New cases are defined as those cases in which the offense has been newly detected but the perpetrator has not yet been charged.
Early Case Evaluation by a Multidisciplinary Team
In charged felony cases, the evidence review team shall meet at the time set for the preliminary hearing (regardless of whether such prelim has been waived). Members shall include the assigned prosecutor, the lead investigator, scientists from the laboratory unit responsible for a significant portion of the anticipated testing andCase evaluation, or evidentiary review, improves the management of current cases containing biological evidence and caseloads. For some jurisdictions, the concept of multidisciplinary case review is novel. Others have successfully employed multidisciplinary case evidence review for years.
Some kinds of cases–such as child sexual abuse or homicide–have historically used multidisciplinary evidence reviews, because communication and early analysis produce both a stronger case-in-chief and a stronger rebuttal to whatever defense is proffered.With technological advancements, neither time nor distance should impede a coordinated and comprehensive review of any recently discovered violent crime. In contrast, lack of communication and organization can become very costly, both to the case and to the agencies within the forensic community, especially when unnecessary testing diverts valuable time and money or necessary testing is not done timely if at all.
In evaluating every case, prosecutors, police and forensic scientists or criminalists should determine what evidence is probative of the defendant’s guilt. This evidentiary or case review should be a collaborative process. By reviewing cases as soon as possible after a crime has been discovered, the panel can identify which pieces of evidence are amenable to DNA testing, which have the most probative value, and/or which should be tested first.
The case review panel must also identify potential defenses, which will help determine the appropriate testing to better challenge untrue defenses. For example, testing may be relevant in homicide cases in which the anticipated defense is the justified use of deadly force (or self-defense), to corroborate the physical evidence or eyewitnesses, or in a sexual assault case to corroborate the victim’s account that there were two assailants involved in the offense, or to compare the location of the DNA mixtures with the victim’s account of the offense. Finally, a multidisciplinary case review allows all of the respective parties in a case to understand, document in reports and testify accurately about why certain items were, or were not, tested. Avoiding unnecessary testing of evidence reduces the strain on laboratory resources and frees up those resources for more appropriate use.
Case review policy should include assigning and determining communication responsibilities and methods, so that everyone is clear about which agency must notify the review committee, which types of cases should receive automatic case review, and timelines. Departments or agencies can evaluate the listed evidence and decide, either before it is sent to the lab or after the lab verifies receipt, whether all or part of the evidence on the list should be tested. Jurisdictions have employed different methods to accomplish these goals. A case review team could meet every other week if the caseload is high enough. Some jurisdictions have a policy that the multidisciplinary committee shall review cases within a preset period of time (e.g., 48 hours).
All team members should participate in the decisions regarding methodology for case review (e.g., meetings or conference calls, supported by transcribed, faxed, or copied documents, or merely recorded by the attendees for inclusion in their respective files). In the state of Wyoming, the policy under consideration contains the following language.
In charged felony cases, the evidence review team shall meet at the time set for the preliminary hearing (regardless of whether such prelim has been waived). Members shall include the assigned prosecutor, the lead investigator, scientists from the laboratory unit responsible for a significant portion of the anticipated testing and such other parties or agency representatives as appropriate. The review meeting will be conducted by conference call.
Suggested Responsibilities
The following are some suggested guidelines for multidisciplinary case review:
Prosecutor Responsibilities:
- Designating which agencies will participate in the evidence reviewing team.
- Designating an “on-call” or “on-duty” prosecutor who would either respond to crime scenes or be available by telephone on a 24-hour basis for homicide, sexual assault or other cases.
- Setting any ongoing case review or pre-trial conference dates and times for certain cases.
- Assigning responsibility to a specific prosecutor for notifying the laboratory and police when a case is either abandoned or closed.
- Assigning a specific staff member to participate in multidisciplinary case reviews that may occur prior to evidence testing.2
- Immediately notifying police and prosecutors if sample consumption
or exhaustion is anticipated. - Immediately notifying police and prosecutors if there is a CODIS3 match or cold hit.
Police Responsibilities:
- Assigning a police officer (often a supervisor) to participate in collective case or evidence review prior to any testing.
- Immediately notifying prosecutors if a chain of custody issue is either anticipated or created.
- Immediately notifying prosecutors and the laboratory if information of a CODIS match or cold hit is received.
Content on this page has been excerpted from DNA Evidence Policy Considerations for the Prosecutor, published by the American Prosecutors Research Institute—the nonprofit research, training and technical assistance affiliate of the National District Attorneys' Association. This information is offered for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. This project was supported by Award No. 2002-DD-BX-0005, from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice.
