From: Marvin Schechter
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:42 PM
To: ‘NYSBA LISTSERV CJS (criminaljustice@lists.nysba.org)’
Subject: IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT – COMMISSISON ON FORENSIC SCIENCE
All:
As of Monday, March 26th the briefing materials which are given to members of the NYS Commission on Forensic Science (CFS) are now being posted on the website of the Division of Criminal JusticeServices in a non-searchable PDF format. These briefing materials include inter alia the accreditation assessments done by ASCLD/LAB (the entity which currently inspects laboratories and recommends their accreditation and whose reports the CFS is entirely dependent upon), the DCJS Annual Assessments of NY laboratories for the entire year, comments from various organizations regarding the Inspector General’s Report which among other things was highly critical of the CS’s role with respect to the failure (and eventual closing) of the Nassau County Police Laboratory. There are also documents which show the errors laboratories make, how these are discovered and how the errors are corrected.
In future briefing materials you can expect to see copies of “Self-Accreditation Reports” which are documents that contain checklists involving all aspects of what a laboratory does and which laboratory directors sign-off noting what is done and what is not followed by ASCLD/LAB criticisms which must then be corrected.
While the above references to materials may be unfamiliar to many here is what you can expect to find. First the plethora of reports are specifically keyed to a laboratory, e.g. The Westchester County Department of Laboratories and Research. The DCJS Annual Assessments of letters from the laboratories detailing specifically errors made in forensic analysis across the broad spectrum of the forensic disciplines, what the laboratory did to correct the error and who was notified, e.g., on April 18, 2011, the Forensic Laboratories of the Onondaga County Health Department, Center for Forensic Studies (Onondaga) reported a weight discrepancy to ASCLD/LAB which led to an exchange of letters between ASCLD/LAB and Onondaga as to the cause of the discrepancy, the institution of random testing of past work of the examiner involved and corrective actions which were done to the satisfaction of ASCLD/LAB. The correspondence reveals that the ADA was notified of the discrepancy. Such material provides practitioners with an inside look at how problems can arise in the laboratory setting and may provide insights into how practitioners will treat discovery requests and prepare for direct and cross examination. Also by reviewing such materials practitioners for the first time will have specific information to give judges about how a laboratory is working, any problems it may be having and thus provide jurists with a better understanding of how to handle oral arguments involving discovery and objections to the same.
Sometimes discrepancies cannot be explained as was the case in letter from the ASCLD/LAB Biology Proficiency Review Committee (PRC) on May 11, 2011, to the Westchester County Laboratory regarding DNA samples in a proficiency test. The proficiency test (including the samples)had been prepared by an outside agency. After investigation the laboratory speculated to the PRC what the root cause of the discrepancy might be (possible degradation of the 20 year old sample) but could not explain why there was no degradation in two other samples received in the proficiency test. Remarkably the laboratory told the PRC that “we have seen similar problems in CTS samples, which we can only postulate are attributable to variations in their sample preparation.”
These example noted herein are simply to illustrate the wealth of information and new avenues of inquiry which are now available to both prosecutors and defense attorneys who are engaged in pre-trial preparation of cases involving forensic issues. It is now axiomatic that counsel who have forensic issues in a NYS case must as a matter of course review the online materials of the CFS to discover whether the laboratory which is involved in the testing of materials that are germane to a particular case is having or has had problems either specifically related to the forensic discipline at issue or general operational problems that go the laboratory’s credibility.
In addition to written materials, you can also view on the DCJS website a complete videotape of the CFS meetings. I do not know if the video is downloadable but if not one can request a disc by callingthe CFS. To get to the written materials and/or view the video go to the DCJS website, look on the left side of webpage for the title “Open Meetings,” click on “Open Meetings,” go to “Date of CFS Meeting,” click on either the written materials or the video button.
As your Chair and also a member of the CFS, I am available to anyone who has questions about the import of the above. I look forward to hearing from you.
(Editor’s note: This material is very difficult to find. Here is a link to the page.
http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/pio/openmeetings.htm
Many direct links are reproduced here below)
MARVIN E. SCHECHTER, Esq.
1790 Broadway, Suite 710
New York, New York 10019
Tel.: (212) 307-1405
Fax.: (212) 307-1431
marvin@schelaw.com
03-27-2012 – DCJS Commission on Forensic Science Meeting
- New Business
- DCJS Annual Reporting – Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
- Old Business
- OIG Report- Nassau
lennyesq 