Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:24 am
Time: 12:24 am
Results for crime laboratories
7 results foundAuthor: California Crime Laboratory Review Task Force Title: An Examination of Forensic Science in California Summary: Over the years, a network of forensic laboratories was created throughout California to serve the state’s criminal justice system. The California Department of Justice established several state-level labs while counties or cities developed their own entities. Since the criminal justice system depends on high-quality forensic science services, California enacted legislation in October 2007 to review the state’s crime laboratory system (Assembly Bill 1079, Richardson) with a mandate to the Department of Justice to create and chair the California Crime Laboratory Review Task Force. The legislation added section 11062 to the California Penal Code, which directed the Task Force to “make recommendations as to how best to configure, fund, and improve the delivery of state and local crime laboratory services in the future.” The mandate considered a variety of issues for the Task Force to review, including the following: Organization and management of crime laboratory services; Staff and training; Funding; Performance standards and equipment; and Statewide forensic science oversight. This report has two goals: first, to provide an accurate snapshot of the current condition of government-funded forensic science in California, including descriptions and explanations of both successful and failed delivery of timely, reliable, scientific testing; and second, to recommend steps that state and local policymakers can take to identify and address deficiencies in the field while continuing to support its achievements. A complete listing of the Task Force’s recommendations follows. The full report includes background information and discussions of the recommendations; each of these recommendations reflects the consensus of the Task Force. Details: Sacramento: The Task Force, 2009. 181p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 29, 2010 at: http://ag.ca.gov/publications/crime_labs_report.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://ag.ca.gov/publications/crime_labs_report.pdf Shelf Number: 120308 Keywords: Crime LaboratoriesForensic Sciences (California) |
Author: Strom, Kevin J. Title: NIJ Controlled Substances Case Processing Study Summary: The processing and analysis of controlled substance evidence accounts for a significant proportion of the work performed by forensic crime laboratories. Crime laboratories are faced with ever-increasing caseloads and demands for prompt analytical information, and the impact of drug chemistry analysis on laboratory backlogs has been largely overlooked. RTI International was funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to conduct the Controlled Substances Case Processing Study. The primary objectives of the study were to (1) gain an improved understanding of how controlled substances cases are processed, from the point of collection (law enforcement) through analysis (forensic laboratories) to subsequent criminal justice processes (prosecution), including factors that influence decision making at different stages in the process; (2) describe the role that controlled substances evidence plays in charging decisions by prosecutors, pretrial plea negotiations, and posttrial convictions; and (3) gather descriptive information from a range of U.S. jurisdictions that could be used to identify problems and develop systemic solutions to case backlogs and other inefficiencies in these forensic systems. Data were collected from a purposive sample of 10 jurisdictions, which represented a wide variation of different law enforcement and laboratory arrangements within state and local systems. Other selection criteria included jurisdiction size, rural or urban location, and differences in legal processes. Site visits to each of the selected jurisdictions were typically conducted over a 2-day period using semistructured interviews. Basic metrics associated with case processing statistics were also collected. Overall, a total of 38 agencies and 60 respondents were interviewed. The findings from this study demonstrate that jurisdictions vary considerably in terms of how they process and analyze controlled substance evidence. Laboratory drug analysis results were not often used (or required) as part of the charging process; in many jurisdictions the charging decisions were tied to the field test result and not to the presence of a confirmatory analysis result. In only one jurisdiction did the prosecutor require that the confirmatory analysis be conducted before the grand jury process (and before any plea negotiation discussions). However, although laboratory analysis was not required for plea negotiations in most sites, some still submitted all drug evidence directly to the laboratory regardless of whether it would ultimately be needed. In terms of barriers and challenges identified, from a laboratory perspective, there is an acute need for more uniform procedures and processes for submitting and analyzing drug evidence, including prioritization based on factors such as case seriousness. From a law enforcement perspective, the findings suggest that more systematic policies and resources need to be in place for evidence retention and storage. Improved communication was identified as an area of need by all the sites; however, some sites had more effective crossagency communication than others. A key for improving coordination was the presence of effective laboratory submission guidelines. In three jurisdictions, the implementation of a case submission policy was attributed to significant reductions in both the number of controlled substance cases pending analysis and the time to turn around cases. Case tracking systems that promote information sharing and monitoring across the different stages of the process were also highly effective. For example, a limited number of sites reported that prosecutors proactively provided information on cases resolved either by plea bargaining or dismissal — cases that, study participants estimated, represented 50–75% of the drug case “backlog.” Details: Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2010. 103p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2011 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/233830.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/233830.pdf Shelf Number: 121187 Keywords: Crime LaboratoriesDrug OffensesEvidenceForensicsPlea BargainingProsecutionProsecutorial Discretion |
Author: Samuels, Julie E. Title: Collecting DNA from Juveniles Summary: Collecting DNA from Juveniles examines the laws, policies, and practices related to juvenile DNA collection in the United States. States have increasingly required juveniles - mostly those adjudicated delinquent but also some arrestees - to submit DNA samples for analysis and inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), the FBI-operated national database. The report describes the issues encountered during the implementation of these laws, including the coordination challenges between the state crime labs and juvenile justice agencies, and discusses the challenges that researchers and practitioners face in assessing the effects of juvenile DNA collection on public safety outcomes. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2011. 67p. Source: Final Report: Internet Resource: Accessed February 10, 2012 at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/417487-Collecting-DNA-from-Juveniles.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/417487-Collecting-DNA-from-Juveniles.pdf Shelf Number: 124073 Keywords: Crime LaboratoriesDNA TypingForensic ScienceJuveniles |
Author: James, Nathan Title: DNA Testing in Criminal Justice: Background, Current Law, Grants and Issues Summary: Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, is the fundamental building block for an individual’s entire genetic makeup. DNA is a powerful tool for law enforcement investigations because each person’s DNA is different from that of every other individual (except for identical twins). DNA can be extracted from a number of sources, such as hair, bone, teeth, saliva, and blood. As early as the 1980s, states began enacting laws that required collecting DNA samples from offenders convicted of certain sexual and other violent crimes. The samples were then analyzed and their profiles entered into state databases. Meanwhile, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Laboratory convened a working group of federal, state, and local forensic scientists to establish guidelines for the use of forensic DNA analysis in laboratories. The group proposed guidelines that are the basis of current national quality assurance standards, and it urged the creation of a national DNA database. The criminal justice community began to utilize DNA analyses more often in criminal investigations and trials, and in 1994 Congress enacted legislation to authorize the creation of a national DNA database. Federal law (42 U.S.C §14132(a)) authorizes the FBI to operate and maintain a national DNA database where DNA profiles generated from samples collected from people under applicable legal authority and samples collected at crime scenes can be compared to generate leads in criminal investigations. Statutory provisions also authorize the collection of DNA samples from federal offenders and arrestees, District of Columbia offenders, and military offenders. State laws dictate which convicted offenders, and sometimes people arrested for crimes, will have profiles entered into state DNA databases, while federal law dictates the scope of the national database. Increasing awareness of the power of DNA to solve crimes has resulted in increased demand for DNA analysis, which has resulted in a backlog of casework. Some jurisdictions have started to use their DNA databases for familial searching, which involves using offender profiles to identify relatives who might be perpetrators of crimes. In addition to solving crimes, DNA analysis can help exonerate people incarcerated for crimes they did not commit. Congress has authorized several grant programs to provide assistance to state and local governments for forensic sciences. Many of the programs focus on providing state and local governments with funding to reduce the backlog of forensic and convicted offender DNA samples waiting to be processed and entered into the national database. Since FY2006, Congress has appropriated approximately $785 million for backlog reduction and laboratory capacity enhancement programs. However, other grant programs provide funding for related purposes, such as offsetting the cost of providing post-conviction DNA testing. In the 1990s and the early part of the last decade, most of the debate in Congress focused on the scope of DNA databases, reducing the backlog of DNA casework, and providing access to postconviction DNA testing. Most of the debate about the scope of DNA databases faded away with the enactment of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-162), which expanded federal collection statutes to include anyone arrested or detained under the authority of the United States. The act also expanded the scope of the national database to include DNA profiles of individuals arrested for state crimes. However, concerns about the backlog of DNA casework and access to post-conviction testing have persisted. In addition, new issues related to the use of DNA in criminal justice have emerged, including whether (1) DNA databases should be used to conduct familial searches, (2) sexual assault evidence collection kits (i.e., “rape kits”) should be standardized, and (3) there should be national accreditation standards for forensic laboratories. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2011. 49p. Source: CRS R41800: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2012 at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41800.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41800.pdf Shelf Number: 124305 Keywords: Crime LaboratoriesDNA FingerprintingDNA Typing (U.S.)Forensic ScienceForensics |
Author: Anderson, Vincent J. Title: Decrease the Number of Contract Laboratory Cases Awaiting Data Review While Improving DNA Analysis Efficiency Summary: As of September 30, 2011, case turn-around time increased from 71 days to 108 days for delivery of the final report, due to the assigning of older cases in the backlog and a change in reporting dates. The samples per analyst per month increased 82 percent from a baseline of 15.9 to 29.0. Also, the backlog of requests for DNA analysis decreased approximately 52 percent from a baseline of 3,107 to 1,491. Although no funds from this grant were directly used to fund the validation of new analytical platforms, because of funds used from this grant for overtime to perform subcontractor reviews, LAPD personnel were able to conduct research into developing a method for spermatozoa identification and extraction using Laser Micro dissection. As of September 30, 2011, LAPD has reviewed 2,865 reports from outside vendors under the Efficiency Grant. Those reviews have led to 1,705 cases with at least one CODIS upload and 895 cases with at least one CODIS Hit Notification. Those cases were reviewed on grant-funded overtime in the amount of $238,061.64. This grant stemmed from the LAPD’s need to upload subcontractor DNA profiles into the CODIS database in a timely and efficient manner while still allowing time to develop and implement DNA analysis efficiency measures. This circumstance encouraged the LAPD to apply for the 2009 Forensic DNA Unit Efficiency Improvement grant (Efficiency Grant). Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2011. 66p. Source: NCJ 236693: Internet Resource: Accessed March 10, 2012 at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236693.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236693.pdf Shelf Number: 124427 Keywords: Crime LaboratoriesDNA FingerprintingDNA Typing (U.S.)Forensic ScienceForensicsSexual Assault |
Author: Kerrigan, Sarah Title: Drug Toxicology for Prosecutors: Targeting Hardcore Impaired Drivers Summary: Drug impaired drivers kill and maim thousands of people each and every year in the United States. Unfortunately, prosecuting drug-impaired drivers is a daunting task. Jurors, who are very familiar with alcohol’s effects, signs and symptoms, often know little or nothing about other drugs. Tainted by crime shows like CSI: Miami, they may have unrealistic expectations about the nature and quantum of available proof. Unlike alcohol, most states do not have “per se” limits for drugged driving. To successfully explain the evidence and issues to jurors in Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID) cases, prosecutors must understand the basics of drug toxicology. This publication is designed to provide prosecutors with a basic understanding of drug pharmacology and testing. The prosecution of drug impaired driving cases is more complex than alcohol-related DWI (driving while impaired) cases—both scientifically and legally. Impairment can be more difficult to discern and prove, thus making these cases more difficult to prosecute. Although alcohol is a drug, not all drugs can be considered in the same way. This means that a case involving a driver suspected of driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) may require special handling and evaluation. Good communication and effective integration of law enforcement and legal and scientific personnel are essential in these cases. Details: Alexandria, VA; American Prosecutors Research Institute, 2004. 59p. Source: Special Topics Series: Internet Resource: Accessed August 30, 2012 at http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/drug_toxicology_for_prosecutors_04.pdf Year: 2004 Country: United States URL: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/drug_toxicology_for_prosecutors_04.pdf Shelf Number: 126173 Keywords: Crime LaboratoriesDriving Under the Influence of DrugsDrug AbuseDrug-Impaired DrivingDrugs and DrivingForensic ScienceForensics |
Author: Strom, Kevin J. Title: Efficiency in Processing Sexual Assault Kits in Crime Laboratories and Law Enforcement Agencies Summary: Unsubmitted sexual assault kits (SAKs) that accrue in U.S. law enforcement agencies (LEAs) have been the subject of increasing attention for the past decade, as have untested SAKs pending analysis in crime laboratories. The field needs a research-informed approach to identify the most efficient practices for addressing the submission of SAKs in LEAs and the testing of SAKs in laboratories. This approach would also determine whether specific policies or characteristics of a jurisdiction result in more efficient processing outcomes. This mixedmethods study examines intra- and interagency dynamics associated with SAK processing efficiency in a linked sample of crime laboratories (N = 145) and LEAs (N = 321). Relying on responses to a national survey of laboratories and a matched sample of LEAs, researchers at RTI International used regression analysis and stochastic frontier modeling to assess how labor and capital inputs, evidence policies, evidence management systems, and models of cross-agency coordination affect SAK processing efficiency. Semistructured interviews with personnel from forensic laboratories, LEAs, and prosecutor's offices in six jurisdictions were used to elaborate on critical themes relating to SAK processing efficiency. Research Questions Research questions are organized into four sections: Submission and Testing Rates addresses whether laboratory or LEA characteristics are associated with efficiency at laboratory, LEA, and jurisdiction levels and includes one research question: - What laboratory or LEA characteristics (e.g., size of agency, use of technology) are associated with SAK testing or submission rates? Production Functions estimates the productivity of laboratory and LEA processing inputs and provides each unit with a technical efficiency score. Research questions include these: - How productive are laboratory DNA processing inputs and LEA labor inputs? - Do resource utilization inefficiencies contribute to the accumulation of SAKs in LEAs or laboratories? If so, what would be the impact if all inefficiencies were eliminated? Case Closure Rates investigates relationships between LEA submission rates and case closures and between laboratory testing rates and case closures. This section has the following research question: - Do testing or submission rates affect the number of cases that can be closed? Perceptions of Efficient Practices examines qualities or practices of agencies that are perceived to enhance efficiency. This section includes the following research question: - From the perspective of LEAs, laboratories, and prosecuting attorneys, what qualities or practices are most important for efficiency in SAK processing? Study Design and Methods To address the aforementioned research questions, RTI project staff conducted a 2-year mixed-methods study in three phases: - In Phase I, a national survey was administered to state, county, and municipal laboratories that conduct biological forensic analysis, and an additional survey was given to a sample of LEAs that submit SAK evidence to these laboratories. Questions were designed to assess SAK outputs (e.g., submission/testing rates) and inputs (e.g., labor, capital, policies, interagency communication). - In Phase II, production functions were estimated to examine effects of labor and capital inputs, in addition to policies, management systems, and cross-agency coordination on efficiency. - In Phase III, six jurisdictions were recruited for site visits, and qualitative methods were used to understand how LEAs, laboratories, and prosecutors implement practices that affect efficiency. Details: Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2017. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 18, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250682.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250682.pdf Shelf Number: 147387 Keywords: Crime LaboratoriesCriminal InvestigationEvidenceRapeSexual Assault |