Access to The Champion archive is one of many exclusive member benefits. It’s normally restricted to just NACDL members. However, this content, and others like it, is available to everyone in order to educate the public on why criminal justice reform is a necessity.
Section 311(b)(4) of the Justice for All Act (H.R.5107), enacted with little fanfare on October 30, 2004, has the potential to bring about a truly historic quality assurance overhaul of forensic science in America at a time when crime laboratories across the country — from Houston, Boston, Montana, Cleveland, Oklahoma City, to the FBI itself — are being rocked by scandalously bad or fraudulent work. Success in this reform effort depends upon vigorous coalitions of prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges, forensic scientists, victim rights advocates, and community groups which will insist state legislatures recognize that good forensic science is good law enforcement, that it protects the innocent and helps apprehend the guilty, and it thrives only in transparent institutions where errors can be freely admitted and corrected.
Section 311(b)(4) conditions federal funding to states through the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Act, upon a certification acceptable to the Inspector General of the United States Justice Department that:
a government entity exists and appropriate process is in place to conduct independent external investigations into allegations of serious negligence or misconduct substantially affecting the integrity of the forensic results committed by employees or contractors of any forensic laboratory system, medical examiner’s office, coroner’s office, law enforcement storage facility, or medical facility in the State that will receive a portion of the grant amount.
(emphasis added.)
Put simply, any state that wants millions of Coverdell money for laboratory improvements — funds that have already been authorized — must pass legislation that provides for an entity that can undertake real independent oversight of forensic testing. Already, there are strong signs that leaders of the National District Attorney’s Association, the American Academy of Forensic Science, the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors — Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLAD-LAB), and the National Legal Aid & Defender Association understand the significance of Section 311(b)(4) and the value of a cooperation approach to state legislatures.
And if any reader harbors doubt about the prevalence of “serious negligence” or “misconduct” in America’s crime laboratories, just review the materials presented at our recent New Orleans CLE seminar — Robert Epstein on fingerprint evidence; Bill Tobin on composite analysis of lead bullets and other forensic assays; Bill Thompson and Dan Krane on DNA Evidence; Michele Nethercott on gunshot residue analysis; Jan Leestma on forensic neuropathology issues; Michael Saks on handwriting, arson, and other forensic issues involving examiner bias; and Tim Palmbach on blood spatter, preservation of evidence and crime scene analysis. The materials will be featured in forthcoming issues of The Champion.
Join the community of lawyers and experts who are litigating forensic issues at the cutting edge
