Transcripts of the Attorney General's Initiative on DNA Laboratory Backlogs (AGID-LAB) Working Group
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
ELEVATING FORENSICS TOOLS OTHER THAN DNA
MR. SCHMITT: One last area before we move to our closing portion. I think all of us have marveled at the public awareness and appreciation for DNA analysis that has developed over the last five to ten years to the point now where people often tell us that there in some respects may be an overemphasis on DNA as the magic tool that solves all crime. At NIJ we're constantly reminded by our own professional staff as well as those visitors who come to see us that the vast majority of forensics in the United States are non-DNA forensics. So one of the things we wanted to ask you to kick around briefly is what needs to be done to elevate other aspects of forensic science to the level that DNA analysis has achieved.
One of the thoughts that had crossed our minds is to do for non-DNA forensics what NIJ helped to do for DNA forensics, and that is the establishment of a national commission to make recommendations as to the future use of those techniques and to elevate public awareness both in the general public and among policymakers as to this aspect of science. Would a national commission on forensic science be a helpful contribution to the art?
MR. COFFMAN: What would be the goals of it again or its mission?
MR. SCHMITT: To make recommendations as to where future federal funding needs to be applied to develop aspects of forensic science. It would help to identify those areas where the scientific basis is not either sufficiently developed to everyone's satisfaction or sufficiently made known to the practitioner community such that it is fully used and also it would serve as an element an awareness of these techniques in the minds of the people, thus engendering greater public acceptance of certain techniques among policymakers and judges I suppose so that people in official capacities have a greater appreciation and acceptance of other sorts of forensic science techniques.
MS. HART: If I could follow up on one other thing, it's a recognition that science changes and it evolves and what we think we know today we may not know tomorrow and keep public awareness of them and the law enforcement community aware of changes in developments, and what perhaps one ought to be looking at - I mean over the last two days as well as the last one I had tremendous benefit from hearing from all of you here about many things that I hadn't even thought about, so the question is whether we should be looking at this long term to make sure that we're figuring out a mechanism for maximizing the use of science, not just DNA, but science generally to aid in law enforcement solving crimes.
MR. SELAVKA: When I was in New York State, because we were missing a commissioner of justice for about a year and a half, I was the acting chair of the Commission on Forensic Science, which is the state model for this national thing, and what the commission did - it has some downsides, who gets to be on it and all the politics that go with that that are outside the control. Once it's set it works, but it serves as a clearing house for information exchange, and when stakeholders know they can go to one place to bring a problem to the greater community and have it get either resolved or put aside as less important than the person who brought it to you thinks it should be, but that's done in a consensus process. That's for the public, for the media, for the criminal justice stakeholders, and those outside the system, so is serves an important role there.
There is a lot of low hanging fruit that gets picked early on and you have some initial very quick successes in bringing forth a platform of scientific improvement and infrastructure development that will be a logical outcome if you should do. Then there is higher hanging fruit, and that's the stuff where you really hope that the commission gets to.
In New York we've picked all the low hanging fruit, and I'm not sure they've really stretched the pole up to get the high hanging fruit that's really juicy and the worms didn't eat it yet. That's there to be done. You don't want to wait until it rots and falls off.
MS. HART: Any other thoughts on this?
MR. GIALAMAS: I would think it would be a good idea to raise the focus of forensic science in general. What we experience, and I'm just using my little bias of Los Angeles, is that when we look at the problems that face the crime lab, really DNA is an issue only because DNA is the flavor of the month, so to speak. It's a new technology. It has worked wonders and it's ever changing, so it demands a lot of attention and a lot of it and rightfully so, but when we look at our real backlogs in the crime lab at a local level, we have more serious problems in our firearms analysis unit and in our latent print chemical processing unit than we do in DNA.
So if you were really to look at a crime lab, DNA is not necessarily the only major problem that exists. It's just a problem that's getting attention right now. So I think it would be good to open up the doors and let everyone know that there are other useful forensic tools out there and that some of those other tools may actually be in more dire straits than we hear about DNA.
MR. SCHMITT: Anyone else on this topic?
MS. NARVESON: I think any kind of a national commission of this scope would only be successful if it were appropriately populated, and I hope that if this moves forward, that the forensic community is contacted and asked for suggestions for representation. We have an opportunity to mold our own future in a very proactive manner.
MR. SCHMITT: Let me tell you what we foresee as the next steps here, and then we will open this for public comment, and then Sarah will give us some closing thoughts.
We're not going to try to summarize all the recommendations here that you've come to over the last couple of days. What we are going to do is prepare a draft document for your review that sets out what we think the consensus is and the recommendations that you've either made to us or that flowed naturally from those consensuses.
We will submit that to you. We'll ask you to make comments to us by e-mail or in writing or on the phone if you prefer, but I don't foresee that we'll have to convene another session of the group to go over those recommendations, and then from that I hope that Sarah will have the information that she needs to fulfill her charge, which is to make recommendations to the Attorney General. But that will be the next step, and if there is a follow-on step after that, we'll, of course, let you know about that.
At this point our agenda allows for public comment, and, of course, that's statutorily required, so if there are people here from the public that wish to make a comment, I ask that they come to the microphone that's behind me.
MS. HART: I should also mention that in order to comply with the act we have to make sure that there is public comment at the time that it was listed in the Federal Register, which is 4:15 to 4:45. So even though we expect that you all will be gone by then, there will be the reporter and staff here from NIJ who will be available to take public comment if anybody chooses to make it at that time, but in the interest of hearing from some of the people who are here today, I know we have a number of people behind us here who have listened today and have I think some perspective, too, and we would certainly invite public comment at this time, although anybody can stick around until 4:15 to comment then, too.
MR. SCHMITT: So we ask that you come to the microphone, state your name, if you care to give us your affiliation, and then make your comment or question, but not a speech.
Hearing no comment, I'll turn it over to Sarah Hart for her closing remarks.
