfor your willingness to work 

with all of the shareholder groups. Your staff has been, both of you, 

absolutely terrific. 

Since the National Academy of Sciences released its study, it has 

been reported that State and local prosecutors have worked to curtail reform efforts on forensic sciences. Nothing could be further 

from the truth. 

Prosecutors also do not oppose research. Prosecutors want and 

need the best quality evidence and analysis possible to determine 

the innocence or guilt of the accused. That is our job, to protect victims, to exonerate the innocent, and to point the finger of guilt at 

those who have committed the crime and hold them accountable. 

The commitment of the forensics community for reliable science 

is evidenced by its investment in their own accreditation process, 

and they have worked hard over the last decade-plus. Virtually all 

public laboratories are accredited today, and most of those laboratories were accredited after 2009—excuse me, before 2009. 

It is NDAA’s belief that non-DNA forensic science disciplines 

have been demonized in recent years. Some cases are fortunate 

enough to have DNA evidence, but unlike television, most do not. 

As stated on the Innocence Project’s Web page, since 1989 there 

have been 294 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United 

States. And while NDAA agrees that even one wrongful conviction 

of an innocent person is too many—it is a prosecutor’s worst nightmare, and we have several prosecutors here on the committee. It 

is the worst thing that can possibly happen. But we have to put 

this into proper context. In the United States, there are a minimum of 10 million serious crimes committed and serious prosecutions each year. That does not include traffic offenses. Ten million. 

Since 1989, that means there have been 220 million cases in America prosecuted by State and local prosecutors. And while 294 postconviction exonerations are of great concern to us, and to all of 

us—look at the criminal justice system—in reality those wrongful 

14 

convictions constitute less than 0.0001 percent, one ten-thousandth 

of one percent, of the convictions obtained. And while no one from 

NDAA is naive enough to think that the Innocence Project has uncovered every single wrongful conviction in America, 99.9999 percent is a pretty good record. 

It is also important to note, misinformation and hyperbole aside, 

that the majority of wrongful convictions do not owe their existence 

to faulty forensic science but, rather, to bad lawyering on both 

sides of the courtroom, false confessions, and misidentification. Recognizing that, NDAA has created a new committee, the Fair and 

Truthful Administration of Justice Committee, to educate all of our 

members about our extraordinary ethical obligations, the phenomenon of false confessions, and the frailties associated with eyewitness identification. In just a few days, our summer conference 

will have lectures presented from nationally renowned experts in 

the fields of identification and ethics, and in the near future on the 

issue of false confessions. We will continue to educate our members 

on presenting the best forensic evidence available—evidence that 

both exonerates and convicts. 

Finally, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Grassley, and members of the committee, for all you have done and 

do to support State and local prosecutors and the victims of crime. 

I am happy to answer any questions. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you. And I think you would agree, 

wouldn’t you, Mr. Burns, that it is important for everybody in the 

criminal justice system—the judges, the lawyers, detectives—to be 

properly trained so they—and when I say lawyers, lawyers on both 

sides as well as the judges and police officers and everybody else, 

to be properly trained in the best use of forensic science and what 

constitutes accurate forensic science? 

Mr. BURNS. I absolutely agree, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. I think it is safe to say that the fear of any 

good prosecutor is the idea that they may convict an innocent person. I sit here and think of the lives of the two gentlemen sitting 

behind you wrongly convicted. I know if any one of us were behind 

bars wrongly convicted, it would be hard to keep your sanity knowing that you were innocent. At the same time, nobody is naive 

enough to think that there are not bad people out there who do 

need to be convicted. I just want to make sure that if we convict 

somebody, we convict the right person, because if you convict the 

wrong person, not only do you create a terrible injustice to that 

person, but it means the person who committed the crime is still 

out there, and we want to get that person. 

Ms. Spriggs, one of the things I have done in trying to come to 

grips with this and one of the reasons I appreciate the four of you 

being here—and the dozens and dozens of people that we have met 

with in trying to figure out the best way to go—is I feel we have 

to have a comprehensive national strategy that ensures the reliability of forensic science for everybody, both at the State and local 

level. I feel we need some strong leadership at the Federal level to 

have accreditation standards that can be recognized in every State, 

whether it is a little State like mine or a big State like yours. 

15 

Can you tell us how strong leadership at the national level and 

I guess something like an Office of Forensic Science might give 

support and guidance to people at the State and local level? 

Ms. SPRIGGS. We are looking for coordination and direction on 

the Federal level. With accreditation, most of the laboratories in 

the country are following ISO 17025. That is over 400 standards 

that we must adhere to. Those are the same standards that a pharmaceutical company adheres to or pharmaceutical testing or environmental testing, and that encompasses—— 

Chairman LEAHY. And that would be the same whether that 

pharmaceutical company was in Vermont or in California? 

Ms. SPRIGGS. That is correct. We would use the same ISO standards from 17025, whether it be Vermont, whether it be California, 

or whether it be Texas. In with those standards, as I said, there 

are over 400 standards that we must adhere to. It means that a 

robust quality management system must be in place. We must 

have training procedures, educational requirements, protocols must 

be written, report writing. It also includes testimony monitoring, 

proficiency testing, making sure all your equipment is calibrated, 

and validation. 

As part of that Federal coordination and direction, one of the reasons that the DNA community has been so successful and is seen 

as a gold standard is because it has gotten support, rather it has 

received very little support, for the SWG groups. Remember, each 

discipline also has a scientific working group underneath it which 

also is composed of validation of what is needed, what is needed 

for report writing, education, training, proficiency testing, and interpretation of your casework and your results. But what is really 

needed is Federal direction and Federal coordination of all those 

SWG groups so that we are all meeting the same type of SWG 

standards. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, I think we would all be more comfortable 

if we knew that. As you said, the pharmaceutical company, whatever State it is in, has to follow standards. This should, too, and 

I am going to ask Commander Stoiloff, we know we have some very 

hard-working, very dedicated people in our laboratories, and we 

also know they are being asked to do more and more every day. 

It looks awfully easy on television programs. The reality is a lot different, especially because a lot of times you do not have forensic 

evidence. 

Do you agree with me that the State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies can provide a unique and important perspective 

if we are trying to do the kind of national standard that I feel we 

should have but we talked about—safe to say we better talk to people like you and everybody else who is on the front line? 

Ms. STOILOFF. I do agree with that, and part of the reason behind that is that all of our organizations represent every forensic 

service provider, whether or not they are actually part of a laboratory or not. So all of the stand-alone units still need to follow those 

same procedures. We want to accredit all of the crime scene units, 

all of the latent print units, and all of the forensic service providers 

that are not traditionally classified under a crime laboratory. 

Chairman LEAHY. Last, Mr. Neufeld, you have been passionate 

on the need for forensic science reform, and not just in this hearVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:22 Sep 20, 2012 Jkt 075741 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\75711.TXT CMORC
16 

ing—you and I have had a lot of discussions not in the hearing 

room, and I commend you for that passion. I feel that we wanted 

to help exonerate the innocent, but we also wanted to help convict 

the guilty. Do you agree with me that if we strengthen our standards in forensic science, it is going to give more confidence in the 

criminal justice system that we will be able to make sure the innocent are not convicted but the guilty are convicted? 

Mr. NEUFELD. I think there is no question, Senator Leahy, that 

if we had robust national standards in place, then we could be assured that a laboratory in Iowa City or a laboratory in Montpelier, 

Vermont, were turning out the same data, and that would be a 

huge boon for everybody. 

But where I would perhaps disagree with the last remark was 

that there is a fundamental difference between what we are talking 

about here and a pharmaceutical company. And the fundamental 

difference is that before the pharmaceutical company can be accredited or the clinical laboratory that uses their products can be 

accredited, there has already been an NIH and an NSF that has 

spent a lot of money doing basic and applied research. There has 

already been an FDA that passed on whether or not that product 

was ready for prime time. And there has already been a national 

CLIA set up to determine how those products are to be used in a 

reliable fashion. Nothing like that exists right now. 

Chairman LEAHY. Notwithstanding that, that does not mean that 

we cannot have standards that apply—the same kind of standards 

to crime labs and forensic scientists, does it? 

Mr. NEUFELD. I am sorry. I misunder—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Notwithstanding that maybe we can use analogies, we can talk about testing air bags on cars and everything 

else, but the fact is we can have—no matter which analogy you 

use—we can have standards that would give, reliable standards 

throughout the country, can we not? 

Mr. NEUFELD. We can have reliable standards, and certainly the 

people who practice those trades in various crime laboratories have 

a vital role to play, because, obviously, it is essential that independent scientists be made aware of the particular problems and 

uses and applications that those crime lab people are dealing with 

on a daily basis. And certainly there has to be buy-in from them. 

But, ultimately, independent scientists are going to be there to set 

those standards, which will be extremely useful for all of us in the 

country—crime victims, defendants, lawyers, judges, and the public 

at large. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Grassley is also one of the most senior members of the 

Finance Committee. I know he is supposed to be there, and I thank 

him for spending this amount of time here. I will yield to you for 

questions, and I realize you have to leave afterward. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I thank you for your consideration. 

You probably know that last year Chairman Leahy put in his bill 

he has consulted widely with stakeholders such as those represented here today, and also his staff has engaged with my staff 

to find common areas of agreement and look for ways to move forward. So I would ask Stephanie and Jill and Scott, as you have 

considered that legislation, would you suggest any specific changes? 

17 

And I do not want you to take up all 5 minutes with suggestions 

now, but maybe one or two from each of you, and then you can submit additional information to me in writing. Stephanie. 

Ms. STOILOFF. I am sorry. Could you be more specific as to 

what—— 

Senator GRASSLEY. In regard to Chairman Leahy’s bill, the 

Criminal Justice and Forensic Science Reform Act, any changes 

you would suggest in that? 

Ms. STOILOFF. Well, I can tell you that I am communicating continually with Senator Leahy’s staffers to make continual improvement, so we have an open dialogue and we make suggestions all 

the time. And most of that has been to consider the law enforcement response, to consider that all local agencies—you know, every 

level of law enforcement be considered. That is a big part of the 

problem when you consider a national strategy—that everybody be 

included—because there are different levels of resources available 

throughout the country for each agency. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Let us go on to Jill. 

Ms. SPRIGGS. We believe the process is working well, starting 

with the existing standards that we already have, the 17025 and 

the SWG groups. But we are open to any changes that might be 

needed and are welcome to discussions, and we are very thankful 

for the process. 

Senator GRASSLEY. But you are not in the process—you are not 

suggesting any specific changes. You are just looking at what other 

people suggest. Is that what you just told me? 

Ms. SPRIGGS. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Scott. 

Mr. BURNS. Well, I would concur with your statements. As I said 

in my opening remarks, your staff has been remarkable, as has 

Chairman Leahy’s, in reaching out to prosecutors, to law enforcement, to the defense bar, and others, and that has just been a wonderful thing. 

The only main suggestion that prosecutors have is that there be 

more practitioners in the governance structure, more law enforcement represented, more prosecutors represented, and we have had 

specific discussions with your staff and others about that. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. I am not going to go back through what 

I said in my opening statement about my work with Dr. Whitehurst, but that experience makes me skeptical about entrusting scientific standard setting to a Government bureaucracy. The Federal 

Government does not have a very good record on accountability and 

transparency. In the original and now expanded review of the FBI 

lab’s hair and fiber analysis, the Innocence Project was given access but not the public. 

Again, to the three of you that just answered my first question, 

do you think that the Federal Government has the resources and 

technical capability to oversee the use of forensic science across the 

country? And I would ask for a short answer, starting with you, 

Stephanie. 

Ms. STOILOFF. I think with the creation of strong national leadership, I think they do. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Jill. 

18 

Ms. SPRIGGS. I agree with Stephanie. With a strong national 

leadership and coordination and direction, they do. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Scott. 

Mr. BURNS. Concur. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. How would such oversight affect the 

work of State and local prosecutors? Again, Stephanie, Jill, and 

Scott. 

Ms. STOILOFF. Affect the prosecutors? 

Senator GRASSLEY. Yes, affect prosecutions, the work of local and 

State prosecutors. 

Ms. STOILOFF. Well, I think that strong national leadership creates a program that would have—as stated earlier, it creates 

stronger confidence in the system. We feel it already is a very robust system, so it should just increase their confidence that they 

have in the technology we provide. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Jill. 

Ms. SPRIGGS. I believe it can help with the prosecution by not 

only helping with the coordination and direction but also firming 

up those existing scientific working groups that we already have 

and not throwing those out and starting over but enhancing those, 

as well as looking at accreditation with the ISO 17025 standards. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Scott. 

Mr. BURNS. I guess as long as the good outweighs the bad, if the 

good is having standards, accreditation, everybody reading from 

the same playbook and coordinated, that is the good. The bad is I 

do not know that prosecutors, 39,000 of them across the country, 

would feel comfortable with a bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., 

telling them everything about the handling of forensics unless, as 

I said before—which has not happened in a lot of instances. There 

is not a single voice at the table that is a prosecutor or a defense 

lawyer or a judge. I just think that is crucial, Senator. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Could I ask one more question? 

Chairman LEAHY. Of course. 

Senator GRASSLEY. This will be my last one because I have to go. 

I will submit some questions for answer in writing. But supposed 

Federal involvement is needed. The question then comes: Should 

there be direct regulation of what happens in State courtrooms? 

And I will start with Stephanie. 

Ms. STOILOFF. I think that would have to be evaluated as it were 

to evolve. I do not know that I would say that anything needs to 

be regulated to that extent. I think there needs to be support there 

to support the process. If you have strong Federal leadership—and 

the evolution of that in practice would be a different story. I do not 

think we could—at least I do not think as law enforcement we can 

make that statement. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Jill. 

Ms. SPRIGGS. We are not looking for Federal oversight. We are 

looking for leadership and direction and cooperation. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Scott. 

Mr. BURNS. I guess we have had these discussions at NDAA for 

some time, and the frustration that we have, for example, the National Advocacy Center, those in the Federal system that do 5 percent of the prosecution are given about $50 million a year; State 

and local prosecutors are now down to zero. We have some grants 

19 

and we have some ability to train, but we are supportive of individual States making determinations and decisions in their own 

States, but the big emphasis on our part, Senator, is consistent 

training. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Neufeld, do you want to add anything to this? 

Mr. NEUFELD. The only thing I would add to your last question, 

Senator Grassley, is I do not believe that the Federal Government 

can regulate what goes on in this area in the State courts. The 

kinds of fixes that we have all been talking about and what the legislation talks about are fixes upstream in laboratories. And if we 

improve things in laboratories, then it will have that kind of impact on the courts without the Federal Government stepping on 

anyone’s toes. 

Chairman LEAHY. Let me suggest this: We have heard actually 

some areas where you agree but some areas where you would make 

some changes. I noted earlier how much I appreciate the fact you 

have all worked with me and with Senator Grassley and with our 

staffs on this. I think we all agree, especially with the changes in 

science, and also agree with the lack of funding that we need in 

some of these areas, that we need to improve the system and the 

standards, and we need to have, no matter what State you are in, 

if you are being prosecuted in a State court, no matter what State 

you are in, that you know there are some basic good standards. 

Can I ask all of you if you will continue to work with me and 

the Committee in trying to develop legislation that we can all agree 

would be an overall improvement? Commander Stoiloff, would you 

agree to that? 

Ms. STOILOFF. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEAHY. And Ms. Spriggs. 

Ms. SPRIGGS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Neufeld. 

Mr. NEUFELD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BURNS. Absolutely, Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Well, I still go back to the same 

thing, that I considered myself a pretty confident, effective prosecutor, but, boy, I always wanted to make sure that I did not convict the innocent for two reasons: one, the horrible, horrible thing 

that it does to an innocent person, but it also meant that whoever 

committed the crime is still out there. 

So let us work together on this. It is a world far more complex 

than what we see on an hour-long TV program which has to wrap 

up in 43 minutes, or whatever it is. It is a lot more complex than 

that. 

Senator Franken, let me turn to you. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the 

witnesses. First, I would like to say to Commander Stoiloff and 

Chief Spriggs, thank you for being here today. I know that many 

crime labs are overworked and underfunded. You have a tough job. 

The NAS report was fairly critical of the current state of forensic 

science in the U.S., but I think that criticism is directed as structural problems that were identified in the report and should not be 

directed at the men and women who do the hard work, the honest 

20 

hard work in our Nation’s crimes labs, and I think it is important 

that we remember that. 

I also would like to thank Mr. Odom and Mr. Tribble for being 

here. I just cannot imagine what you have been through, and it 

takes tremendous courage to be here today and sort of remind us 

why reform is so important, so thank you. 

Mr. Neufeld, I attended a hearing a few weeks ago on solitary 

confinement practices, and Anthony Graves testified. He was 

wrongfully convicted and forced to spend 18 years behind bars, including many years in solitary confinement. In March I attended 

a hearing at which Thomas Haynesworth testified. He, too, spent 

time in prison for a crime he did not commit. 

Some people point out that wrongful convictions are rare, but 

Mr. Graves and Mr. Haynesworth provided a forceful reminder 

that even one wrongful conviction has horrendous effects on the accused and threatens the credibility of our judicial system. 

I know that the Innocent Project has identified 293 wrongful convictions in the last 20 years, or about 14 per year. But aren’t there 

other cases that we do not know about, too? What is the real scope 

of the problem? And what role does forensic science play in these 

cases? 

Mr. NEUFELD. Sure. Thank you, Senator. The Innocent Project 

plays a very limited role. All we do is we look at those people who 

are exonerated by DNA testing. There are hundreds of other people 

who have been exonerated by other types of evidence around the 

country, but they are not on our list because it was not a DNA exoneration. 

It has been pointed out by other people here today that, regrettably, this miracle called DNA is only usable in a very small minority of the violent crimes. So we are limited to working with that 

small minority. 

Moreover, in many of the cases that we take on, the biological 

evidence has been lost or destroyed in the intervening years. It is 

kind of like if a tree falls in the forest. If you do not hear it, you 

might say, you know, well, it is fine, it is still standing. The best 

example of it is the FBI’s decision last week that they are going 

to have a review of thousands and thousands of cases where their 

analysts wrote reports and testified in many, many instances in excess of the limits of science. 

Now, those cases have not been tested yet. We may find dozens 

and dozens more wrongful convictions. We do not know. And we do 

not know how many people have been wrongfully convicted where 

there is no biological evidence to exonerate them. So it is actually 

quite confusing for someone to suggest a certain numerator and a 

certain denominator. It has nothing to do with reality. 

Senator FRANKEN. Sure. In your written testimony, you noted, 

‘‘There is a global market for technologies with an application to 

public safety, and the United States has the capacity to capture 

that market with a national commitment today.’’ 

This is an interesting point, and we know that investments in forensic science will benefit the criminal justice system, but can you 

talk a bit more about the potential collateral benefits of—— 

Mr. NEUFELD. Sure. The best example currently is in the DNA 

area where you do have a company and other companies that make 

21 

the software and the hardware that have made millions, indeed billions of dollars by being able to sell that product not only here at 

home but abroad. There is no question that the United States has 

the right and the ability to be the leader in developing new technologies for fighting crime, for fighting terrorism, and we can market those products around the world. 

I would also say—and it is a different kind of product, but that 

product is the rule of law. And to the extent that we can become 

first and foremost in the world in developing more rigorous scientific techniques for solving crime, wouldn’t that be a marvelous 

example to send that all over the world so other countries will not 

decide cases based on politics or philosophy or associations but, 

rather, on hard scientific evidence? 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

I see my time is up, but may I continue, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman LEAHY. Go ahead. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Burns, in your testimony, you noted that there may be a perception out there that the law enforcement community is resistant 

to forensic science reform but that, in fact, nothing could be further 

from the truth. I am glad to hear you set the record straight on 

that point because it seems to me that the law enforcement community would actually benefit from improvements in forensic 

science, improvements in funding and research and training and 

certification standards. 

Can you talk a little bit about why availability of accurate and 

validated forensic science is so important to prosecutors? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, first of all, thank you for the question, and I 

guess the key for prosecutors and law enforcement is that we want 

to be included. We were not included in the National Academy of 

Science report. 

We also want to make it clear, because we get beat up every day, 

Senator, over the exceptions, and if there are 220 million cases 

handled since 1989, 220 million—and that is a minimum—of serious offenses, the only time prosecutors come to the media is, you 

know, when the plane crashes, not when they land safely. And the 

Innocence Project has done a great job at finding horrific cases, 

ones that keep prosecutors up all night long, and taking them 

around the country and telling those stories, and then there is 

some perception that the entire system—forensic, prosecutors, ethical—is broken, and that is, in our humble opinion, simply not the 

truth. Nobody talks about homicides are down 50 percent in this 

country over the last 30 years—50 percent. Burglaries, rapes, robberies are down 30 and 40 percent. This is a much safer country, 

and a lot of that is because not only forensics but because of the 

defense bar, prosecutors, and a heightened sophistication of our judicial system. 

So I just want to make the point that the system is not broken 

and the sky is not falling. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, thank you, and I do have a couple of 

other questions, but I will just submit them for the record, if that 

is OK. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

22 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

this hearing. 

[The questions of Senator Franken appear under questions and 

answers.] 

Chairman LEAHY. With that, we will stand in recess, and I thank 

all of you for coming here, and I appreciate also the willingness to 

work with us. We will get a piece of legislation, I think, that we 

can all agree on. But more importantly than just having a piece of 

legislation, we will have a better system as a result. 

So thank you all very much. We stand in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 11:21 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

23 


Insert offset folio 23 here 75711.001
24 


Insert offset folio 24 here 75711.002
25 


Insert offset folio 25 here 75711.003
26 


Insert offset folio 26 here 75711.004
27 


Insert offset folio 27 here 75711.005
28 


Insert offset folio 28 here 75711.006
29 


Insert offset folio 29 here 75711.007
30 


Insert offset folio 30 here 75711.008
31 


Insert offset folio 31 here 75711.009
32 


Insert offset folio 32 here 75711.010
33 


Insert offset folio 33 here 75711.011
34 


Insert offset folio 34 here 75711.012
35 


Insert offset folio 35 here 75711.013
36 


Insert offset folio 36 here 75711.014
37 


Insert offset folio 37 here 75711.015
38 


Insert offset folio 38 here 75711.016
39 


Insert offset folio 39 here 75711.017
40 


Insert offset folio 40 here 75711.018
41 


Insert offset folio 41 here 75711.019
42 


Insert offset folio 42 here 75711.020
43 


Insert offset folio 43 here 75711.021
44 


Insert offset folio 44 here 75711.022
45 


Insert offset folio 45 here 75711.023
46 


Insert offset folio 46 here 75711.024
47 


Insert offset folio 47 here 75711.025
48 


Insert offset folio 48 here 75711.026
49 


Insert offset folio 49 here 75711.027
50 


Insert offset folio 50 here 75711.028
51 


Insert offset folio 51 here 75711.029
52 


Insert offset folio 52 here 75711.030
53 


Insert offset folio 53 here 75711.031
54 


Insert offset folio 54 here 75711.032
55 


Insert offset folio 55 here 75711.033
56 


Insert offset folio 56 here 75711.034
57 


Insert offset folio 57 here 75711.035
58 


Insert offset folio 58 here 75711.036
59 


Insert offset folio 59 here 75711.037
60 


Insert offset folio 60 here 75711.038
61 


Insert offset folio 61 here 75711.039
62 


Insert offset folio 62 here 75711.040
63 


Insert offset folio 63 here 75711.041
64 


Insert offset folio 64 here 75711.042
65 


Insert offset folio 65 here 75711.043
66 


Insert offset folio 66 here 75711.044
67 


Insert offset folio 67 here 75711.045
68 


Insert offset folio 68 here 75711.046
69 


Insert offset folio 69 here 75711.047
70 


Insert offset folio 70 here 75711.048
71 


Insert offset folio 71 here 75711.049
72 


Insert offset folio 72 here 75711.050
73 


Insert offset folio 73 here 75711.051
74 


Insert offset folio 74 here 75711.052
75 


Insert offset folio 75 here 75711.053
76 


Insert offset folio 76 here 75711.054
77 


Insert offset folio 77 here 75711.055
78 


Insert offset folio 78 here 75711.056
79 


Insert offset folio 79 here 75711.057
80 


Insert offset folio 80 here 75711.058
81 


Insert offset folio 81 here 75711.059
82 


Insert offset folio 82 here 75711.060
83 


Insert offset folio 83 here 75711.061
84 


Insert offset folio 84 here 75711.062
85 


Insert offset folio 85 here 75711.063
86 


Insert offset folio 86 here 75711.064
87 


Insert offset folio 87 here 75711.065
88 


Insert offset folio 88 here 75711.066
89 


Insert offset folio 89 here 75711.067
90 


Insert offset folio 90 here 75711.068
91 


Insert offset folio 91 here 75711.069
92 


Insert offset folio 92 here 75711.070
93 


Insert offset folio 93 here 75711.071
94 


Insert offset folio 94 here 75711.072
95 


Insert offset folio 95 here 75711.073
96 


Insert offset folio 96 here 75711.074
97 


Insert offset folio 97 here 75711.075
98 


Insert offset folio 98 here 75711.076
99 


Insert offset folio 99 here 75711.077
100 


Insert offset folio 100 here 75711.078
101 


Insert offset folio 101 here 75711.079
102 


Insert offset folio 102 here 75711.080
103 


Insert offset folio 103 here 75711.081
104 


Insert offset folio 104 here 75711.082
105 


Insert offset folio 105 here 75711.083
106 


Insert offset folio 106 here 75711.084
107 


Insert offset folio 107 here 75711.085
108 


Insert offset folio 108 here 75711.086
109 


Insert offset folio 109 here 75711.087
110 


Insert offset folio 110 here 75711.088
111 


Insert offset folio 111 here 75711.089
112 


Insert offset folio 112 here 75711.090
113 


Insert offset folio 113 here 75711.091
114 


Insert offset folio 114 here 75711.092
115 


Insert offset folio 115 here 75711.093
116 


Insert offset folio 116 here 75711.094
117 


Insert offset folio 117 here 75711.095
118 


Insert offset folio 118 here 75711.096
119 


Insert offset folio 119 here 75711.097
120 


Insert offset folio 120 here 75711.098
121 


Insert offset folio 121 here 75711.099
122 


Insert offset folio 122 here 75711.100
123 


Insert offset folio 123 here 75711.101
124 


Insert offset folio 124 here 75711.102
125 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 125 here 75711.103