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

56–523 PDF 2010

RAPE KIT BACKLOGS: FAILING THE TEST OF

PROVIDING JUSTICE TO SEXUAL ASSAULT SURVIVORS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 20, 2010

Serial No. 111–115

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR.,

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TOM ROONEY, Florida

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 20, 2010

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 2

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 6

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 16

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 18

The Honorable Anthony D. Weiner, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 20

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23

The Honorable Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 25

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 29

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 34

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 36

Kym L. Worthy, Esq., Wayne County Prosecutor, Detroit, MI 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 41

Ms. Valerie Neumann, Sexual Assault Survivor, Cincinnati, OH 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 43

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 46

Ms. Mariska Hargitay, Joyful Heart Foundation, New York, NY 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 50

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 52

Christian Hassell, Ph.D., Assistant Director, Laboratory Division, FBI, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 63

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 71

Mr. Jeffrey S. Boschwitz, Ph.D., Vice President, North American Sales and 

Marketing, Orchid Cellmark, Inc., Princeton, NJ 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 77

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 80

Mr. Peter Marone, Director, Virginia Department of Forensic Science, Richmond, VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 88

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 91

Page

IV

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ................................................... 3

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Richard Shelby, a U.S. Senator from 

the State of Alabama ........................................................................................... 8

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on 

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 13

Letter to the Honorable Robert S. Mueller, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, submitted by the Honorable Anthony D. Weiner, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of New York ........................................................... 27

Prepared Statement from the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department 

of Justice ............................................................................................................... 64

Report from Human Rights Watch, submitted by the Honorable Robert C. 

‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, 

and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ......................................................................................................................... 107

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 175

(1)

RAPE KIT BACKLOGS: FAILING THE TEST OF 

PROVIDING JUSTICE TO SEXUAL ASSAULT 

SURVIVORS 

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert C. 

‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Conyers, Nadler, Cohen, Weiner, 

Quigley, Gohmert, Poe, and Goodlatte. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Bobby Vassar, Subcommittee Chief 

Counsel; Jesselyn McCurdy, Counsel; Veronica Eligan, Professional 

Staff Member; (Minority) Caroline Lynch, Counsel; Art Baker, FBI 

Detailee; and Kelsey Whitlock, Staff Assistant. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

I am pleased to welcome you to today’s hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security entitled 

‘‘Rape Kit Backlogs: Failing the Test of Providing Justice to Sexual 

Assault Survivors.’’

When a person is raped and reports the crime to police or goes 

to the hospital, he or she will be asked to submit to the collection 

of a rape kit. A rape kit is a collection of any physical evidence the 

attacker may have left behind, and the process of collecting the evidence can take anywhere from 4 to 6 hours. 

When the police officer takes the rape kit and books it into police 

evidence, victims may assume that the kit is sent to the crime lab 

for testing. Actually, many rape kits remain in police evidence storage facilities for years after they are collected and are never tested. 

Even when kits are submitted to the crime lab for testing, it can 

take months for the crime lab to get the results back to the requesting police officers. Although most victims who report being 

raped consent to the very invasive and time-consuming process of 

having evidence collected for a rape kit, many of these kits are 

never tested. 

Studies have shown that when a rape kit is collected, tested, and 

contains offender DNA, it is significantly more likely that the case 

will be prosecuted than cases where no rape kit is collected. Also, 

research shows that evidence such as a rape kit is important to 

2

prosecutors when deciding whether to bring the charge in the first 

place. There is growing evidence that juries have come to expect 

DNA evidence in order to convict a defendant. These findings show 

how important the rape kit collection and testing is in solving 

crimes and convicting rapists. 

Crime labs across the country are flooded with requests for DNA 

testing. A recent report found that public crime labs saw their 

DNA backlog double in 2005. Research also concluded that public 

crime labs across the country would need to increase their DNA analyst staff by 73 percent to keep up with DNA testing needs and 

requests. 

In some jurisdictions, these staff shortages and increasing numbers of requests for DNA testing have led to backlogs in processing 

rape kits. The rape kit backlogs originate at two points in the 

criminal justice process: First is when the rape kit is booked into 

evidence in storage facilities but detectives do not request a DNA 

test of the kit. Other backlogs exist in police crime labs where kits 

are submitted for DNA testing and the testing does not take place 

in a timely manner. 

These massive backlogs of untested rape kits are allowing offenders to perpetrate crimes that would not otherwise having been committed had these rape kits been tested. 

In 2004, Congress recognized the problem of rape kit backlogs in 

crime labs and passed the Debbie Smith Act, named after a sexual 

assault survivor whose attacker could have been caught 6 years 

sooner had her rape kit been processed in a timely manner. The 

Debbie Smith Act provides grant money to States for any type of 

DNA testing, including testing of rape kits. Although States are receiving Debbie Smith funds to eliminate DNA backlogs, some of the 

money is going unspent because of State and local laws that prohibit using money to hire crime lab staff. 

During today’s hearing, Representatives Carolyn Maloney and 

Anthony Weiner will testify about bills each have introduced to 

specifically address the rape kit backlog problem. Representatives 

Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler will also testify about their work in 

Los Angeles and New York City, respectively, to address backlogs 

in those cities. Our other witnesses will discuss why testing rape 

kits is so important to victims of sexual assault and how public and 

private labs can use their resources to reduce and avoid backlogs. 

It is now my pleasure to recognize the esteemed Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Judge 

Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman Scott. 

And I thank each of our witnesses for appearing here, with my 

apologies for being late. 

And out of deference to them, I would ask that my written statement be submitted for the record so that we can go straight to their 

testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gohmert follows:]

3


LG-1.eps
4


LG-2.eps
5


LG-3.eps
6

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Without objection. 

Does the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Conyers, have a statement? 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I only wanted to point out that it may be accidental that all of our distinguished Members of Congress are 

from New York, save one, Adam Schiff, who is from California. And 

the question is, what does that mean, since we have more than two 

States in the Union? 

And what I am thinking that it means is that New York is 

doing—and I will be listening to their testimony—they are doing a 


LG-4.eps
7

good job, but they just need far more resources. But they have a 

huge backlog. And the question that brings us here today is, how 

do we get rid of the backlog? Do we give public labs more money? 

Or do we give them more money to hire people to get rid of the 

backlog? And I think we are going to hear this come out in the testimony from our Members, three of which are from the Committee 

itself. 

And we are very proud, Chairman Scott, that you have put this 

focal point on an issue that is really something that can be addressed and remedied. And I also appreciate the bipartisan nature 

of the work. I particularly praise Judge Louie Gohmert for his work 

in this effort, as well. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Will the gentleman yield? 

With regard to the bipartisan nature, we had two witnesses that 

were scheduled to be here—Representative Peter King, also from 

New York, but also Senator Shelby—who were both unable to get 

here this morning. But they were scheduled to make this a very 

bipartisan panel but were not able to make it. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, thank you, Louie. We will put their statements in the record, if necessary. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shelby follows:]

8


Shelby-1.eps
9


Shelby-2.eps
10


Shelby-3.eps
11


Shelby-4.eps
12

Mr. CONYERS. As well as Sheila Jackson Lee, who has worked on 

this extensively and, because of her mother’s passing, will not, of 

course, be here. I ask unanimous consent that she be able to insert 

her statement into the record, if necessary. 

And I yield back my time, Chairman Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 


Shelby-5.eps
13

And, without objection, in view of the time constraints we are 

under, other Members will be asked to include opening statements 

for the record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]


JC-1.eps
14


JC-2.eps
15

Mr. SCOTT. We have two panels of distinguished witnesses today 

to help us consider this important issue. Our first panel consists 

of four Members of Congress. 

The first witness is Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, who represents the 14th District of New York. She is recognized as a national leader in financial services, national security, the economy, 

and women’s issues. As a senior Member of the Financial Services 

Committee and Oversight and Government Reform Committee, 


JC-3.eps
16

Representative Maloney is known as a champion for domestic and 

international women’s issues. She is the original sponsor of H.R. 

4114, the ‘‘Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act of 2009,’’ 

which she will testify about today. 

Our second witness will be Congressman Anthony Weiner, who 

represents the Ninth District of New York. He currently sits on the 

Energy and Commerce Committee, Judiciary Committee, and is a 

member of the Democratic leadership team. He is the original 

sponsor of H.R. 2157, the ‘‘DNA Expansion and Improvement Act 

of 2009.’’

The third witness is Congressman Adam Schiff, who represents 

California’s 29th Congressional District. He is a Member of the Appropriations and Judiciary Committees and the Permanent Select 

Committee on Intelligence. As a former prosecutor, he brings expertise to the Judiciary Committee on issues such as intellectual 

property theft and piracy of copyrighted materials. 

And our final witness on the panel is Congressman Jerry Nadler, 

who represents New York’s Eighth District. Representative Nadler 

is Chair of the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. He is also a Member of 

the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and is an assistant Democratic whip. 

As has been pointed out, other Members wanted to be here but 

couldn’t, particularly Sheila Jackson Lee, who was instrumental in 

calling this hearing today. 

Our Members are familiar with the lighting system, so we would 

ask you to begin your testimony now, with Congresswoman 

Maloney. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CAROLYN B. MALONEY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

YORK 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you so much, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Gohmert, for holding this hearing on a critically important issue, the DNA rape kit backlog. 

Rape kits, if they are processed in a timely manner, can protect 

innocent victims and get rapists off the streets. 

I have been working on this issue since 2001 when I organized 

a hearing on the use of DNA to both convict and exonerate. And 

coming out of that hearing was the Debbie Smith Act, a block grant 

program funding SANE nurses. Over $550 million has gone into 

this program to process the backlog; $150 million is in this year’s 

budget. And it goes into the CODIS, the centralized national database of the FBI. 

Although many localities have received these moneys, not all of 

them are processing it. And I wanted to say one brief New York 

story that tells why it is so important. 

A woman named Catherine Ham was raped in New York City in 

roughly 1975. Her rapist was apprehended by the police. They 

thought they had a cut-and-dry case. She went to court. They 

turned her into someone mad at her pimp. He got free. Thirty 

years later, because of this bill and the attention of the New York 

City Police Department and prosecutors, they processed her clothVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:07 Nov 04, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\052010\56523.000 HJUD1 PsN: 56523
17

ing, they made a connection. The man was now in jail, and he had 

raped 27 additional women. 

Most rapists are serial. And each rape kit that is not processed 

represents a life of a victim and the possibility that this criminal 

will rape many more. So, by just processing that kit and making 

the connection, you not only relieve the victim’s fear of an additional assault from the rapist, but also prevent rape with many 

other people. 

The problem is that there is no accountability. And the bill that 

I have put forward, the ‘‘Survivors of Sexual Assault Act,’’ H.R. 

4114, will build more accountability into the system. It will require 

a reporting system so that we can really track what the backlog is. 

No one really knows what it is now. 

And it will require the jurisdictions applying for Debbie Smith 

funds to send all rape kits to crime labs and implement plans to 

have the rape kit backlogs handled in a 2-year period. It also provides incentives, monetary incentives, for jurisdictions to reduce 

their rape kit backlog and promptly process them. 

And it requires the States to be responsible for the full up-front 

cost of rape kit examinations. Victims should not have to pay for 

their rape kits. 

And it also, very importantly, funds the sexual assault nurse examiners, the so-called SANE nurses. The police tell me that if they 

have a rape kit that is processed by a SANE nurse, they can always get a conviction. It is important to have this professional attention to it. 

My bill has a companion bill, S. 2736, introduced by Franken and 

Grassley, and we hope that we will be able to pass it this year. And 

this bill aims to help build that capacity, tackling only rape kits 

and, importantly, requiring the reporting and the backlog information. 

I want to thank the Subcommittee for inviting me to testify. The 

Debbie Smith Act has helped save lives. And I just want to conclude by saying that DNA evidence from rape cases not only helps 

police identify rapists in existing unsolved cases, but also prevents 

future assaults and spares potential new victims by bringing a rapist to justice early in their criminal careers. And, undeniably, prosecuting rapists early on is the single most effective rape prevention 

tool that we have available. 

The Debbie Smith bill has been called by many advocates as the 

most effective anti-rape legislation ever enacted into law. The bill 

that we have authored this year would make that bill stronger, 

would bring accountability into the system, and put the rapists behind bars, where they belong. It is really unconscionable that so 

many hundreds of thousands of rape kits are on the shelves, unprocessed. Each one represents a life destroyed and the ability to 

prevent future rapes. 

So I just want to thank all of you for being here today, and I 

hope we will be able to move this bill forward. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Maloney follows:]

18

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CAROLYN B. MALONEY,

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK


CBM-1.eps
19

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Weiner? 


CBM-2.eps
20

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ANTHONY D. WEINER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

YORK 

Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member 

Gohmert, for the opportunity to testify on the importance of reducing the rape kit backlog and the progress that has been made on 

this issue. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses, including that of Valerie Neumann, who will share her very powerful 

story, and Mariska Hargitay at the Joyful Heart Foundation, who 

has used her considerable fame to bring light to this problem and 

also to try to find solutions. 

I have been an advocate for promptly testing DNA kits for some 

time. The significance of testing all rape kits can’t be overstated. 

Every untested rape kit is a victim waiting for justice, a sexual 

predator unpunished, and perhaps more crimes waiting to happen. 

In 1999, in my first year in Congress, as a Member of this Committee, I authored the ‘‘DNA Backlog Elimination Act’’ that required the Department of Justice to establish a program to assist 

State and local governments with their DNA backlog. 

In 2000, I worked with our former colleague Bill McCollum to 

pass the ‘‘DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000,’’ which 

provided Federal funding to State and local governments to test 

DNA samples. That was the first time that Federal resources had 

been brought to bear on that problem. 

Then, in 2004, my ‘‘DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act’’ was included in part of the ‘‘Justice for All Act.’’ This legislation did a 

number of things, including increasing grants to State and local 

governments for DNA testing, requiring State and local government crime labs to undergo accreditation for the first time and auditing every 2 years, and also providing grants for law enforcement 

and medical personnel to be trained on the collection and preservation of DNA. 

Since then, I was honored to work with my colleagues to help 

pass the ‘‘Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 2008.’’ And I want 

to take a moment to highlight the work of Carolyn Maloney on that 

issue. As a Member of this Judiciary Committee, she never let me 

forget for a moment how important this issue was. That law would 

not be a law were it not for Carolyn Maloney, and no one should 

forget that. 

Since 1999, there has been considerable progress across the country in understanding the power of DNA testing. Simply put, DNA 

evidence breathes life into old cases, solving hundreds in New York 

City alone, and can be a lifesaver for the wrongly accused. Testing 

rape kits provides much-needed information and peace of mind for 

rape victims, brings rapists to justice, and frees the wrongly convicted. 

And I want to stress that final point. You know, this is seen by 

many, myself included, as a very important criminal justice tool to 

get the people who did crimes in jail. But it is also a tool to make 

sure that we don’t make mistakes. And more and more often, we 

read in newspapers that DNA evidence has been used to free the 

wrongly convicted. No matter what lens you look at this issue 

21

through, whether it is a criminal justice issue or a civil rights issue 

or a civil justice issue, DNA rape kit testing is very important. 

In addition to requiring all convicted felons to provide DNA samples, during our consideration of the Debbie Smith Act I testified 

about a woman being raped in 1998. For 7 years, that case went 

unsolved until the State of Pennsylvania passed its own law requiring anyone convicted of a felony to submit their DNA to the State 

database. It turns out there was a DNA hit from a man who had 

been convicted of forgery. This is just one of a number of cases 

where DNA is bringing criminals to justice for previously unsolved 

cold cases. 

My hometown of New York City has been one of the success stories. New York City, at one time, had a backlog of 17,000 rape kits. 

However, through a significant infusion of funding and a commitment to justice by the Federal Government and local leaders, New 

York City processed all of these rape kits, tested each rape kit, and 

now does not have a backlog, Mr. Conyers. 

The result of this has been at least 2,000 cold hits on rape kits, 

and the arrest rate for reported cases of rape in New York City 

rose from 40 percent to 70 percent, according to Human Rights 

Watch. Additionally, New York City tests kits quickly. In fact, the 

average for all DNA cases in New York City’s Office of Medical Examiners is 75 days. Even better is the average turnaround for sexual assault cases, which stands at 40 days. 

However, there have been longstanding challenges in other parts 

of the country. A disturbing trend has been the difficulty for labs, 

the Department of Justice, and policymakers to get a true picture 

of how many untested rape kits are sitting in police storage facilities. Understandably, local law enforcement has been reluctant to 

say, ‘‘We’ve got thousands of kits sitting around,’’ so they are simply not sharing the information. 

In 2003, a National Institute of Justice study found that there 

were over 542,000 criminal cases with possible biological evidence 

sitting in local police storage facilities or forensic labs. Additionally, 

this study found that the average turnaround in the United States 

is—get this—between 24 and 30 weeks, compared to 30 days in 

England. 

More troubling was that over 50 percent of local law enforcement 

agencies said that forensic DNA was not considered a tool for 

criminal investigations. Let me say that again: More than 50 percent of enforcement agencies said that forensic DNA was not considered a tool for criminal investigations. 

A similar study published last year found that State and local 

law enforcement agencies did not submit thousands of unsolved 

homicide cases, 3,975, and rape cases, 27,595, to a criminal laboratory at all. Over 12,000, or 40 percent, of these unsolved homicides 

and rape cases contained DNA evidence. Even more troubling was 

that, despite the great awareness of the power of DNA, nearly half 

the law enforcement officials in the study, as I said, said they did 

not even use it as evidence in a case. 

Lastly, approximately 60 percent of enforcement agencies reported not having a computerized information system in place capable of tracking forensic evidence. That means basically these 

were boxes, rape kits on walls, with pads of paper, that even if you 

22

had a sense that someone might have had evidence that could solve 

another crime, they were unable to match those two things together. 

Finally, for these reasons, I have introduced the ‘‘DNA Expansion 

Improvement Act of 2009.’’ This legislation would increase funding 

to State and local governments for testing rape kits and DNA samples; establish two new $50 million grant programs, one for public 

labs to purchase or upgrade technology and a second for testing of 

property crimes. 

Additionally, the bill would require that all States collect DNA 

from felons in prison and for all felony crimes in the future or lose 

the opportunity for funding. This is critical for States that still do 

not require all felons to submit their DNA. And those two States 

that remain are Idaho and New Hampshire. 

As the Committee moves forward on this important issue, I believe one of the most important aspects we need to focus on is to 

get a true picture of the national backlog. And I hope Dr. Hassell 

with the FBI will be able to shed some light on this subject. Recent 

studies that I mentioned vary greatly, and we need to ensure that, 

no matter in what city or State a crime is committed, the rape kits 

are tested in a timely manner and rapist are taken off the streets. 

And I thank you, Ranking Member Gohmert and Chairman 

Scott. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weiner follows:]

23

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANTHONY D. WEINER,

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK


ADW-1.eps
24

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Schiff? 


ADW-2.eps
25

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ADAM B. SCHIFF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Mr. Chairman, 

and Members of the Committee, thank you for calling this important hearing and inviting me to participate. 

As my colleague Mr. Weiner pointed out, there is no reliable accounting for the number of sexual assault kits that are backlogged 

around the country or even a consensus as to what constitutes a 

backlogged kit. But we do know that sexual assault kits are sitting 

on shelves for months and years and that crime labs around the 

Nation are struggling to do more with less. And we know that, as 

a result, rapists are walking the streets and justice for their victims is being denied. 

I am sorry to say that Los Angeles knows only too well about 

rape kit backlogs. In 2008, a full accounting of rape kits sitting in 

storage for more than 30 days revealed that the backlog stood at 

over 13,000 kits between the city and county labs. A breakdown of 

that backlog revealed that over 200 kits in the county alone were 

older than 10 years and, therefore, beyond the statute of limitations for a rape case even if a positive hit was discovered. 

Los Angeles is far from alone. Many other cities have these backlogs, whether their citizens know it or not. 

When I started working to address the Los Angeles backlog, I 

found that it was not as simple as putting more money into the 

crime lab. New forensic scientists have to be hired, trained, and 

then they have to have the lab space and resources to do their jobs. 

The process from hiring and training a scientist to the point where 

he or she can process a rape kit can take years to accomplish. 

To make an immediate dent in the backlog, the city and county 

both employed the capacity of private labs that had the manpower 

and expertise to process these kits immediately. Both the city and 

county have outsourced thousands of kits. Were it not for that option, closing the backlog would have taken years longer, if it was 

possible at all. 

There is a simple step that could immediately take action to 

speed the processing of sexual assault evidence and improve the efficiency of public labs. The National DNA Index System rules govern what can be uploaded into the national database. The rules require that any crime scene evidence outsourced by a private lab 

must undergo a technical review by the public lab, which is a manual rechecking of the private lab’s work. 

The technical review of each kit is a time-intensive process. In 

fact, the Federal Government assisted the city of Los Angeles with 

half a million dollars this year that will go entirely toward paying 

the overtime for forensic scientists who are conducting the technical reviews. For several years now, I have been calling on the 

FBI to evaluate this rule in light of the evidence that it is an unnecessary and burdensome requirement on overstretched public 

labs. 

There have been some suggestions that the call to look at the 

technical review standards are being driven by private labs. It is 

simply not the case. If you don’t believe me, go to Los Angeles and 

talk to Mayor Villaraigosa or Chief Charlie Beck or Sheriff Lee 

26

Baca and ask them about the impact of technical review on their 

budgets and the turnaround time for backlogged rape kits. 

Let me be clear: This is not about private labs versus public labs. 

I come from a law enforcement background as a former Federal 

prosecutor and have no desire to remove law enforcement functions 

from public crime labs. I strongly support building the capacity and 

efficiency of public labs so they can quickly process DNA. I am opposed to opening up CODIS to any private entity, but an overbroad 

and cumbersome technical review requirement is hampering law 

enforcement’s ability to take dangerous people off the street. 

I am pleased that, in March of this year, the FBI announced that 

they were looking at a technical review rule change and studying 

possible alterations. There are a range of options on the table for 

the 100 percent manual review that preserve the integrity of 

CODIS. Among these are expert systems that can automate the 

technical review process. We can also require a high degree of accreditation for private labs and require them to undergo regular 

audits. 

I believe, though, the best option would be to require the technical review after a hit in CODIS. What we should not do is continue to hamstring public labs that need immediate capacity or law 

enforcement that needs to know whether a profile that has been 

gathered from a rape kit matches a suspect already in CODIS. 

As eager as I am to hear more about the intention of the FBI 

and the NDIS board to modify the existing rules, I am concerned 

that the timing will do little to relieve the immediate problem faced 

by Los Angeles. The LAPD has over 2,000 evidence kits that have 

been returned from the private labs that are still waiting to be 

uploaded into CODIS because of the several hours it takes the lab 

technician to perform the technical review. This is despite the fact 

that, in the thousands of kits in which the technical review has already been performed, they haven’t located a single error that impacted the integrity of the database or would have resulted in a 

false match. 

For that reason, last week I sent a letter to FBI Director Robert 

Mueller and Attorney General Holder asking them to consider immediate steps to ease the technical review burden on the LAPD. 

The FBI is considering options for pilot programs to test the efficacy of alternatives to the 100 percent manual technical review requirement, and I believe that L.A. Is a perfect venue for a pilot 

project. Nine other members of the Los Angeles congressional delegation have joined me in writing. In requesting this pilot, we believe that Los Angeles can prove the concept of a new technical review regime while speeding the day that the L.A. Backlog is truly 

closed. 

[The information referred to follows:]

27


F-1.eps
28

Mr. SCHIFF. In closing, Mr. Chairman, if we are able to accelerate the uploading of these samples that have already been reviewed in Los Angeles, these thousands of kits, statistically we 

know we will take people off the street that, if we wait, may go on 

to commit other rapes and murders. That is the cost of delay. 


F-2.eps
29

And I want to thank you again for holding this hearing. I hope 

it is the beginning of powerful action to modify the technical review 

requirement and accelerate the processing of DNA rape kits. 

And I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schiff follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ADAM B. SCHIFF,

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


Schiff-1.eps
30


Schiff-2.eps
31


Schiff-3.eps
32


Schiff-4.eps
33

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Before we get to Mr. Nadler, I just want to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, and the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Quigley, who are with us today. 

Mr. Nadler? 


Schiff-5.eps
34

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JERROLD NADLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

YORK 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. And good 

morning, Chairman Scott. I see now Ranking Member Goodlatte 

and Mr. Chairman Conyers and fellow Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you will for allowing me to testify today on this 

critical issue of the continuing rape kit backlog. 

248,288 is the number of rapes and sexual assaults that occurred 

in 2007, as reported by the Department of Justice. That is more 

than 679 rapes and sexual assaults every day; 28 every hour of 

every day. That is an unconscionable number of people, almost all 

of them women and girls, victimized in the United States on a 

daily basis in the most horrible way. 

Rape and sexual assault are horrible crimes which can destroy 

the lives of the victims and their families. They are terrors which 

no one should have suffer and which it is our duty to make sure 

that as few as possible suffer from. 

Modern science has thankfully provided a way for us to combat 

this scourge: DNA testing. By testing the DNA evidence left at the 

scene of a rape or sexual assault, we can with near certainty identify the perpetrator or perpetrators involved. Such evidence makes 

it much more likely these individuals will be captured and punished. This, in turn, allows victims to obtain justice and society to 

take violent criminals off the streets. It also allows us definitively 

to exonerate the often falsely accused innocent. 

Every part of this sequence is important. Tragically, however, we 

continue to fail at a key step in the process: the collection and testing of evidence. Compounding the terrible crime itself is the crime 

that tens of thousands of rape kits which hold the key to justice 

and to prevention are not being analyzed in a timely manner. That 

there is any rape kit backlog at all is simply wrong and intolerable, 

and that we have known about it for as long as we have and have 

not done that much about it is also wrong and intolerable. 

For many years, this Committee has worked to end the rape kit 

backlog. Back in 2002, I introduced the ‘‘Rape Kit DNA Analysis 

Backlog Elimination Act,’’ which authorized $250 million to help 

police departments finance testing rape kits, thereby reducing their 

backlog. Working with my colleagues and with outside organizations, we kept up the pressure to deal with the problem. 

Finally, in 2004, I was an original cosponsor of the ‘‘Justice for 

All Act,’’ introduced by the then-chairman of this Committee, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner. That bill included many of the provisions of my 2002 bill and of Congressman Weiner’s earlier bill. 

Title II of that bill, known as the Debbie Smith Act, which was 

Congresswoman Maloney’s title, authorized hundreds of millions of 

dollars for DNA testing and strengthened the ability of State and 

local law enforcement specifically to test rape kits. 

Last year, the Appropriations Committee proposed a fiscal year 2010 appropriation for this program of $146 million, less than authorized and less even than the prior year, for fiscal year 2010. 

This was unacceptable. The lives and wellbeing of too many women 

across the country was at stake. So I moved an amendment to the 

35

budget last year, joined in that effort by Representatives Maloney 

and Mike Michaud of Maine, to increase funding to the fully authorized amount. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 411 to 

1, which shows the feeling in this House on this subject when properly mobilized. So we got the full funding. 

Despite this, the rape kit backlog continues to be a major problem, and progress is extremely uneven across the country. As already mentioned, we don’t even know a lot of the data. For example, we know that there remain 5,000 untested rape kits in Illinois 

and 4,000 in the city of Houston alone. At the same time, New 

York City has eliminated its backlog, as Congressman Weiner mentioned. Because of this unevenness and the lack even of adequate 

data at to the scope of the problem nationwide and as to the nature 

of the problem in many areas, we really need a nationwide solution. 

I am grateful the Committee is holding this hearing on this continuing crisis, because a crisis it is. The Committee has assembled 

an excellent group of witnesses. I wish to thank my colleagues on 

this panel for their hard work on this issue. 

I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses on the next 

panel, in particular, to help us determine what changes to the current law are necessary—there are a number of bills already in; 

there may be more—and how much more in the way of resources 

we need, as well as changes in law, to ends the rape kit backlog 

once and for all and to bring finality and justice to this issue. 

Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to testify. And 

I expect to go to the other side of the table soon to listen to the 

testimony of our next panel. I thank you again. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nadler follows:]

36

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JERROLD NADLER,

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK


JN-1.eps
37


JN-2.eps
38


JN-3.eps
39

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

I don’t have questions; the Ranking Member doesn’t have questions. I recognize the Chairman of the full Committee. 


JN-4.eps
40

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank these four 

Members of Congress for their incredible tenacity and understanding and evaluation of the problem. 

I think, with Eric Holder over there at DOJ, we are going to get 

some movement on this in the 111th Congress. And I thank you 

for holding the hearing. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And I thank our witnesses. 

If our next panel will come forward? 

As the next panel is coming forward, I will begin the introductions. 

Our first witness is Kym Worthy, the Wayne County, Michigan, 

prosecutor. She began her legal career at the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office and, in 1994, was elected to the Detroit Recorder’s 

Court. Her career came full circle in 2004 when she returned to the 

Prosecutor’s Office as the Wayne County prosecutor, the first African American and the first female to hold that position. 

Our second witness is Valerie Neumann. She was sexually assaulted by a man she met while celebrating her 21st birthday. 

Over the next year, she followed up with the police to see if her 

rape kit had been tested and later found out that her rape kit had 

not been sent to the crime lab for testing. Eventually, the prosecutor in her case declined to prosecute, and her rape kit was never 

tested. Valerie is currently in school in Wilmington College in Cincinnati, Ohio, working on her master’s degree in business management. 

Our third witness is Mariska Hargitay. She founded the Joyful 

Heart Foundation after hearing stories of sexual assault survivors 

who contacted her about their cases after seeing her in her role as 

Detective Olivia Benson in ‘‘Law and Order: Special Victims Unit.’’ 

The foundation’s mission is to heal and educate and empower survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse and to 

shed light on the darkness that surrounds these issues. And, as 

Representative Weiner indicated, she is using her considerable 

fame and a lot of time to help victims of sexual assault. 

Our next witness is Christian Hassell, assistant director of the 

FBI Lab Division. He came to the FBI from Oklahoma State University Multispectral Laboratories, where he led research, development, testing, and evaluation. He earned his Bachelor of Science 

degree in chemistry from Brigham Young University and Ph.D. in 

analytical chemistry from the University of Texas at Austin. 

Our fifth witness is Jeffrey Boschwitz, vice president of Orchid 

Cellmark, Incorporated. Orchid Cellmark invented some of the 

technology used for forensic DNA testing today and is one of the 

largest private labs providing forensic human identity testing. He 

earned a Ph.D. In immunology from Cornell and completed his 

post-doctoral work at Stanford. 

And today’s last witness is Peter Marone, director of the Virginia 

Department of Forensic Science. He began his forensic career at 

the Allegheny County Crime Lab in Pittsburgh until he accepted 

a position at the Virginia Bureau of Forensic Science. For many 

years, the Virginia Bureau has been in the forefront of DNA testing. The bureau was responsible for some of the earliest DNA convictions and is, in fact, an inspiration of Patricia Cornwell’s book 

41

series featuring Dr. Kay Scarpetta and her detective sidekick, Pete 

Marino. In 2007, Mr. Marone was appointed director of the Virginia Department of Forensic Science. He has a bachelor of science 

and a master of science in chemistry from the University of Pittsburgh. 

Now, each of our witnesses’ written statements will be entered 

into the record in its entirety, and I ask each witness to summarize 

your testimony in 5 minutes or less. And to help you stay within 

that time, there is a timing device at the table that will begin with 

green, turn orange when there is 1 minute remaining and red 

when the 5 minutes have expired. 

We will begin with Ms. Worthy. 

TESTIMONY OF KYM L. WORTHY, ESQ.,

WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTOR, DETROIT, MI 

Ms. WORTHY. Thank you. Thank you to all of you for having me 

in to talk about this issue. 

In 2008, there were almost 15,000 murders in the United States, 

according to FBI statistics. Contrast that with, in September of 

2009, last year, 12,000 untested rape kits were discovered in the 

Detroit Police Department property room annex. We now believe 

the real number is 15,000 and climbing. This is one city in one 

county in one State. 

This represents 15,000 rape victims whose lives are now sitting 

on a shelf, abandoned, forgotten, and ignored. How old some of 

these tests are I do not know. Victims who thought their cases 

were being investigated and paid attention to. 

I want to just take you through very briefly, although I cannot 

describe the horror, of what a victim goes through in going through 

a rape kit test. They can last for hours and hours. And it is done 

under an ultraviolet light, and every crack and crevice of their bodies are literally examined, prodded, poked. Every orifice is scrutinized for semen, hair, fibers, anything that can lead to evidence 

and a prosecution. Again, I cannot adequately describe how horrific 

this exam is. 

Then, to have all of this packaged up and transferred to a local 

police department, only to sit on the shelf for years. We believe 

that some of these rape kits in the city of Detroit are over 10 years 

old. So they are victimized again. 

Rape cases are among the hardest to prosecute, short only probably of child molesting cases. As you have indicated, I am the elected prosecutor for the county of Wayne. Some of your jurisdictions 

call us district attorneys. Wayne County is in Michigan, the largest 

county in the State. I am responsible for 43 cities, townships, and 

municipalities. Detroit, obviously, is the largest city, and Wayne 

County is the 13th largest county in the Nation. 

As you stated, I was a previous assistant prosecutor, where I personally prosecuted thousands and thousands of cases. I was also a 

sitting judge on the circuit court, where I personally presided over 

5,000 cases. My office, the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, prosecutes 80,000 cases a year; 30,000 of those are felonies. And we do 

it with only 150 assistant prosecuting attorneys. 

And I am saying this for a reason. Three thousand cases, on average, of rape are reported in Wayne County. And it is important 

42

to note that these are the people that come forward and report it. 

As we know, in this crime, most people do not report it. Approximately 2,500 of those are in the city of Detroit, and 500 of those 

are in my other 42 cities. 

Now, this is astounding. That means that our closure rate is 

under 30 percent. Over 70 percent of the rapists in Wayne County 

go unprosecuted and they do not get arrested. And that means 

those rapists are free to rape again. Fifteen thousand untested rape 

kits means 15,000 cases that are not in CODIS, the DNA database, 

as you know. And can you imagine if those cases were in the database? Our closure rate wouldn’t be under 30 percent. 

I can give you case after case after case and much anecdotal evidence about cases that we have found that were not in CODIS before. I want to give you two quick examples. 

One is we had an East side rapist in the city of Detroit that had 

raped nine women. When finally we got the hit, we found out that 

this was a person that had raped four or five other women previous 

to that. And if those rape kits had been tested, the nine following 

women would not have been raped. 

We have one more case I want to fell you about because this involved a child. We had a CODIS hit that was not put in properly. 

The rape kit wasn’t done until it was found later. We got the 

CODIS hit, and we found out there had been a woman that had 

been raped previous under that test. And there were two 13-yearold girls that were then raped after that that would not have been 

raped if that rape kit had been properly processed. 

Detroit’s problem is a little unique. It is not really a backlog; it 

is really even worse. These are cases that were just thrown into an 

annex property room, in a corner, some in barrels, some out, some 

not properly preserved, in a corner doing nothing. A backlog presumes that you are actually working on the case and you are just 

behind. But what we had in the city of Detroit is, on these boxes 

and barrels, they were not even touched and tested. 

Let me tell you why that is problem. As I indicated, I was an assistant prosecutor for almost 12 years and on the bench for 9, the 

trial court, the circuit court in Wayne County. I am used to that 

work; I am used to the pace. We do 80,000 a year. Our judges are 

constantly telling us to push, push, push, get cases done. 

And that means oftentimes when I was an assistant I had to 

prosecute many rape cases without the rape kit. We were told by 

the police department that often they were lost, they couldn’t find 

them, they were denigrated—all kinds of things. And now we find 

out where they are and where they were after all these years. 

So the horror of that is, though, as a prosecutor, I could possibly 

have prosecuted people that the rape kit would clear them and exonerate them. And, as a prosecutor, one person wrongfully convicted is one too many. So it is not only that we have victims that 

are being ignored and their rape kits aren’t being tested, we could 

possibly have defendants serving long periods of time that could be 

exonerated by the rape kit. 

When you are a busy urban courtroom, I cannot tell you the 

madness of trying to get these cases done. And, again, you have to 

rush everything through, and certainly if we don’t have all the 

available evidence, then sometimes justice is not done. That is imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:07 Nov 04, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\052010\56523.000 HJUD1 PsN: 56523
43

portant because prosecutors have dual responsibility. Our role is 

not only to prosecute zealously, but it is also to protect due process 

rights of each and every defendant. 

Now, I don’t know how much time I have, so I wouldn’t detail 

the audit process that we have to go through right now. But we 

have picked 400 cases. This has been done through Michigan State 

University, who has given us a statistical analysis of how many 

cases we have to look at and test to determine what we have in 

this 15,000. We don’t know how many defendants are dead. We 

don’t know how many victims are dead. We don’t know how much 

the evidence has been compromised. We don’t know how many 

cases want to go forward. And that is what this audit is going to 

tell us, and I will send you some written evidence about that. 

This bill is extremely important. What I am most interested in 

as a prosecutor, besides what I have described, is accountability. 

The police departments in my area and across this country have 

gotten millions and millions of dollars’ worth of stimulus funds and 

other funds as well. And cops on the street are very important, to 

be sure, especially in a city like I have to deal with, where we have 

monumental issues besides just our crime problem. 

But, at some point in time, police officers have to be told that 

they have to be accountable for these rape kits, as well, a problem 

that they caused. And some of these funds need to be used, as well, 

to straighten out the problem in our overburdened crime lab and 

getting these rape kits tested. We are told that, to test these 15,000 

rape kits, it is going to cost us between $40 million and $50 million. 

So, again, just to summarize, the most significant items of this 

bill: the backlog reduction; prompt, new universal testing; backlog 

measurement; and, certainly, rape kit billing fix. No victim should 

ever have to pay for their rape kit to be done. 

I thank you so much.

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. Neumann? 

TESTIMONY OF VALERIE NEUMANN,

SEXUAL ASSAULT SURVIVOR, CINCINNATI, OH 

Ms. NEUMANN. Good morning, and thank you for giving me the 

opportunity to speak in front of you today. It means a lot to me 

that you have invited me to tell my story. 

I would like to start by telling you a little bit about myself. My 

name is Valerie Neumann. I live in Cincinnati, Ohio. I am currently getting my bachelor’s degree in business management, and 

I also work full-time for Procter & Gamble. 

This past December was my birthday and the 3-year anniversary 

of when I was raped. For my birthday in 2006, a friend of mine 

took me out to dinner. After dinner, she asked if I wanted to join 

her boyfriend and his friends, most of which I had never met, for 

drinks at a bar nearby. 

When we arrived, one particular man, an acquaintance of my coworker’s boyfriend, immediately started buying me drinks. The 

drinks made me very sick. The nurse at the hospital would later 

44

describe what I began to feel similar to what a date-rape drug feels 

like. And so my friend took me to her home. Some people from the 

bar decided to go over to her house, too. 

When we got there, my friend helped me upstairs and made me 

comfortable in the bathroom. Later that evening, my friend was 

yelling at her boyfriend to make sure all the guests were out of the 

house before she went to bed. The two of them went to bed. 

Everyone but the man who bought me drinks at the bar had left. 

He had other plans. At some point later that night, he came into 

the bathroom and laid down behind me. He kept asking me if I 

wanted to go down to the couch with him. I was so sick, but I was 

able to tell him ‘‘no.’’ When I refused, he tried sliding his hands 

down my pants and up my shirt. I remember telling him over and 

over again, ‘‘No, no, I don’t feel good.’’

I thought I had eventually gotten him to leave me alone. I was 

wrong. When I woke up the next morning, my pants and underwear were around my ankles and my bra was unfastened. I knew 

something was very wrong, but at the time I was so sick, confused, 

and scared that the pieces weren’t coming together. 

It wasn’t until I got home and undressed to take a shower that 

the reality really sank in. I found a large friction burn on the back 

of my neck, bruises of finger indentations around each of my 

wrists, and scratches on my back. 

I went to show a good friend of mine the marks and asked her 

opinion. She told me I needed to go to the hospital. I realize it is 

silly now, but at the time I just wanted to forget anything that 

happened that night. I was scared to face reality. I had just started 

a great job. I had plans to go back to school. I had so many things 

to look forward to. The last thing I needed was this. 

Although I wanted to pretend nothing had happened, I knew 

what I needed to do. I called my parents, and they met me outside 

of our house. I told them that I thought I had been raped. We immediately headed for the hospital. 

The police officers and social workers at the hospital said I needed to have a rape kit taken. I gave a statement to the police officers 

while waiting for a SANE nurse to arrive at hospital. 

The collection of a rape kit is a 4- to 6-hour process of pulling 

hairs, swabbing, and taking pictures. It took longer than I expected, and it was really hard to go through. My only consolation 

was that the exam could be used to put my rapist behind bars. 

The SANE nurse put in her report that she found evidence of 

forced sexual penetration. I had lots of redness and a tear around 

my vaginal area. 

The police officers took my statement at the hospital and asked 

me about the person who had raped me. I didn’t know his name, 

only his nickname. But when I gave them a physical description of 

him, they told me and my father that they knew the guy I was 

talking about. He had done this sort of thing before. The police officers called their detective, and he went to my friend’s house that 

night with a warrant to collect evidence. 

The next morning, I had to go to the police station to give an official statement to the detective. Unfortunately, after I gave my 

statement, I didn’t hear from the police again for a very long time. 

I had to fight to get any information. I started calling every other 

45

day, then once a week, every other week, once a month, et cetera. 

Many phone calls were never returned. It was exhausting to be my 

own advocate. 

It took a year for the detective to send my case to the prosecuting 

attorney’s office. And then 6 months later, the prosecuting attorney 

told me they wouldn’t be trying my case because they decided it 

was unwinnable given the fact I had been drinking the night of my 

rape and it was an acquaintance rape. I tried to explain that I had 

not even known the man’s name until the police told it to me, but 

the prosecutor had seemed to make up his mind: Case closed. 

What was perhaps the hardest was that my case was closed 

without my rape kit being tested. Right after I went to the police, 

the suspect had gotten a lawyer. He issued a statement through his 

lawyer that he had no sexual contact with me that night. 

The same nurse told me she had found semen in numerous 

places on my body. If they had tested my rape kit, the semen they 

found could have matched back to the suspect. It would have validated my claim that I was raped and discredited his claim that he 

had no contact with me at all. 

When I later called the prosecutor’s office to ask why my rape 

kit hadn’t been tested, a representative from the Kentucky’s prosecuting attorney’s office left a voicemail on my cell phone stating 

they didn’t have the funds to test a kit in a case like mine. It has 

now been 3 years, 5 months, and 4 days since the night I was 

raped, and my kit remains untested. 

In recent months, with the help of news networks and nonprofit 

organizations, such as CBS Evening News, RAINN, and Human 

Rights Watch, a spotlight has been put on the rape kit backlog. 

The fact is, many States have no idea how many untested rape kits 

they have in their procession. 

Testing a rape kit is so important because it can identify an assailant; confirm a suspect’s contact with a victim; corroborate a victim’s account of the crime, especially useful on acquaintance rapes; 

and connect apparently unrelated crimes and exonerate innocent 

suspects. 

A law enforcement decision to test a rape kit is an indication of 

commitment to build a strong investigation. National studies have 

shown that cases in which a rape kit was collected, tested, and 

found to contain DNA evidence are more likely to move forward in 

the criminal justice system. Conversely, untested rape kits typically represent lost justice for victims, and it often means a rape 

investigation was cut short before the offender could be brought to 

justice. 

The unfortunate truth is our justice system doesn’t work as 

smoothly as it appears on TV shows like ‘‘CSI.’’ I used to believe 

in our justice system, but after my experience, I have lost faith. I 

can honestly say that if I were raped again, I don’t know that I 

would choose to go to the hospital and be put through a rape kit 

again. We ask so much of victims right after they have been raped 

but don’t follow through in the end. 

The hearing on the rape kit backlog means so much to me for 

many different reasons. I believe we need Federal leadership on 

the rape kit backlog, and I am so inspired that you are here to provide that leadership. 

46

I personally have made peace that my assailant will never be 

brought to justice, as the prosecuting attorney has made it very 

clear they will not go back and test my rape kit. I am now turning 

my energy toward advocating for every rape victim whose kit remains sitting on a shelf untested. 

This has been a liberating experience for me. I have been able 

to confront my fears about speaking out as a rape victim through 

the opportunities I have been given as a RAINN Speakers Bureau 

member and have grown stronger in the process. Although I feel 

justice wasn’t served for me, I am comforted by the fact that I am 

part of making change for the future. It is my hope that rape victims won’t have to experience the frustrations and disappointments 

that victims like myself and so many others have. Rape is traumatic enough; the rape kit exam and stuff thereafter shouldn’t add 

to that trauma. 

Thank you for your time today. I am so grateful for you listening 

to my sorry. I want to especially thank Congresswoman Jackson 

Lee for submitting a letter to Chairman Scott on my behalf requesting the hearing and to Chairman Scott for asking me to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Neumann follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VALERIE NEUMANN


VN-1.eps
47


VN-2.eps
48


VN-3.eps
49

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. Hargitay? 


VN-4.eps
50

TESTIMONY OF MARISKA HARGITAY,

JOYFUL HEART FOUNDATION, NEW YORK, NY 

Ms. HARGITAY. Chairman Conyers, Chairman Scott, Ranking 

Member Goodlatte, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, you have honored me deeply by inviting me to stand 

with you and among you in our common cause. 

I am especially honored to be here in the year of the 15th anniversary of the ‘‘Violence Against Women Act.’’ I honor the stand 

you have taken, because you have the power to help survivors heal 

and reclaim their lives. 

For the past 11 years, I have played a sex crimes detective on 

‘‘Law and Order: Special Victims Unit.’’ The show is indeed fiction, 

but the fiction is based on horrific facts—like the fact that, in the 

time it will take us to conduct this hearing this morning, 60 individuals in the United States will be sexually assaulted. 

But it wasn’t only the statistics that pressed the tragedy and the 

pervasiveness of these acts into my consciousness. It was also the 

letters and e-mails I began receiving from victims of abuse, sharing 

their stories, and many for the very first time. I remember—I am 

sorry. I remember my breath going out of me for the very first time 

when the first letter came, and I have gotten thousands like it 

since. 

I responded by starting the Joyful Heart Foundation in 2004. 

Our mission is to heal, educate, and empower survivors of sexual 

assault, domestic violence, and child abuse and to shed light into 

the darkness that surrounds these issues. I am proud to be part 

of this movement that will change the way we respond to these 

epidemics. 

I have been invited here today to talk to you about the crucial 

piece of that response, eliminating the backlog of untested kits in 

the United States. While I am not an expert, I am indeed an advocate in the literal sense of the word, one who calls out to you, on 

behalf of the thousands of survivors whose voices, courage, and 

hope for justice I am honored to bring with me into this room. 

Every year in the United States, more than 200,000 individuals 

take the courageous step of reporting their rape to police. And because of what those individuals have suffered, their bodies are 

crime scenes—living, breathing, feeling crime scenes—from which 

we collect a rape kit. 

Experts estimate that there are hundreds of thousands—hundreds of thousands—of untested rape kits in police and crime lab 

storage throughout the country, as Ms. Worthy said. 

The benefit of testing rape kits goes beyond introducing the clarity of DNA evidence in the arena of rape and sexual assault, the 

crimes with the lowest reported arrest and prosecution rates in the 

United States. These kits represent human beings who have suffered greatly. Testing their rape kits sends a fundamental and crucial message to victims that they and their cases matter. Not testing the rape kits sends the opposite message. 

Take the example of a survivor that we worked with at Joyful 

Heart, a woman named Helena from Los Angeles. When Helena 

was 17, she was abducted at knifepoint from a car wash and raped 

repeatedly. Afterwards at the hospital she submitted a rape kit, 

51

and for the next 13 years was unable to ascertain the status of her 

kit. 

Helena lived every day of those 13 years in fear of the rapist, 

who had vowed to kill her family if she reported the crime, who 

had vowed to return and take her as his own. 

When the rape kit was finally tested, the results revealed that 

her rapist was serving a 25-year sentence in Ohio. He was known 

to have raped two other women while Helena’s kit sat untested. 

The statute of limitations of her rape had run out, but prosecutors 

are currently pursuing a life sentence for the abduction charge. 

Helena said, ‘‘Finally, my nightmares have stopped almost altogether. I have a sense of security that I haven’t felt in over a decade. My home is my own. My family is safe.’’

We must urge law enforcement, after a victim has given her consent, to send in the rape kits for testing. We must provide law enforcement and prosecutors with training and tools to investigate 

and prosecute sexual assault cases. We must provide our inundated 

crime labs with funding to build their capacity. 

We need better technology to document the number of rape kits 

in storage facilities. We need public awareness to address bias 

against rape victims. And, most importantly, we must keep the victim at the center of the reforms. And that means ensuring the victims can receive information about the status of their cases, creating protocols for victim notification with rape kit results and testing decisions, and providing short-term and long-term supportive 

services. 

At Joyful Heart, we envision a community that says to a survivor, ‘‘We are not impervious to your suffering. We will give you 

our ears if you wish to speak your anguish. We will lends you our 

voices if you cannot find yours. You have suffered enough, and your 

healing is our priority.’’

You here today are all a shining example of a community that 

can strengthen the possibility of healing survivors, because you are 

acknowledging, responding to, and taking action to end suffering. 

You have my fierce commitment to use my voice, to commit my resources, and do whatever it takes to bring safety, compassion, healing, and justice to victims and survivors of sexual assault. 

Thank you for this honor to be here today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hargitay follows:]

52

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARISHKA HARGITAY


MH-1.eps
53


MH-2.eps
54


MH-3.eps
55


MH-4.eps
56


MH-5.eps
57


MH-6.eps
58


MH-7.eps
59


MH-8.eps
60


MH-9.eps
61


MH-10.eps
62


MH-11.eps
63

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Dr. Hassell? 

TESTIMONY OF CHRISTIAN HASSELL, Ph.D., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LABORATORY DIVISION, FBI, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. HASSELL. Thank you. 

Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Goodlatte, Chairman Conyers, 

and Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for inviting the 

FBI to provide an update on our activities that are related to the 

Combined DNA Index System, or CODIS, which supports our national DNA database. 

While I will be discussing several issues today, I will not be addressing the activities of other components within the Department 

of Justice, which have included the administration of hundreds of 

millions of dollars in grant funding. The Department will be submitting a statement for the record that fully details those activities. 

[The information referred to follows:]

64


A-1.eps
65


A-2.eps
66


A-3.eps
67


A-4.eps
68

Mr. HASSELL. CODIS refers to the entire program of DNA indices 

that includes both the offender index and the forensic casework 

index. It integrates this information at three levels; that is the national, State, and local level. 


A-5.eps
69

The acronym ‘‘NDIS’’ stands for the National DNA Index System. 

And for our general discussions today, we can just consider that 

CODIS and NDIS are going to be used synonymously. 

One of the underlying concepts behind the development of 

CODIS was to create a database of a State’s offender profiles and 

use it to solve crimes for which there are no suspects. For example, 

a DNA profile may be developed from a sexual assault evidence kit. 

If there is no suspect to match that profile with, then NDIS can 

be then utilized in two ways. 

First the profiles can be searched against the offender daily 

index to possibly link that kit to a particular offender already in 

the database. Second, if there is no match in the offender index, 

the DNA profile is searched against other crime-scene DNA profiles 

contained in the forensic index. If there is a match here, that 

means that two or more crimes can be linked, and the law enforcement agencies involved in the separate cases were able to exchange 

information to help identify the perpetrator. 

There are currently over 8 million offender DNA profiles and 

300,000 forensic profiles contained within NDIS. Since its inception 

in 1990, the system has assisted in over 112,000 investigations at 

the national, State, local and tribal levels by either identifying the 

perpetrator or by linking crimes. 

Let me state clearly, we recognize there is a real person behind 

each of these numbers. And we further recognize that we have an 

obligation to serve those victims by ensuring that the system is as 

efficient as possible, while maintaining the integrity that is associated with forensic DNA analysis. 

Because of limited capacity, Federal, State and local laboratories 

are often forced to prioritize their cases based on court dates and 

whether or not a suspect has been identified. This often leaves 

those cases in which there is no suspect—that is, those cases for 

which CODIS was specifically designed—they remained 

unanalyzed in evidence storage. 

To help relieve this backlog, some Federal, State, and local crime 

labs utilize private commercial labs to analyze DNA samples, and 

thus these vendors play an important role in the overall NDIS 

process. 

Approximately half of the DNA offender records in NDIS were 

analyzed by private laboratories operating under contract to government agencies. The FBI laboratory is currently performing a review to determine what improvements can be made to facilitate 

more timely uploading of DNA records into NDIS. This includes reevaluation of existing policies, standards, and protocols that guide 

the use of private laboratories in law enforcement DNA analysis. 

This review was only initiated recently and no changes have yet 

been made to any procedures or standards that are associated with 

NDIS. The review includes the FBI’s engagement with many stakeholders, including State and local law enforcement, their associated 

laboratories, and various scientific and accrediting organization. 

As the administrator of NDIS, the FBI has an obligation to perform this review to ensure that law enforcement agencies are not 

hindered by excessive procedural requirements, thus limiting the 

quantity of samples that are added to NDIS. At the same time, we 

70

have an obligation to ensure that the quality of the data is not endangered by lack of oversight and procedural integrity. 

NDIS has proven to be invaluable for the law enforcement community and ultimately to crime victims and their families. Since 

more crimes are solved, as more records are placed in the database, 

enhancing the operational procedures is imperative for optimal efficiency. 

Since its inception, the field forensic DNA analysis has relied on 

scientific validation as the basis for decisions. And indeed the 2009 

National Academy of Sciences Report on the Current State of Forensic Science notes a need for scientific validation and for datadriven conclusions for all disciplines citing DNA as a model. This 

evaluation, as I described, is no different and it will be validated 

and data-driven. At the same time, the FBI is committing considerable resources to ensure that it is carried out as quickly as possible. 

Thank you again for allowing the FBI to explain its position on 

this important issue. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hassell follows:]

71

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTIAN HASSELL


CH-1.eps
72


CH-2.eps
73


CH-3.eps
74


CH-4.eps
75


CH-5.eps
76


CH-6.eps
77

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Boschwitz. 

TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY S. BOSCHWITZ, Ph.D., VICE PRESIDENT, NORTH AMERICAN SALES AND MARKETING, ORCHID 

CELLMARK, INC., PRINCETON, NJ 

Mr. BOSCHWITZ. My name is Dr. Jeff Boschwitz. I am vice president and executive officer of Orchid Cellmark, one the largest 

worldwide providers of forensic DNA testing. On behalf of the company, I would like to thank the Committee and Chairman Scott for 

the opportunity to provide testimony on this important subject. 

Cellmark was one of the originators of the technology used today 

for forensic DNA testing. And as the only private lab with significant presence in both the U.S. and the U.K., it is uniquely positioned to share insights on the rape kit testing backlog issue with 

the Committee. 

The NIJ’s most recent estimate of the Nation’s DNA testing 

backlog shows that it actually tripled between 2005 and 2008 to 

70,000 cases, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars invested 

to eliminate it. This does not even count the hundreds of thousands 

of rape kits that are in police storage and have never been submitted to the crime lab for testing. 

One of the concerns raised about testing these rape cases is there 

is not sufficient financial resources to meet this incremental testing 

demand. While incremental funding would certainly be of benefit. 

We also want to make the Committee aware, as Congressman 

Schiff has, that specific regulatory changes can be made to increase 

the available testing resources without incremental spending by 

eliminating some of the obstacles with more effective public-private 

partnerships, as Dr. Hassell just referred to. 

Under the current quality assurance standards developed by the 

FBI, public and private labs must meet the exact same accreditation and quality standards for day-to-day generate to be eligible for 

upload in the CODIS. As part of these standards, both public and 

private labs must perform two technical reviews of data. When the 

public lab has completed that second review, standard 17 of the 

quality assurance standards dictates—I’m sorry. When the public 

lab concluded that second review, the data can then be uploaded 

in the CODIS. 

When the private labs completed that second review, standard 17 

dictates that the data must be sent to a public lab for a third review of each case by a public lab employee before the result can 

be uploaded in the CODIS, as Congressman Schiff alluded to. The 

direct impact of this rule is an additional 90 minutes to 4 hours 

of public lab labor per case, which can add as much as 25 percent 

to the cost of testing; more, if overtime is used, which is often the 

case. And Congressman Schiff referred to use of overtime in L.A. 

On top of this cost, standard 17 also requires that public labs 

perform at least one site visit to each private lab it utilizes, even 

though these labs are audited by the accrediting agencies. These 

rules exist today despite an absence of any published empirical evidence that we are aware of by a third party showing differences in 

public and private lab data quality. And in the face of statements 

from Marsh private lab users like LAPD, as Congressman Schiff 

78

mentioned, do not find errors in these reviews. It is not to say the 

private labs have not made mistakes in the past. 

There are also, of course, numerous examples of public lab errors, as the Committee is aware. And new evidence that the incremental burden being placed on public labs for this review is benefiting victims in law enforcement. 

On the other hand, the negative impact of these rules on victims 

and law enforcement is significant. As Congressman Schiff mentioned, because the analysts must perform these reviews on top of 

their existing caseload, it can take months for the reviews to be 

completed and the data to be uploaded in the CODIS. The time it 

takes to clear the second backlog results in an even greater period 

of time for a serial criminal to remain free and commit additional 

crimes. 

Finally, because the public labs don’t have the extra resources to 

perform these reviews, many don’t consider public-private partnerships to be a viable option at all, even when the alternative approach may take longer and ultimately cost more money. 

As an example, the recent CBS news report, ‘‘The Rape Kit Backlog,’’ there was a 500-case stranger rape backlog identified in Oakland which they said would take at least 2 years to complete, even 

though working with a private lab would lead to backlog completion less than 6 months. That is up to 18 more months that rapists 

could have been caught, that they will be free to commit additional 

crimes. 

The impact of the rules on the efficient use of existing funding 

to test rape kits for DNA is also significant. Private labs, because 

they compete for contracts on costs and quality, and have dedicated 

IT and R&D resources focused on innovation and continuous improvement can be at much as 25 or 50 percent more cost-efficient 

than public labs. In fact, cost differences are greater when you consider Federal grants, since Federal grant money can only be used 

for overtime when not used for private labs or equipment. 

The negative impact on the regulations is also great when you 

consider how they are actually preventing law enforcement from 

funding DNA testing out of their discretionary budgets. 

There are several examples, particularly in States like Texas, 

where local law enforcement has been told by their local lab that 

they cannot contract out for testing, specifically because of the incremental burden placed on the lab by standard 17. So even when 

there is money to complete additional DNA testing, the testing is 

not performed in crimes, including rapes, which otherwise could 

have been prevented can be committed. 

The case study for the benefits of modifying standard 17 is wellestablished in the U.K., where public labs and private labs have 

had to meet the exact same quality of standards and accreditation 

requirements for several years. This has enabled the U.K. To take 

advantage of the power of competition to increase service and quality and decrease costs. Results have been compelling. Not only has 

the backlog in the U.K. Been eliminated, but the cost of testing has 

dropped significantly at the same time, and contract turnaround 

time for testing has been greatly shortened. In fact, in some cases 

contract turnaround time for no suspect rape cases is just 10 days. 

79

For property crime it is just 3 days. For convicted offenders’ samples, it is just 2 days. 

So why not modify standard 17? We have spoken with over 20 

public labs for input on this matter and I have identified several 

important concerns and some misperceptions that we believe can 

be mitigated, addressed, or clarified. In the interest of time, we 

have left the detail addressing these concerns in our written testimony. 

Thank you, Chairman Scott, and the Committee, for your attention. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boschwitz follows:]

80

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY S. BOSCHWITZ


JSB-1.eps
81


JSB-2.eps
82


JSB-3.eps
83


JSB-4.eps
84


JSB-5.eps
85


JSB-6.eps
86


JSB-7.eps
87


JSB-8.eps
88

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Marone. 

TESTIMONY OF PETER MARONE, DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA 

DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC SCIENCE, RICHMOND, VA 

Mr. MARONE. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Poe, 

Chairman Conyers. I thank you for inviting me to testify today. I 

am testifying as the director of the Virginia Department of Forensic Science. Today we have heard about the horrible crimes that 

were inflicted upon innocent victims. Like you, I struggle to understand the victim’s fear, anguish and anger, but we can’t really possibly understand the suffering endured by sexual assault victims. 

All we can do is work tirelessly to bring the justice they serve. 

And, by the way, thank you, Chairman, for not mentioning that 

I started this work career, if you will, in 1971. The idea that sexual 

assault evidence can sit stagnant is difficult to comprehend and 

even harder to explain. It is the result of capacity not keeping up 

with demand. 

Mr. Chairman, in the past you have asked me before what it 

would take to fix things; and just as I answered before, I give you 

the same answer. It is not a—just a simple answer. It is not only 

about getting rid of backlogs. Backlogs are not the disease, they are 

the symptom. 

The cure comes from increasing capacity of crime labs to handle 

the number of cases coming in the door. According to the Department of Justice, over the period covering the funding over the 

Debbie Smith Act, the capacity to process DNA cases has increased 

nationally by threefold. During that same time, however, the demand for testing has also increased threefold. Ironically, the increase in backlogs does not come from an increase in crime; rather, 

it comes from an increase in knowledge, an increase in the types 

of cases to analyze that are available, and the sensitivity of the 

methodologies that we have been using. 

Crime laboratories as a whole don’t treat cases on the basis of 

bulk numbers but, rather, by crime type and the circumstances of 

a particular case. Each case is evaluated separately. Each case is 

different. 

We understand the value of analyzing sexual assault evidence. 

Investigation of sexual assaults and the prosecution of sexual predators is very complex, involving many parties in the criminal justice system, and a lot of collaboration. 

Through the testing of physical evidence associated with sexual 

assault, the Nation’s crime labs brought out a critical investigative 

tool for the prosecutorial tool and defense tool. Though DNA has 

received the most attention when discussing the investigation of 

physical evidence associated with sexual assault, several other forensic sciences provide invaluable investigative information. 

In Virginia I know, for example, that 25 percent of the cases that 

we worked that come in with a named suspect, that individual is 

eliminated as being the perpetrator in DNA. Latent prints are collected and can be used to identify suspects. Trace evidence such as 

fibers and shoe prints, can be used to associate a suspect or crime 

to a scene or a victim, and toxicology tests of the victim’s blood or 

urine can be used to identify drugs that may have been used to 

subdue the victim. 

89

My point is, the issue at hand is much more than just rape kits. 

And all morning we have been speaking about rape kits. There is 

a significant amount of more evidence than just a kit. Many of 

those cases come in with clothing and bedding and all sorts of other 

types of evidence. In Virginia, I know for example, that 15 to 20 

percent of the sexual assault cases involve forensic examinations 

other than DNA. These additional examinations are not necessarily 

requestedat the time of the submission. Many of them occur during 

the examination process, since the examiners are specifically and 

constantly looking for that next piece of evidence that might help 

solve the case. 

For some labs the pressure has caused them to outsource the 

analysis of rape kits as part of their prioritization in deadlines to 

process kits. This has caused some issues in States with timeliness 

of work. Private labs state they have the capacity to work a significant number of cases relatively inexpensively and much more 

quickly than public labs. The figures often given often do not include the issues of the initial analysis that I spoke of; that is, the 

preparatory work before you get to perform the DNA. 

When a laboratory outsources a case, they must identify the samples to be tested and forward it for outsourcing. If not, that contract has to include, with a private lab, that type of analysis. And 

the cost of those figures are not the same as just working DNA. 

The process is often more time-consuming. That initial analysis is 

more time-consuming for the analysis. 

Performing DNA testing on a specific set of selective samples requires much fewer resources. Individuals who were performing initial screening of cases for the purpose of identifying those cases 

that are to be outsourced are consequently not available for actually working the cases. They are just inventorying them and getting them ready to go out the door. Yet the value of the research 

often isn’t figured into the projected cost of the outsourcing analysis. 

The other issue of what actually occurs when outsourced cases 

eventually go to trial has really not been adequately addressed. I 

know of instances where outsourcing has resulted in logistical problems in scheduling expert witnesses when it comes time for the 

court docket and the schedulers. Additionally, there are questions 

regarding who pays for the expert testimony and travel costs. 

I know if you look at it from a broad picture, there is probably 

only 5 or so percent of those cases that go to court; but for Virginia, 

working 300 cases a month as we do, that is 16 cases a month that 

we go to court on. And that could be $32,000 that somebody has 

to cough up to pay for that testimony, not just a simple 5 percent 

increment. 

So how do we resolve the problem? We need to increase the capacity of labs to meet the workload that is coming into them. Meeting the needs for the analysis of sexual assault cases is primarily 

accomplished through effective resource allocation. 

During that time period that I spoke of before, funding from the 

Debbie Smith Act, laboratories have acquired and validated new, 

more efficient equipment, added personnel, begun utilizing robotics 

for some operations, and continue to add more automated applicaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:07 Nov 04, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\052010\56523.000 HJUD1 PsN: 56523
90

tions. They have also started using SmartSystems for some of the 

data reviewed. 

I am seeing more and more statements by laboratories that they 

are reducing their backlogs or are on the verge of being current. 

For Virginia, between 2004 and 2010, because of a number of 

issues such as turnover and some budget reductions and so forth, 

as well as difficulty recruiting fully qualified individuals, the DNA 

staff has actually decreased by 10 percent. During that same time 

period, because of the addition of more equipment and automation, 

the backlog has decreased 50 percent. And if trends continue as 

they are now, we can reduce that backlog at a rate of about 100 

cases per month. So sometime by the end of this year, the beginning of next year, maybe this time next year we will be current. 

And that figure doesn’t include the six additional grant-funded, 

fully-funded positions. So it is not just done on overtime. You can 

have restricted grant-funded positions that are full-time working. 

Grants should focus on building long-term capacity, not only on 

eliminating backlogs. To do otherwise will cause a cycle to continue 

to repeat. Backlog increases, cases are outsourced, and while that 

is happening more cases build up. The labs will be where they 

started from and so will the victims. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marone follows:]

91

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER MARONE


PM-1.eps
92


PM-2.eps
93


PM-3.eps
94


PM-4.eps
95

Mr. SCOTT. We will begin questions on the 5-minute rule. The 

Chairman of the full Committee Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thanks, Chairman Scott. This is an incredibly important panel of witnesses that follow up with our colleagues that 


PM-5.eps
96

testified earlier. I am grateful to you all, especially Prosecutor Kym 

Worthy who went way out of her way and off her schedule to be 

with us here today. All of you are doing a great job. 

There has been a lot of description about the problem, especially 

from the last three witnesses. But what do you mean, Marone, 

there are no solutions? You sound like the typical bureaucrats that 

come into government and start giving us a one-on-one lecture 

about how difficult this all is. 

Look, the police don’t even recognize that this is evidentiary 

work that we are on. That is the first thing. So what I think, Kym 

Worthy, we ought to do—and I have been talking with Chairman 

Scott about it—is that we ought to get some recommendations from 

all of you, including Maloney and Weiner and Nadler, and go over 

to Eric Holder and let’s get this on with. I mean, we are talking 

about lives being wrecked in huge numbers. 

And there may be a problem with the DOJ burdens, Boschwitz, 

but, look, they are the ones that prosecute these things. I don’t 

know whether they are burdensome as you suggest or imply, or 

not. But I would like to take Worthy over there with us when we 

meet. 

And the next thing, Chairman, I would like us to consider—these 

are all considerations—what about the Association of Police Chiefs? 

Half the cops don’t even treat the kits seriously. What do you 

think, Kym? 

Ms. WORTHY. They don’t treat it seriously because, as you know, 

when this problem happened we discovered the problem. Last September I wrote a letter to the chief of police. He ignored me. It 

wasn’t until someone from his office leaked the letter. I would 

admit if I leaked it, but I didn’t. It is not that I wouldn’t, but I 

didn’t. And it was in the paper, and then the journalists started 

getting upset about it, and finally they started to listen. But that 

was 6 months later. And I can’t tell you the outrage that we feel. 

It is incredibly hard to get your hands around those issues. It is 

incredibly difficult to get the funds you need to do it. It is more difficult to tell our rape victims that these tests haven’t been completed. We have had people call our office and I have had to tell 

them, I don’t know if your rape kit is among those because of the 

way that they were labeled and the way it was done. 

We are trying to fix that now. And we have obtained some funding from the State to have this audit, to get a snapshot of what 

we have. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, if it hadn’t been for you, we wouldn’t even 

have known what our situation was, and it never would have been 

brought up. There are plenty of counties and jurisdictions where 

they don’t know what the rape kit situation is, because there is no 

Kym Worthy or someone like her demanding that we make a stab 

at this; that we go looking for them and find them in closets and 

basements and so forth. 

Ms. Hargitay, we are so happy that you are here. What kind of 

recommendations would you meet the Judiciary Committee with? 

Ms. HARGITAY. Well, first, if I can just add something to what 

Ms. Worthy said, Nicholas Kristoff quoted Polly Poskin, the executive director of the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 2009 

New York Times editorial about the rape kit backlog. If you have 

97

got stacks of physical evidence of a crime and you are not doing 

anything—everything you can with the evidence, then you must be 

making the decision that this isn’t a very serious crime. So that decision has the power to traumatize rape victims further, because 

they are seeking recovery and healing. So I think that by not testing the rape kits that is what we are saying, is that it is not a serious crime. That is what I understand from the quote. 

As I said in my testimony, I feel that my role here is to use my 

voice to bring many voices forward, advocates in the field and survivors. So I would like to consult them in answering your question. 

I want to make sure that I am representing their needs and their 

concerns best. I am an advocate, but certainly not an expert, and 

I am sitting among experts. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, Ms. Neumann, the thing that you said that 

really leads me to have to talk with our colleagues more is that you 

said, I don’t think—I don’t know if I would really go through that 

rape kit business again. I just hope that we can find some way that 

it is less intrusive and painful and traumatic. I mean, you have 

trauma and then you have got another, and that leaves me not 

feeling so good about this. I don’t know what the medical picture 

is, if it can be improved or not. 

Ms. NEWMANN. I think it would be one thing to go through it and 

know it gets used; but to go through it, and for it to sit on a shelf 

is a completely different thing. 

Mr. CONYERS. I see your point. Why go through it if the chances 

are just as high that it will be put in a closet somewhere? 

Ms. NEWMANN. Right. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Mr. Poe. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being 

here. 

Before I got to come to Congress I was a judge in Houston and 

tried felony cases for 22 years. And before that I was a prosecutor, 

Kym, Ms. Worthy, and those were the best days. I think all prosecutors look back upon the days when they prosecuted as the most 

rewarding of their careers. I have been around so long I remember 

when there were no rape kits. If you had to prosecute a case it was 

the victim and the defendant and a swearing match. 

We have come a long way since then. Not far enough, but we 

have come a long way. We have come so far that juries now expect 

forensic evidence. Right or wrong, they expect it. Thanks to shows 

like Law & Order, Special Victims Unit, and all of that and the 

technology, juries expect it. 

So without forensic evidence, still in the real world in jury trials, 

juries question the case. They question the prosecution, even 

though it may exist. And juries never understand why a rape kit 

was performed. A case is tried and that evidence is not in the 

courtroom. You cannot explain that to a jury. 

So we know the problem, but we have to cut to the chase and 

solve the issue to make rape kits accurate, the results accurate, 

and we have to get the results. And I think we ought to use government agents in those labs; we ought to use private labs; have a protocol, have it simple but perfect; and that we get the right result 

and then solve these cases. It will cost money, but so what? I mean, 

98

that is the responsibility of government to protect citizens like Ms. 

Neumann. 

There are a lot of crimes, but when you get to the crime of sexual 

assault, that is the worst crime in my opinion, because of what the 

perpetrator tries to do to the victim’s spirit. And we as a culture 

need to recognize that; that those are special victims and they 

should be treated special in our court system. Their cases need to 

be heard first. 

That is one good thing about the Texas law. Sexual assault cases, 

you go to the front of the line. You get tried first, as they should 

be, because victims in the system continue to be victimized by the 

system. And we have to end that and make sure that the same 

Constitution that protects defendants, protects victims of crime as 

well. 

So I appreciate all of you being here, but I think we need to solve 

the problem. Backlogs have to be dealt with. There should be no 

backlog. 

My question to you—any of you can answer this—at about the 

storage? Do we know how many rape kits are being stored throughout the country, and are they being stored adequately so that that 

evidence can be used down the road? 

Dr. Hassell, you want to give me a short answer to that? 

Mr. HASSELL. Most of our focus has been on when it hits the laboratory door. 

Mr. POE. So you don’t know what happens to it from the time 

it is taken from the hospital, the police get it, then eventually you 

see it; you don’t know where it is during that gap? 

Mr. HASSELL. No, sir. But we do recognize, though, if there are 

any inefficiencies when it does hit the front door of any laboratory, 

if there are any operational inefficiencies there, that will slow down 

the process. That will affect whether or not people will submit. 

Mr. POE. Do you have any percentage you can give me about 

blood rape kits that had been stored, they come to you and because 

of some problem in the storage, they are not adequate to get a result from? 

Mr. HASSELL. I don’t have that for you today. I can check back 

with my colleagues at the Department. 

Mr. POE. Ms. Worthy, do you want to comment? 

Ms. WORTHY. Yes. I have to give you even more of a horror story, 

Judge. When this happened, I wrote a letter to all of the hospitals 

in the tricounty area of Detroit. We found out we had an innumerable number of rape kits that had not even been picked up from 

the hospital after the rape kits were done. So the answer—short 

answer is no, we have no idea how many. 

Mr. POE. So we need a protocol from when the rape kit is performed by the hospital, what happens to it. 

Ms. WORTHY. Now we are making sure we are putting measures 

in place. It is supposed to be picked from the hospital by the police 

agency. You have to establish a chain of custody to make sure that 

there is——

Mr. POE. That is right. 

Ms. WORTHY. You know that. And then it goes to—we thought—

the property room, and then—that is where it ended up. But it is 

supposed to go to the testing agency, to the laboratory. 

99

Mr. POE. So technically you think the lab ought to store the rape 

kits? 

Ms. WORTHY. They will kill me for saying that. 

Mr. POE. Yeah. Well, I think they should. I will say it, they can 

try. 

Ms. WORTHY. But the director of MSP, Michigan State Police, say 

all the time they don’t have the room. He doesn’t like me saying 

that, but that is where it should be. 

Mr. POE. Well, we need to focus finances on that problem. I mean 

some places still give the rape kit to the victim. 

Ms. WORTHY. That is right, and the bottom line is—I call you 

Judge because you are an ex-judge. At the end of the day, the 

judges and the prosecutors and the other witnesses and the police 

go home. But the rape victim or the child molestation victim lives 

with it for the rest of their lives. 

Mr. POE. That is exactly correct. 

Ms. WORTHY. We go home at the end of day. And so I think that 

kind of says it all. So we have to do more of our part collectively. 

Mr. POE. Thank you all for being here. Thank you especially, Ms. 

Neumann, for your story. 

Mr. SCOTT. Gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me begin by thanking all of our witnesses here for their role 

in combating the scourge of rape and the problem with rape kits. 

And let me express my condolences to Ms. Neumann for what you 

went through. 

Let me begin by asking Ms. Hargitay the following question. You 

testify about the usefulness of the SANE programs and how useful 

they are, and how only 500 SANE programs exist across the country. We should continue funding for the training programs as well 

as commitment to create new programs. 

Do you think it would be worthwhile if the Federal Government 

and legislation were to require that every county or every city had 

a SANE program? 

Ms. HARGITAY. I do. I just participated in a video that was made 

that actually taught medical personnel how to perform the kit, because oftentimes the rape victim is going through her test and she 

is lying on the table, traumatized, and she has got the nurse or the 

doctor actually reading the rape kit’s directions of how to perform 

the rape kit while the woman or man is lying on the table. 

Mr. NADLER. So obviously the SANE programs are very useful. 

Ms. HARGITAY. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. And do you think it would be useful if the Federal 

Government required that every major locality have them? 

Ms. HARGITAY. Again, as I said before, I am not an expert. I 

would really need to check with my——

Mr. NADLER. We will follow up on that. 

Ms. HARGITAY. Thank you. 

Mr. NADLER. Ms. Neumann, you said in your case, which was the 

accused said that he had—that there was no sexual contact. He 

didn’t say that there was sexual contact, but that it was consensual. He said there was no sexual contact, something readily apparent or falsifiable from the rape kit. You had the rape kit; had it 

been checked it would have shown that he was lying and it would 

100

have destroyed the credibility of what he was saying. The policeman said that this fellow had done the same thing to other victims, 

and yet the prosecutor told you—the prosecutors, attorneys, made 

it clear they would not go back and test your rape kit. 

Ms. NEWMANN. That is correct. 

Mr. NADLER. Ms. Worthy, is that prosecutor doing his job? 

Ms. WORTHY. No. 

Mr. NADLER. Is he violating his oath? 

Ms. WORTHY. I think so. Let me just give a caveat, though. In 

some cases, not a case like this, as a prosecutor you can’t turn 

away cases because a person may have been drinking, a person 

may have been using drugs, a person may be a prostitute. 

The nine cases—the case I talked about with the serial rapist, all 

nine of them were prostitutes that were known—I don’t like the 

word ‘‘crackheads’’——

Mr. NADLER. So the prosecutors didn’t think they were important 

people, in other words. 

Ms. WORTHY. Your oath says we represent the people of the 

State of Michigan. We don’t just represent the people of the cases 

we need to try, we don’t just represent the people who——

Mr. NADLER. But in Ms. Neumann’s case, it is an open-and-shut 

case if they——

Ms. WORTHY. No case is ever open and shut. 

Mr. NADLER. Of course. But as much as any ever is, it sounds 

like an open-and-shut case as much as any ever is if they do the 

kit. 

Ms. WORTHY. It sounds like a case that we wouldn’t have turned 

away. 

Mr. NADLER. And they shouldn’t turn it away. 

Do you think it might be useful if we subpoenaed that prosecutor 

and asked him what his criteria for deciding on cases what might 

be. 

Ms. WORTHY. I can’t answer that. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay, I will just let the idea hang in the air. 

Let me ask you a different question. Does a judge in a rape case 

in Michigan have the authority to order the police to produce the 

result of a rape kit testing if it hasn’t been tested? 

Ms. WORTHY. Yes, the judge has the authority. 

Mr. NADLER. The judge has that authority. Does he usually exercise it? 

Ms. WORTHY. The reality is in a jurisdiction like ours where we 

have—that is why I said how many cases we do, we don’t have the 

jail space to keep the defendant in jail. We don’t have—what are 

they going to get tested? In our case we have a Detroit Police Department crime lab shutdown and those are the real issues. So the 

judge usually won’t do it because they realize the defendant would 

have to be held for a very long time until they get tested, because 

they don’t have the facilities to test them all. 

Mr. NADLER. Why would the defendant have to be held if he is 

out on bail? He is not even accused at this point. 

Ms. WORTHY. Well, if he is on bond, that would be a different 

story. 

Mr. NADLER. Or he may not even have been indicted. 

101

Now, should we—if the judges exercise their authority more 

often, would the prosecutor, knowing that, be more likely to bring 

the case in the first place? 

Ms. WORTHY. I am sorry; I didn’t hear the rest of the question. 

Mr. NADLER. If it were the case that judges exercised that authority to order these rape kits tested, would prosecutors be more 

likely to bring these cases that they don’t bring now? 

Ms. WORTHY. Well, prosecutors are going to do what a judge orders them to do, yes. 

Mr. NADLER. That wasn’t my—well, who has the rape kit, the 

prosecutor or the police; the police do? 

Ms. WORTHY. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. So if the judge more often ordered the police to test 

the kits, would the prosecutors be more likely to A, request the 

judge do so; and B, to bring the case in the first place? 

Ms. WORTHY. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. Is there anything the Federal Government can do 

that we can do by legislation to encourage that. 

Ms. WORTHY. I am not sure that is legislatively corrected. I think 

it is corrected by judges, who are qualified, taking the bench. I 

mean——

Mr. NADLER. I hear that. But let me ask you one other question 

on this. We have a lot of victims rights legislation that goes 

through here from time to time, much of which I don’t like because 

it plays havoc with the civil liberties of accused. But what if we 

had a bill that said something like the State must test the rape kit 

within 90 days, at the request of the victim. 

Ms. WORTHY. I think that would be great as long as there was 

companion resources to be done. 

Mr. NADLER. As long we provided resources. 

Ms. WORTHY. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. In other words, in our next bill if we provide resources we should also give the victim the right to demand and the 

mandate of that demand be followed. 

Ms. WORTHY. I am not sure I like that, because the victim often 

doesn’t know or understand there may be legal reasons we can’t go 

forward. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. 

Ms. WORTHY. So we have to make that determination. 

Mr. NADLER. Well, what about giving her that right, provided 

certain conditions that we could put in the legislation, certain basic 

conditions? 

Ms. WORTHY. I would agree with that in theory, yes. 

Mr. NADLER. And we could work with you on drafting such. 

Ms. WORTHY. Yes, in theory. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. My last question is to Mr. Hassell. Aside from adding funds and some of the ideas we have been talking about, do you 

have any other specific recommendations of what we can do? 

Mr. HASSELL. No, sir, not at this time. But one of the things we 

are doing in this review, though, is seeing what we can come forward with, and we are engaging many people. 

Mr. NADLER. And when do you think that review will be complete so you can make recommendations to us? 

102

Mr. HASSELL. The entire time frame of the review will be no 

longer than 1 year. 

Mr. NADLER. One year from when. 

Mr. HASSELL. From when we kicked it up, which was the end of 

April. 

Mr. NADLER. Which was recently. 

Mr. HASSELL. The spring of 2011. Along the way, we will be publishing some findings and results of our working group meetings, 

the first working group meeting that should come out the end of 

this month. We will make that available on our Web site and we 

will engage and see if there is anything we can bring forth. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you very much. I yield back. My time has 

expired. 

Mr. SCOTT. Gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner. 

Mr. WEINER. Thank you. I don’t think we can solve every injustice here, but we are going to try to solve yours. If you can tell me, 

Ms. Neumann, just so I understand this and it is crystal clear, the 

prosecutor has said we have this rape kit and we are refusing to 

test it because we lack the funds? 

Ms. NEUMANN. Two things. Funds—and he also deemed it 

unwinnable, in his mind, because I had been drinking. 

Mr. WEINER. Well, but even if this person’s evidence is only 

taken to see if it hits another rape, it should be taken. 

Ms. NEUMANN. Right. 

Mr. WEINER. The second part is the cost. Dr. Boschwitz, your 

company does DNA tests on rape kits? 

Mr. BOSCHWITZ. That is right. 

Mr. WEINER. Give me the range, whatever it would cost to test 

a rape kit. 

Mr. BOSCHWITZ. Nine hundred to $1,000. 

Mr. WEINER. Can I ask you, Dr. Boschwitz—and I don’t want to 

put you in an untenable position, and feel free to answer no—

would you test this particular case free of charge? 

Okay, if you’d rather not say so, here is what I will say I will 

do. I will pay for it. I will raise the money to pay for that kit, and 

I say here to the prosecutor in Kentucky there is no statute of limitations on this case. If the only thing separating that—is it a he 

or a she? 

Ms. NEUMANN. He. 

Mr. WEINER [continuing]. That prosecutor is his apparent unwillingness to try, because he thinks he is going to lose, or for want 

of a thousand bucks. The first thing I think means he should be 

removed, if he doesn’t think he can win the case with a witness, 

a rape kit, then I don’t know how you make yourself a prosecutor. 

And secondly, if it is for want of a thousand bucks, I think among 

my colleagues here on this panel, we will raise the money. Maybe 

Dr. Boschwitz can offer us a deal. 

Mr. BOSCHWITZ. Sounds good. 

Mr. WEINER. I just—it is beyond—one of the reasons that you deserve an enormous amount of credit is that you are standing here, 

putting a face on what could potentially be thousands of women 

who are not as courageous as you, who are not as willing to speak 

publicly before Congress and before the cameras. And maybe if we 

take this one case and we shine the bright light on it and we make 

103

it clear that for want of a few dollars and the courage and intestinal fortitude of someone to do his job, you are being denied justice. 

Let’s see what happens. Maybe prosecutors around this country 

will say, You know what? I don’t want to have this light turned up 

on me. 

Many prosecutors in this country are elected. They have to stand 

before voters and say, This is what I have done this year and what 

I have done every 2 years. So I want to thank you for doing that. 

And that offer stands. 

And I don’t know if the prosecutor of Kentucky, you know, is at 

all interested in this subject, but I want to make sure he is aware 

of your testimony, my offer, and I really do believe that my colleagues here will join me in this. And even if not, I will pay for 

it personally. 

Mr. NADLER. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WEINER. I will certainly yield. 

Mr. NADLER. I think that is an excellent idea. I think it will be 

unnecessary after we subpoena him here first. 

Mr. WEINER. Look, I think one of the things that we need to understand here is that people like Ms. Neumann are not typical of 

rape victims. The level of courage that she is showing in keeping 

the tension on this, it makes her hopefully a spokesperson for 

many others. And I think that one of the things that we can do 

here is take this case and shine light on it. And you may think 

that—how many years and days has it been since this incident took 

place? 

Ms. NEUMANN. Three years, 5 months and 4 days. 

Mr. WEINER. Three years, 5 months and 4 days. Three years, 5 

months and 4 days since this act took place, but there is no longer, 

on 3 years, 4 months, and 6 days any excuse for the prosecutor to 

continue wallowing in his ineptitude. 

But I want to just point out—and Judge Poe asked a very good 

question, and he wasn’t here for the opening statements. So let me 

reiterate it. We don’t know how many Valerie Neumanns there are 

in the country. We don’t. Despite the fact that we are now providing millions of dollars of taxpayer funds to help legislatures to 

pass laws to be able to deal with the backlash, we don’t know. 

I have got to tell you I bet there are a lot of prosecutors like that 

in Kentucky, and sheriffs and law enforcement officials who are a 

little bit embarrassed who—and that’s why my legislation would 

change it. If you want access to these Federal dollars for law enforcement, you have got to tell us. And if it means that you have 

got to have a story in the newspaper that your local State or county 

has hundreds of untested rape kits, then so be it. But if you want 

the help from the Federal Government in order to deal with law 

enforcement—and just about every law enforcement agency is 

knocking on our door saying give us help—at the very least, you 

should come clean about this. And this is not the end. 

I think that I can say, without fear of any contradiction from my 

Republican friends or anyone on this, we are going to make sure 

that there is no excuse for this prosecutor in Kentucky not following up on this case. Win, lose, or draw, we are going to make 

sure he does his job. Even if it means we take that kit and we help 

104

you subpoena to get it back from the law enforcement and we test 

it ourselves with the help of—we are not going to test it; the professionals are going to do it. If we have to every single day hand him 

the results, then that is what we are going to go do. But I really 

do want to thank you for testifying today. 

Ms. NEWMANN. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Hassell—is it Hassell or Hassell? 

Mr. HASSELL. Hassell. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you for joining us today. Can you tell us 

how you justify the FBI proposed review of procedures, since this 

review seems to defy the positions of many State and local crime 

lab directors and CODIS administrators, as well as organizations 

such as the American Society of Crime Lab Directors and the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods. 

Mr. HASSELL. One of the things we have done is we brought 

them into the fold to actually do this review. So that is why these 

first working groups, we involved those very people. So the American Society for Crime Lab Directors, they sat with us when we 

had our first working meeting at the end of April. We will be meeting with more groups as we go forward. But everyone is engaged 

in this that you mentioned there. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Are the majority of backlog samples awaiting 

review attributed to a small number of public labs? 

Mr. HASSELL. Part is—a lot of the answers I am giving are the 

fact that we just started this review. Part of that was doing a survey. We just got the data back. Just yesterday is when I saw it. 

So we are in the process of compiling that. And we will make it 

available, so I will be able to answer your question very shortly. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I guess the question that I would like you follow 

up with the Committee on as you review that data is, if that is the 

case, why not focus on helping those labs rather than changing the 

whole system? 

Mr. HASSELL. We could follow up on that once we see the survey 

results and that sort of thing. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. All right. One of the issues that I understood—

and I apologize for having to step out to attend another meeting, 

and perhaps Chairman Scott covered this, because I know he and 

I were discussing it earlier—but the issue seems to be whether or 

not a test given by a private lab has to be retested by a public lab 

in all cases, or does it just have to be retested in a case where 

there is a positive match? 

Mr. HASSELL. It is reviewed, it is not retested. So there is a third 

review. It is done at the law enforcement agency that does contracting with the private lab. It is a review of the profile, the actual 

data they get back. It also is looking at the eligibility of that sample for upload. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And am I correct in that a test done by a private lab can go directly into the database? 

Mr. HASSELL. No, sir. It has to go through that review. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Why is that? Since it has to be reviewed again 

anyway to be used as criminal evidence in a case, or perhaps even 

105

retested, why would there not be a desirability to get that information into the database for future use as quickly as possible? 

Mr. HASSELL. That is one of the very issues we are looking at 

in the whole review, is to get our stakeholders together to answer 

that question. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Do you think it is a good idea? 

Mr. HASSELL. It could be done if the private laboratories are held 

to the same standard of oversight. There is a difference in oversight and monitoring of private and public laboratories. The accreditation is there, but it is matter of oversight. So if that is harmonized, then it could be possible. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Ms. Hargitay, do you hear from victims of sexual assault that 

their treatment by the criminal justice system has been something 

less than the care and compassion that is afforded to the victims 

by the detective you play on television? Is the real world as people 

see it on television? 

Ms. HARGITAY. No, it is not. And I think that is why my character has become so possible. I get a lot of fan mail saying, I wish 

the detective who handled my case was like you. I think one of the 

reasons I started the Joyful Heart Foundation was to truly shed a 

light on something that people for some reason don’t want to talk 

about. Sexual assault is a very scary thing to talk about. People 

don’t—are afraid of it. They don’t have the language to talk about 

it. They are scared of what it will be. It will rip apart families, it 

ruins lives. And these women have shame on them that they don’t 

know how to relieve themselves of. And so many times the shame 

is with the victim as opposed to the perpetrator. 

And so I think where Joyful Heart is about the courage to heal, 

as Mr. Weiner said, the courage; it is about the courage. It takes 

so much for a survivor to come forward and to muster that courage, 

to come forward. And to then have nothing done about it, what are 

we saying? What are we telling? Who are we protecting? We are 

saying, You don’t matter. 

Lives are ruined because of it. People think nobody cares about 

me. I don’t matter. If this happens to me and people are going, You 

know what, sweetie, you don’t matter. 

That is what we are saying. I think that is why—and if New 

York can do what it has done and get rid of the of the backlog, I 

feel that we can do it. 

There are so many components that obviously we have to take 

in and this is why we are here today. I am so grateful to have all 

these minds together to figure out truly what can we do. But I 

think it is desperate. If we want to create the next generation of 

respectful, kind people that are not criminals, we need to educate 

them and shine a light on sexual assault and say what is acceptable, what is not. 

If you perform this crime, these are the ramifications. They must 

be tested. We are letting—we are consciously letting criminals walk 

again. We are saying it is okay, you can do it again. We are letting 

criminals go and saying there are no consequences. Do it again, 

nine times, one time, two times, three times. Thirteen years if a 

rape victim can’t get the status of her DNA, of her rape kit? Thirteen years? Three years? It is unacceptable. It is unacceptable. 

106

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, thank you and thank you to all of you for 

the efforts you are making to educate us, educate the public about 

the nature of this problem and what can be done to solve it. Thank 

you Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. HARGITAY. Thank you. Thank you so much. 

Mr. SCOTT. And we are going to have to adjourn the hearing. I 

think Mr. Cohen wanted to make a very brief statement. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank you 

for having this hearing and for the witnesses that are here. This 

is so important of a subject. My city is, unfortunately, at the bottom of the ladder as far as caring in the past. Under the previous 

city administration we had in Memphis, the Memphis Sexual Assault Resource Center that had opportunities to care for women 

and interview them and have them tested had to close down because they had inadequate, incompetent people staffing it. And the 

rape kits there have been piled up and not tested for years and 

years and years. 

Fortunately, we have a new mayor who took it over when he was 

county mayor, but it was horrendous. And this should not happen. 

It is an assault against all women and it is wrong. And I thank 

you for the hearing and the witnesses for testifying. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. I would like to thank all of our witnesses 

for their testimony today. This has been extremely helpful. And I 

would ask you to review the bills before us, if you have specific recommendations to make those recommendations. Particularly one 

question was, who was tested and whether we are overtesting. But 

if you could review the bill and provide that information to us. 

Members may have additional written questions which will be forwarded to you, and we ask that you answer them as promptly as 

you can in order that answers may be made a part of record. 

Without objection, I have a report by the Human Rights Watch, 

entitled ‘‘Testing Justice’’ that I would like entered into the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:]

107


D-1.eps
108


D-2.eps
109


D-3.eps
110


D-4.eps
111


D-5.eps
112


D-6.eps
113


D-7.eps
114


D-8.eps
115


D-9.eps
116


D-10.eps
117


D-11.eps
118


D-12.eps
119


D-13.eps
120


D-14.eps
121


D-15.eps
122


D-16.eps
123


D-17.eps
124


D-18.eps
125


D-19.eps
126


D-20.eps
127


D-21.eps
128


D-22.eps
129


D-23.eps
130


D-24.eps
131


D-25.eps
132


D-26.eps
133


D-27.eps
134


D-28.eps
135


D-29.eps
136


D-30.eps
137


D-31.eps
138


D-32.eps
139


D-33.eps
140


D-34.eps
141


D-35.eps
142


D-36.eps
143


D-37.eps
144


D-38.eps
145


D-39.eps
146


D-40.eps
147


D-41.eps
148


D-42.eps
149


D-43.eps
150


D-44.eps
151


D-45.eps
152


D-46.eps
153


D-47.eps
154


D-48.eps
155


D-49.eps
156


D-50.eps
157


D-51.eps
158


D-52.eps
159


D-53.eps
160


D-54.eps
161


D-55.eps
162


D-56.eps
163


D-57.eps
164


D-58.eps
165


D-59.eps
166


D-60.eps
167


D-61.eps
168


D-62.eps
169


D-63.eps
170


D-64.eps
171


D-65.eps
172


D-66.eps
173

Mr. SCOTT. The hearing record will remain open for 1 week for 

submission of additional materials. 

Without objection, and thanking the witnesses again, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


D-67.eps
(175)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


Poe-1.eps
176

f


Poe-2.eps
177


B-1.eps
178


B-2.eps
179


B-3.eps
180


B-4.eps
181


B-5.eps
182


B-6.eps
183


B-7.eps
184


B-8.eps
185

f


B-9.eps
186

f


C.eps
187

Æ


E.eps