Mix13

If you don't know what it is, you should. I remember sitting next to C. Ken Williams at the ABA Prescription on Forensic Science the first time I'd heard of it, saying it was a huge deal. And a huge problem in forensic DNA analysis.

"The question sent to the lab seemed relatively simple. But the answer was incredibly complex.

A ski mask left behind after a bank robbery was the piece of evidence. The fabric showed a mixture of touch DNA including four people, but due to its complexity, it initially appeared as a mixture of only two people. The labs were given two of the four likely contributors, along with a fifth person.

But that fifth person was not in the mixture, and had never touched the ski mask.

It’s not a real case. It’s a hypothetical, a test; part of an inter-laboratory study involving more than 100 labs conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Seventy percent of the labs got the wrong answer, by including that fifth, and innocent, person within the mixture.

The results showed that, as DNA sensitivity has grown by leaps and bounds, interpretation of those tiny clues has not kept pace. But those results were reached five years ago—and the study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. NIST says they have pushed out the results to other experts at major forensic conferences in the ensuing years—and now plan to submit a full paper to a major journal by the end of this month.

Critics say that justice has been deferred by the years-long delay, potentially landing untold numbers of people in prison based off faulty DNA mixture interpretation methods. Some experts said they were unaware of the potentially fortune-reversing findings—and others said the results were turned aside by judges because there was no official publication of the findings.

Just how many criminal cases were impacted by these mixture interpretation methods during the last five years—and even earlier than that—remains to be seen.

“This is about five years of people being convicted by bad interpretations,” said Greg Hampikian, a Boise State DNA expert. “This is a huge story. It’s the problem with DNA—the one everyone trusts.”

read more about it here.

Gordon Research Conference on Forensic Analysis of Human DNA

If you're looking for a conference that will address the emerging trends in forensic DNA, not just in the US, but around the world, check this conference out.

San Diego to review 254 convictions based on erroneous DNA mixture analysis

he District Attorney’s Office has alerted lawyers for more than 250 defendants who were convicted over a 13-year period that their conviction relied in part on using a now-discredited DNA interpretation method — and they may have a chance at a re-examination of their case.

The notice, a two-page letter from interim District Attorney Summer Stephan sent to lawyers starting Monday, could have the effect of changing guilty verdicts handed down by juries at trials from 2003 through 2016. The office sent out letters on 254 cases, all involving convictions of either violent or serious felonies.

Read more here

HOW FORENSIC DNA EVIDENCE CAN LEAD TO WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

Lynette White was murdered in 1988. When the three men first imprisoned for her murder were found to have been wrongfully convicted, it seemed that her killer would go unpunished. However, new technology invented in 2002 was used to analyze DNA found at the scene of the murder. The only match was to a boy too young to have committed the murder, but DNA samples were taken from his family. The youth’s uncle confessed, and was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2003.

In criminal investigation, DNA evidence can be a game-changer. But DNA is just one piece of the puzzle, rarely giving a clear “he did it” answer. According to a consortium of forensic experts who released a report earlier this year, there are limits to what DNA can tell us about a crime. And what it can and can’t reliably prove in court needs to be much clearer.

Read more here

Recovered DNA crucial to making arrest in Jupiter case

DNA from multiple individuals was found found on a glove, a sweatshirt, and a rifle. Steward's DNA, Vasata's DNA, and DNA from a third unidentifiable contributor.

"And if there is an indication that there's an unknown contributor, someone will always point to that as the true criminal, the defense attorney is always going to point at that as the real perpetrator," said Tiffany Roy.

Roy is a DNA expert, formally a chemist for Massachusetts State Police. She is often called to testify, and she teaches courses in forensic science.

She says even though the unidentifiable DNA exists in small amounts on the physical evidence, it is very problematic for prosecutors.

"Mixed evidence like this is very difficult to interpret," Roy said.

We asked Jupiter's Chief why says this case is now closed. Here's his answer:

"Based on the number of distinct profiles in this case, and based on the evidence, that we have, we are confident that we have made the appropriate number of arrests."

But police documents show, Charlie Vorpagel's initial statements to police indicated he thought there were three to four masked gunmen.

Today, we asked police for further comment about the unidentifiable contributor. They say this is now in the hands of the state attorney.

"[The unidentified DNA] doesn't tell me a whole lot, there could be more people involved, there might not be, there's no way to know that from the scientific evidence based on some of the variables," Roy said.

Judges are terrible at distinguishing good science from bad. It’s time we stopped asking them to do it.

Here’s Giannelli on hair and fiber analysis:

In 1995, a federal district court in Williamson v. Reynolds observed: “Although the hair expert may have followed procedures accepted in the community of hair experts, the human hair comparison results in this case were, nonetheless, scientifically unreliable.”77 The court also noted that the “expert did not explain which of the ‘approximately’ 25 characteristics were consistent, any standards for determining whether the samples were consistent, how many persons could be expected to share this same combination of characteristics, or how he arrived at his conclusions.”

Williamson, who was five days from execution when he obtained habeas relief, was subsequently exonerated by DNA testing. 79 The Williamson opinion — perhaps the only thorough judicial analysis of microscopic hair comparisons — was all but ignored by other courts. In Johnson v. Commonwealth (1999), the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld the admissibility of hair evidence, taking “judicial notice” of its reliability and thus implicitly finding its validity indisputable. Other courts echoed Johnson, not Williamson. Indeed, ten years after Williamson was decided, a 2005 decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court observed (correctly) that “[t]he overwhelming majority of courts have deemed such evidence admissible.”

It was only a few years ago that the FBI finally admitted that its hair and fiber analysts had overstated the certainty of their claims in virtually every case in which they had testified. Those analysts also trained countless other state and local analysts across the country in the same methods.

Read more from Radley Balko @ the Washington Post

Courage Comes First: Lynn Garcia, Texas Forensic Science Commission NIST Error Management Symposium

American-Statesman:

You’ve made a mark reviewing old arson cases. You’ve done so by working with the Innocence Project of Texas to identify suspect convictions. From a prosecutor’s point of view, are you working with the enemy?

Chris Connealy: Well, I can’t speak for them but I don’t look at the Innocence Project as the enemy. We have the same goal, to make sure justice is served. Certainly prosecutors have that same goal as well. Working with the Innocence Project is the right thing to do. Is it normal? No. Has it been embraced by folks who are my peers? Absolutely not. But I think a lot more agree and understand why we’re doing it. And until trust is violated between us or them, why not work together? We need to do all the due diligence on our part to make sure the public has confidence that we are following best practices for fire investigations. We are meeting the current science. We are cognizant of the current science.  

As a former firefighter and fire chief (in Houston and Cedar Park), what have these reviews taught you? •

Chris Connealy: That you have to stay current with best practices. It’s hard to get in trouble following best practices, and that means following the standards that are out there and training your people about what they do out in the field, and you lead or manage from that approach. Those things that get measured get better. I’m a big fan of performance measures. I’m a big believer in third-party validation. You can brag on yourself all day long, but I’d rather someone else say it.

This is true leadership. Read more here.

Deputy AG Announces New Forensic Science Working Group but Still Doesn't Grasp the Extent of the Problem

I agree with everything in this article. We need to redefine accreditation in this country. Crime Labs need more independent oversight to determine the sufficiency of the procedures we have in place. We must demand this as a community.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/08/07/deputy-ag-announces-new-forensic-science-working-group-but-still-doesnt-grasp-the-extent-of-problem/?utm_term=.571fa4bfd740#comments

Broward Judges Aren't Letting Defendants Challenge Bad DNA Evidence, Critics Say

Late last year, as he served a life sentence in prison, Ernesto Behrens received a notice informing him of problems discovered at the crime lab that had examined DNA in his case. Behrens, who was convicted of armed sexual battery in Broward County in 2000, immediately filed a flurry of motions asking for the evidence to be reviewed.

But Judge Andrew Siegel quickly denied the motion without even granting a hearing.

Months after hundreds of cases were thrown into question over improper DNA interpretation at the Broward Sheriff's Office Crime Laboratory, Behrens' case has become a point of contention between prosecutors and public defenders.

Prosecutors say that his case wasn't affected by the DNA problem and that the notice might have been sent in error. The public defender's office, however, argues the judge's ruling shows that defendants aren't getting a fair shake at challenging the potentially tainted DNA evidence — and that a much more thorough review is needed.

"The State Attorney's Office should also be looking at justice, and if there's one person sitting in jail or one person that was wrongly convicted based on faulty DNA, they should also be looking to right that conviction," Assistant Public Defender Gordon Weekes says.

RELATED STORIES

• Hundreds of Broward Cases in Doubt Over DNA Testing Problems, Expert's Suspension for Sexism, Racism

The lab issue, which New Times detailed in a feature story last month, surfaced in 2015. Forensic consultant Tiffany Roy reviewed evidence from a knife handle and realized it was ruled conclusive when it should have been inconclusive. Roy complained to the agency that accredits the lab, the American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD), which investigated and agreed with her.

Read more here

Hundreds of Broward Cases in Doubt Over DNA Testing Problems, Expert's Suspension for Sexism, Racism

The shots rang out before either cop could reach for his holster. The only thing the two Broward Sheriff's deputies could do was call for help. "We're shot!" came a voice over police radio. Then it was quiet.

When the bullets stopped flying that November night, Dep. Corey Carbocci lay bleeding on the pavement. Dep. Brian Tephford hung halfway out of his patrol car. Their red, white, and blue police lights were still flashing across the sprawling condo complex where a routine traffic stop had suddenly turned violent.

A swarm of police and first responders sped to Versailles Gardens, a cluster of buildings off McNab Road in the suburb of Tamarac. Screams came from the crowd that had formed near the deputies. Carbocci, 37, clutched his chest and leg as paramedics assessed his wounds. But Tephford wasn't moving. The 34-year-old father of three was soon pronounced dead.

Three suspected gunmen — Eloyn Ingraham, Bernard Forbes, and Andre Delancy — were caught the day after the November 11, 2006 attack, holed up in a room at a Dania Beach inn with two Glocks in the toilet tank and a Springfield Arms pistol under a bed. Prosecutors said ballistics, cellphone data, eyewitness accounts, and DNA evidence all linked the men to the crime.

Read more at Broward New-Times

Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So

It has been about three months since Terrell Gills’s release from jail, and there are still sleepless nights and days spent in his room as he contemplates the year and a half he spent on Rikers Island for a crime of which he was acquitted.

He stays there for most of the day with the door locked, his jail life so ingrained that he still eats at times close to his old jail schedule: 4:30 a.m., noon and 5 p.m.

There is other baggage: antisocial feelings, and the questions that come during job interviews about the nearly two years left blank on his résumé.

The answers do not come easily.

Mr. Gills, now 36, was arrested in August 2015, accused of robbing a Dunkin’ Donuts about three months earlier in Jamaica, Queens. The arrest was made, in part, on the strength of forensic evidence that is typically persuasive: a DNA match.

Read more at the New York Times.

Forensic use of Y-chromosome DNA: a general overview

There has been a surge in the effort to expand familial DNA searching in the US, with some states going live with Y-STR databases. This article demonstrates a really intelligent approach to genetic sleuthing.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-017-1776-9

Rapid DNA Legislation Passes Out of House Judiciary Committee

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Rapid DNA Act, introduced by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) passed out of the House Judiciary Committee and is on its way to a full vote on the floor of the House of Representatives.

If passed, the Rapid DNA Act would establish a system for the integration of Rapid DNA instruments for use by law enforcement to help reduce the DNA backlog. Unlike traditional DNA analysis, which can take weeks, Rapid DNA analysis permits processing of DNA samples in approximately 90 minutes or less.

This technology has the potential to revolutionize the way in which arrested individuals are enrolled in the criminal justice system, shorten the time required for their DNA to be linked to unsolved crimes, and expedite the exoneration of innocent suspects by giving law enforcement officials a new system that meets FBI quality assurance standards to compare DNA samples collected at the time of an arrest to profiles in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).

Congressman Sensenbrenner: “Today’s passage of the Rapid DNA Act out of the House Judiciary Committee is a promising development that brings us one step closer to safer communities throughout the nation. Rapid DNA technology is an effective tool for law enforcement that will help quickly identify arrestees and offenders, as well as reduce the overwhelming backlog in forensic DNA analysis. It will also make crime fighting efforts more efficient and help prevent future crimes from occurring, which saves time and taxpayer dollars. I look forward to this smart legislation moving forward to a vote on the House floor.”

Read More @ urbanmilwaukee below:

http://urbanmilwaukee.com/pressrelease/rapid-dna-legislation-passes-out-of-house-judiciary-committee/

Florida's First Familial DNA CODIS Hit

Jennifer Odom was 12 years old when she was abducted and killed in Hernando County.

For more than 20 years, there has been no solid leads, no persons of interest in the case. Until now. Jan. 16, 1992. Around 3 p.m. in Pasco County. Detectives believe a 17-year-old victim got off the school bus at U.S. 41 and Twin Oaks Drive and made her way along a dirt road when she was grabbed by a suspect.

Pasco County detectives say Jeffrey Norman Crum Sr. is that suspect. 

http://www.wtsp.com/news/crime/unsolved-dna-may-finally-solve-girls-1993-murder/434473872

Notice of Public Comment Period on Advancing Forensic Science

AGENCY:

Department of Justice.

ACTION:

Request for public comment.

SUMMARY:

It is the Department's mission to ensure public safety and provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime. Advancing the practice of forensic science is an important part of that effort. The more effective a forensic system we have, the better equipped we are to solve crimes, more swiftly absolving the innocent and bringing the guilty to justice. The second term of the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS) is set to expire on April 23, 2017. As part of the Department's continued efforts to advance the practice of forensic science following NCFS's expiration, the Department is seeking comment on how theStart Printed Page 17880Department should move forward to evaluate and improve the underlying science of forensic evidence; improve the operational management systems of forensic science service providers; and improve the understanding of forensic science by legal practitioners.

DATES:

Written public comment regarding the issue for comment should be submitted through www.regulations.gov before June 9, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The Office of Legal Policy, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530, by phone at 202-514-4601 or via email at Forensics.OLP@usdoj.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In February 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced a partnership that included the formation of the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS). The NCFS is one of several federal initiatives relating to forensic science that was created following the 2009 report by the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council on “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward.” NCFS was established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide advice and recommendations to the Attorney General on: (1) Strengthening the reliability and usefulness of the forensic sciences (including medicolegal death investigation); (2) enhancing quality assurance and quality control in forensic science laboratories and units; (3) identifying and recommending scientific guidance and protocols for evidence seizure, testing, analysis, and reporting by forensic science laboratories and units; and (4) identifying and assessing other needs of the forensic science communities to strengthen their disciplines and meet the increasing demands generated by the criminal and civil justice systems at all levels of government.

The NCFS charter identifies six goals: (1) To recommend priorities for standards development to the Attorney General; (2) to review and recommend guidance identified or developed by subject-matter experts; (3) to develop proposed guidance concerning the intersection of forensic science and the courtroom; (4) to develop policy recommendations, including a uniform code of professional responsibility and minimum requirements for training, accreditation, and certification; (5) to consider the recommendations of the National Science and Technology Council's Subcommittee on Forensic Science; and (6) to identify and assess the current and future needs of the forensic sciences to strengthen their disciplines and meet growing demands. The NCFS's supporting documents, including current charter, bylaws, and work product development guidance, are available for review at https://www.justice.gov/cfs and https://www.justice.gov/cfs/ork-products.

Federal advisory committees operate on two-year renewable terms. Term 1 for NCFS began on April 23, 2013, when the original charter was filed, and concluded on April 23, 2015. NCFS was renewed for Term 2, which expires on April 23, 2017. Over the last 3 years (as of April 9, 2017), NCFS developed 43 work products, including 20 recommendations to the Attorney General, to support these goals. The NCFS has met its initial mandate, and in light of the upcoming expiration of its charter, the Department is now considering appropriate next steps.

Issue for Comment—Commenters are requested to identify proposals to: (1) Improve the underlying science and validity of forensic evidence; (2) improve the operational management systems of forensic science service providers; and (3) improve the understanding of forensic science by legal practitioners.

In formulating a proposal, commenters may wish to consider the following questions:

(A) What are the biggest needs in forensic science inside the Department and at the federal, state, local, and tribal level?

(B) What is required to improve forensic science practices at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels?

(C) What is needed to improve capacity at federal, state, local, and tribal levels?

(D) What are the barriers to improving capacity and what resources are needed to overcome those barriers?

(E) What are the specific issues related to digital forensic evidence analysis and how can the Department address those needs?

(F) How should the Department, or any Department entity, coordinate with the Organization of Scientific Area Committees?

(G) What resources and relationships can the Department draw on to ensure thoughtful and representative input?

Proposals may include some combination of a Federal Advisory Committee, a new office at the Department, an inter-agency working group, regularly scheduled stakeholder meetings, etc. If the commenter believes a Federal Advisory Committee structure is appropriate, commenters are encouraged to address structural issues such as size, membership, work product development process, reporting structure (i.e., to whom recommendations are provided), opportunity for public comment, and opportunity for robust debate among members.

Posting of Public Comments: To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. OLP 160” on all electronic and written correspondence. The Department encourages all comments be submitted electronically through www.regulations.gov. Paper comments that duplicate the electronic submission are not necessary as all comments submitted to www.regulations.gov will be posted for public review and are part of the official docket record.

In accordance with the Federal Records Act, please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record, and shall be made available for public inspection online at www.regulations.gov. The comments to be posted may include personally identifiable information (such as your name, address, etc.) and confidential business information voluntarily submitted by the commenter.

The Department will post all comments received on www.regulations.gov without making any changes to the comments or redacting any information, including any personally identifiable information provided. It is the responsibility of the commenter to safeguard personally identifiable information. You are not required to submit personally identifying information in order to comment and the Department recommends that commenters not include personally identifiable information such as Social Security Numbers, personal addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses that they do not want made public in their comments as such submitted information will be available to the public via www.regulations.gov. Comments may be provided anonymously, but those commenters who do share contact information are requested to include brief background information regarding commenter subject-matter experience and expertise. Comments submitted through www.regulations.gov will not include the email address of the commenter unless the commenter chooses to include that information as part of his or her comment.

Start Printed Page 17881

Dated: April 10, 2017.

Kira Antell,

Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-07512 Filed 4-12-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-18-P

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/04/13/2017-07512/notice-of-public-comment-period-on-advancing-forensic-science

Attorney General Requests Public Comments on Improving Forensic Science

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Public Comment Period on Advancing Forensic Science Docket No. OLP 160

AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Request for public comment. NOTE: This is an advance copy of a notice submitted to the Federal Register. This document contains unofficial text. The official text will be published in a forthcoming edition of the Federal Register and posted on www.regulations.gov.

SUMMARY: It is the Department’s mission to ensure public safety and provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime. Advancing the practice of forensic science is an important part of that effort. The more effective a forensic system we have, the better equipped we are to solve crimes, more swiftly absolving the innocent and bringing the guilty to justice. The second term of the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS) is set to expire on April 23, 2017. As part of the Department’s continued efforts to advance the practice of forensic science following NCFS’s expiration, the Department is seeking comment on how the Department should move forward to (1) evaluate and improve the underlying science of forensic evidence; (2) improve the operational management systems of forensic science service providers; and (3) improve the understanding of forensic science by legal practitioners. DATES: Written public comment regarding the issue for comment should be submitted through www.regulations.gov before June 9, 2017.

Session ends of the National Commission on Forensic Science

Attorney General Jeff Sessions will end a Justice Department partnership with independent scientists to raise forensic science standards and has suspended an expanded review of FBI testimony across several techniques that have come under question, saying a new strategy will be set by an in-house team of law enforcement advisers.

In a statement Monday, Sessions said he would not renew the National Commission on Forensic Science, a roughly 30-member advisory panel of scientists, judges, crime lab leaders, prosecutors and defense lawyers chartered by the Obama administration in 2013.

A path to meet needs of overburdened crime labs will be set by a yet-to-be named senior forensic adviser and an internal department crime task force, Sessions’s statement said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/sessions-orders-justice-dept-to-end-forensic-science-commission-suspend-review-policy/2017/04/10/2dada0ca-1c96-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html?utm_term=.ca753c35ca14

Congress Grills FBI on Facial Recognition, Overwhelmingly Disapproves

Last week, representatives from several government agencies, along with members of industry and society, appeared on a panel before the U.S. House Oversight Committee to explore the privacy issues that abound with the use of facial recognition technology...

http://www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/03/congress-grills-fbi-facial-recognition-overwhelmingly-disapproves

Maintaining the Status Quo: Why Legal Precedent and Forensic Science Don't Mix

A fundamental difference between the law and forensic science is that lawyers look to the past for guidance and scientists look to the future. A scientist once asked me on a phone interview for a job if I could see another technology replacing the Forensic DNA system we have in place and I answered that I could not. That was the wrong answer and I didn't get that job. Scientists are constantly advancing their skill set and knowledge base. They're always looking for a better way. Millions of dollars and man hours are spent each year in the sciences looking for better and more efficient ways to do things, even if the old ways are working. Why not do it better, faster, more efficiently?

The legal system is the polar opposite. They look to legal precedent for guidance on how to proceed. They maintain the status quo and do things as they've always been done. Judges and lawyers continue to do things as they've always been done until they are actually instructed by a higher court to do them differently. This is problematic for the justice system because the law isn't catching up to the science quickly enough. For example, in recent years, our scientific understanding of hair analysis has changed. We now know hair cannot be conclusively linked to source through microscopic analysis because it lacks the unique characteristics necessary to draw that type of conclusion. Bitemark evidence has faced criticism by multiple scientific bodies after several studies have indicated that type of analysis is unreliable. But judges keep admitting bitemark evidence, even though scientists have all but debunked it's scientific foundation.

Science is constantly changing and advancing and jurists need to recognize our scientific understanding is always evolving. Once, people thought the earth was flat. It's through scientific exploration that we understand that it is not flat, no matter what Kyrie Irving tells you. We CANNOT afford to maintain the status quo when it comes to forensic science. When junk science is allowed into the courtroom, injustice happens. When injustice happens, people lose faith in the system. When people lose faith in the system, all those who work hard each day away from their families and friends toil for naught. There are millions of hard working lawyers, judges, investigators and scientists working to make the criminal justice system as good as it can be, and the legal status quo isn't good enough when it comes to the science of the law.

Great work, Washington Post and @radleybalko for addressing this serious issue.