Investigating Crime Labs OCDLA 2009-1 Only]

8/14/2019 Investigating Crime Labs OCDLA 2009-1 Only]

1/50

INVESTIGATING CRIMELABS

OCLDA SeminarOctober 24, 2009Jennifer Friedman

Los Angeles County Public Defender213-974-2922

[email protected]


2/50


3/50

Who Has the Information?


4/50

Who has the information?

Crime lab

District Attorney/State Attorneys General

U.S. Dept. Justice

NIJ (NRC) Federal, state or local agencies

-Oversight bodies/Advisory bodies-Grant recipients

-State auditor


5/50

How Do I Obtain TheseDocuments?


6/50


7/50

Response- Too Burdensome

-How much time will it take? Not a public document

Privacy Issues/ Official Privilege/Specific privilege

-Is there a comparison with hospital audits?

Overbroad; Stale; Snapshot

-audits 1/5 yrs

The Documents Do Not Exist

-Why not? Is there another name for the document?


8/50

Discovery/ Brady/SDT To provide the trier of fact with an accurate

picture of the types of problems that may occurin the course of an analysis. To rebut the zeroerror rate myth.

To allow the trier of fact to assess the weightthat should be given to the results produced bythis laboratory.

To allow the public to scrutinize the work that is

being conducted by public laboratories;transparency is important.


9/50

Discovery/Brady/SDT Does the result truly inculpate the client?

Are there alternative interpretations of the result whichmay exclude the client? Or include another?

Is the procedure or procedures used generallyaccepted?

Did the lab follow generally accepted procedures? Are the individuals who conducted the testing reliable,

credible witnesses?

Was there truly peer review?

Did contextual bias affect the interpretation of the results


10/50

FOIA/ Public Records Acts 5 U.S.C. 552 (9 exemptions

See 552(b)(7)(C) compiled for lawenforcement purpose)

Purpose- FOIAcontributes significantly to the

public understanding of the operations oractivities of the government. Department of Def.v. Fed'lLab. Rel. Auth., 510 U.S. 487, 496-96,

114 S.Ct. 1006 Was there a waiver?


11/50

State Public Record Act Requests

California Government Code 6253 all

public records are subject to disclosureunless the legislature has expresslyprovided to the contrary. Exemptions areto be narrowly construed and opposition todisclosure bears the burden of proving an

exemption.


12/50

Online Sources Newspapers

Office of InspectorGeneral Special Reports

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/index.htm

National Academies ofScience/NRC

http://www.nationalacade

mies.org/

Websites for State

Advisory Boardse.g. Minnesotahttp://www.nationalacademies.org/

Californiahttp://www.caag.state.ca.us/

New Yorkhttp://www.ig.state.ny.us/reports/reports.html


13/50

More Online Sources ASCLD-LAB

http://www.ascld-lab.org/ State Auditor Report on

Forensic Labs e.g.California

http://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/list.php?agency=39

DOJ crime lab audit

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/50lcl02.htm

http://www.corpus-

delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Foren

sic-Science-Misconduct.php

http://www.truthinjustice.o

rg/ http://www.scientific.org/i

nformation/about.html


14/50

More Online Sources

Criminal Defense Forensic LibrariesCriminal Defense Forensic Libraries

http://www.nlada.org/Defender/forensics/http://www.nlada.org/Defender/forensics/

http://www.nlada.org/Defender/forensics/for_lihttp://www.nlada.org/Defender/forensics/for_li

bb??


15/50

More online sources

DA websites

http://www.nysda.org/html/forensic___medhttp://www.nysda.org/html/forensic___med

ical_evidence.html#Reportsical_evidence.html#Reports

www.denverda.orgwww.denverda.org


16/50

What Documents Exist?


17/50

Laboratory Systems NAS Reports

Office of Inspector General Reports

Paul Coverdell Grant Applications

Department of Justice Audit Reports State Auditor Reports

State Advisory/ Oversight Bodies

Report/Hearings/Minutes


18/50

Lab- State Advisory/Oversight Reports

Coverdell Investigation Documents Audit Reports (ASCLD-LAB/ FQS) Standard Operating Procedures Manual

Validation Studies Quality Control Docs/ UnexpectedResults/Errors

Corrective action docs

User manuals Maintenance Records


19/50

Analyst- CV

Proficiency test results

Proficiency test files

Personnel file Certifications

# of analyses examiner has made (of thistype)


20/50

Case- Laboratory file

-bench notes-photos/diagrams

-data

Basis of opinion-studies

-experience

All correspondence including all emails Chain of custody documents


21/50

LABORATORY SYSTEMS


22/50

NAS Report

With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis, however,

no forensic method has been rigorously shown tohave the capacity to consistently, and with a high

degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection

between evidence and a specific individual source.


23/50


24/50

Most significantly, we found a series of systemic

issues, particularly in the FBI laboratory thathelped cause the errors in the Mayfield

case.


25/50

Other NRC Reports


26/50

Review of the Office of Justice Programs

Paul Coverdell Forensic ScienceImprovement Grants Program (1-08)

In December 2005, the Office of the Inspector

General (OIG) issued an inspection report thatfound that OJP had not enforced or exercisedeffective oversight over the external investigation

certification requirement for the FY 2005Coverdell Program.One particular concernidentified in the report was that OJP did notrequire grant applicants to identify thegovernment entities that they certified couldperform independent external investigations.


27/50

LABORATORIES


28/50

New York Dept. Forensic

InvestigationCONCLUSION :

The Inspector General finds that officials at the NewYork Police Departments Forensic InvestigationsDivision committed serious errors in 2002 in theirresponses to both suspected and confirmed misconductcommitted by analysts in the Controlled SubstanceAnalysis Section. Any falsifications of laboratory reports,whether related to proficiency tests or actual casework,as well as the omissions in the 2002 AnnualAccreditation Review Report, could be the basis for a

criminal prosecution. Accordingly, this matter will bereferred to the Queens County District Attorneys Officefor review of possible criminal charges.


29/50

ASCLD-LAB Audit Reports


30/50

ASCLD-LAB Audit Report


31/50



32/50



33/50


34/50

Internal Audit Report

Once the errors were identified, theunsecured file

went missing in the lab.


35/50


36/50

Logs of Unexpected Results/

Corrective Action According to SWGFAST, Quality Assurance Guidelines

for Latent Print Examiners, version 2.11 (Aug. 22, 2002),

8.2, "The specific policies, procedures, and criteria forany corrective action taken as a result of a discrepancyin a technical case review should be clearly documentedin writing."

According to the DNA Advisory Board Quality AssuranceStandards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories,Standard 14, forensic DNA laboratories must followprocedures for corrective action whenever proficiency

testing discrepancies and/or casework errors aredetected and shall maintain documentation for thecorrective action.


37/50

Unexpected Result/Corrective Action

Description of problem: DNA was detected in the male andepithelial batch samples. The two profiles matched each other and

was from a single male donor. No samples in the case matchedthe profile.

How resolved: The unknown profile was searched against

The CODIS database. A hit was obtained with LASD DNA analyst(JB). This analyst had no involvement in the extraction of the two

Cases. The mechanism of contamination is unknown.Change in Procedure: No.


38/50

Unexpected Result/Corrective Action

Low level contamination was detected at four

loci. The sample was re-amplified however theSame results were obtained.All other controls yielded expected results.


39/50

Analyst


40/50

Proficiency Testing Test 08-501: Drug Analysis Test 08-502: Drug Analysis Test 08-516: Latent Prints Examination

Test 08-517/518: Latent PrintsExamination Test 08-521: Questioned Documents Test 08-526: Firearms Examination Test 08-527: Firearms Examination Test 08-528: Toolmarks Examination Test 08-533: Imprint/Impression

Test 08-536: Flammables Analysis Test 08-539: Fibers Analysis Test 08-545: Paint Analysis Test 08-546: Paint Analysis Test 08-548:

Glass Analysis Test 08-560/561:

Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Test 08-564: Blood Alcohol Analysis

Test 08-565: Blood Alcohol Analysis Test 08-568: Breath Alcohol Simulator

Solution Analysis Test 08-571: Forensic Biology Test 08-572: Forensic Biology Test 08-573: Forensic Biology Test 08-574: Forensic Biology Test 08-575: Forensic Biology Test 08-576: Forensic Biology

Test 08-581: DNA-Mixture Test 08-582: DNA-Semen Test 08-583: DNA-Blood Test 08-584: DNA-Semen Test 08-585: DNA-Blood Test 08-586: DNA-Mixture


41/50

Proficiency Testing Summary results-

www.collaborativetesting.com

Individual test results from lab

Lab files from lab


42/50

Curriculum Vita Education

Training

Publications

Attendance at seminars


43/50

Personnel Files/ Civil Service Personnel files

Civil Service Documents

Hearing

NoticeResult


44/50

Case File Report

Laboratory file-Report-Bench notes-Photos/diagrams-data

Basis of opinion-limitations/assumptions

-Studies-Experience/ Training

All correspondence including all emails

Chain of custody documents


45/50

Data


46/50

Correspondence

With regards to your court rush manual comparison

in subject X, I regret to inform you that the results came backnegative. No identification/inconclusive (see below for

further explanation.)


47/50

Ask the question. How many times has this examiner

conducted this type of test.


48/50

Food for Thought Is it an ethical violation for prosecutors to

offer evidence with a statement ofindividualization given the NAS report?

Are we as defense attorneys ineffective if

we do not have the knowledge necessaryto effectively litigate the scientific issues inthe case?


49/50

What can (must) we do? Learn the science

Obtain expert assistance as consultant Obtain discovery

Evaluate the evidence

Determine a strategy based on full knowledge

Challenge admissibility

Challenge the testimony of the forensic scientist

Present testimony


50/50

Jennifer FriedmanLos Angeles County Public Defender

[email protected]

Investigating Crime Labs OCDLA 2009-1 Only]

Documents

Transcript of Investigating Crime Labs OCDLA 2009-1 Only]