forensic focus - Perspectives: Field Needs Adequate Funding, National Forensic Science Commission

Fulfilling the Promise of DNA Technology
President’s DNA Initiative Brings Hope of Crime Lab Funding, Backlog Resolution
By Kelly M. Pyrek

Crime Lab Design is in the Details
By Kelly M. Pyrek

Forensic Photography:
The Pros and Cons of Going Digital
By John Roark

EDITOR’S LETTER
Demanding Respect for Forensic Science

PERSPECTIVES
Field Needs Adequate Funding, National Forensic Science Commission

SPECIAL SECTION
Advances in DNA

NEWS & VIEWS
Industry News Briefs, Off the Bookshelf, Notes from the Field

Field Needs Adequate Funding, National Forensic Science Commission
By Barry A. J. Fisher

In the post-September 11th world, a fair question for state and local forensic practitioners to ask is, “What is our appropriate role in support of the terrorist incident?” The investigation of domestic terrorist acts is clearly a federal responsibility with the FBI designated as the lead agency. However, it is unrealistic to expect the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, Department of Defense, and others to immediately be at the scene, especially if there are multiple events occurring. More likely, first responders will be made up of local police, fire, rescue, crime scene technicians, medical examiner personnel and forensic scientists. If several incidents occur simultaneous around the country, local first responders would be expected to handle the scene and the aftermath until federal assistance becomes available.

Not all the activities surrounding a terrorist attack are the responsibility of federal agencies such as the FBI. Some functions are clearly in the hands of the local authorities, such as the identification of mass civilian casualties. In the World Trade Center attack, the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner had the job of identifying the victims. While other public and private resources will provide important assistance, the local medical examiner’s office or the coroner has the primary responsibly to identify the dead. The problem is that few — if any — plans to deal with terrorist events consider a role for local and state forensic science resources.

Terrorism is one of many issues that forensic science practitioners and administrators must consider in the years to come.

The federal government recently called for the creation of a National Forensic Science Commission to study rapidly evolving advances in all areas of the forensic sciences and to make recommendations to maximize the use of the forensic sciences in the criminal justice system.

Such a commission could study the following areas, among others:

What is the value of forensic science applied to the criminal justice system? There are currently no quantitative measures (other than anecdotal reports) to demonstrate the worth of investing in forensic science. If quantitative information can be developed to show that a small investment in forensic science results in significant value added to the overall effort of police and prosecutors, funding for forensic science should be easier to achieve. Similarly, no information is available to demonstrate the social value of forensic science to the crime victims and their families. It would not be surprising to find that victims and their families are strongly supportive of public forensic science. These advocates could be marshaled as a force to secure more needed resources for forensic sciences. One only needs to consider the popularity of TV shows like “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation” and a host of realitybased shows as an indicator of the public’s interest and potential support for forensic science.
How will future forensic science staffing needs be met? There will be the need to fill potentially thousands of forensic science positions due to retirements and a projected demand for more services. During the 1970s, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) funding resulted in the growth of forensic science labs and staffs around the United States. Those persons hired at that time are now at the end of their careers. In addition, the demand for DNA testing is likely to press the need for more forensic scientists in the future. Numbers a high as 10,000 new practitioners have been suggested in the next five to 10 years. How are we to educate, recruit and train this large number of new personnel? In addition, labs are looking for more forensic scientists at the master’s and doctorate level. For universities to run graduate-level programs in the sciences, research dollars must be made available. However, the amounts of such R&D funds available to support forensic science at the National Institute of Justice is small and is all but non-existence from the National Science Foundation, and other funding sources.
Science and law issues should be considered. Case law (Daubert, etc.) and the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 702) are being used by defense attorneys in criminal cases in an attempt to challenge the reliability of “pattern evidence” (i.e., fingerprints, handwriting, footwear evidence, bite marks, etc.). Courts are allowing these challenges because of thechange in their view of science. Prior to Daubert, for it to be admissable, scientific evidence had to meet the Frye general acceptance standard. With changes in case law and the Federal Rules of Evidence, some defense attorneys have seized on the reliability issue to try to exclude certain classes of evidence. Although generally these attacks have been unsuccessful, it is reasonable to expect the challenges to continue. The National Academies are considering a study of fingerprints, which if funded, may answer the reliability challenge much in the same way the DNA was deemed reliable after two National Research Council Reports.
What do public forensic science laboratories need? An assessment of the needs of public forensic science institutions is necessary to help provided adequate resources to assist crime labs and medical examiner offices to provide quality and timely forensic science services to the criminal justice system. For example, can standards for the number of forensic scientists per 100,000 police officers be developed? Can standards for evidence turn around times be established? What are reasonable amounts of continuing education training required of forensic scientists? What is the federal government’s role in developing solutions to these concerns?
What is the role of public forensic science labs at the state and federal level in the event of a terrorist attack? As stated earlier, there has yet to be a defined role for state and local forensic science laboratories in the event of terrorist act. Once a role is defined, will state and local forensic labs be ready to deliver the necessary services? The appropriate stakeholders must be brought together to consider this challenge.
Is there sufficient collaboration between state and local forensic science and federal forensic science laboratories? The federal forensic science labs play a vital role in the administration of justice and they provide important support to state and local forensic science laboratories. However, a greater degree of collaboration between federal and state/local forensic science labs is desirable. Interaction between local and federal practitioners and lab administrators is important to allow all points of view to be considered and to make the best use of public tax monies.
The establishment of a national forensic science commission would have the desired affect to consider these and other critical issues with the desired outcome to develop well-considered public policy along with adequate funding. The justice system and the public at large are the beneficiaries of such a program.

Barry A.J. Fisher is director of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department crime laboratory.