The Accreditation Process for Criminal Forensic Laboratories - Research Paper Example

PAGE Forensic scientists help identify criminals, as well as analyze and explain evidence, usually gathered by detectives, ina legal setting DNA evidence arguably has become the most well-known type of forensic evidence, because it can be uniquely identifying and because it is the genetic blueprint of the human body. Forensic science in general, and DNA evidence in particular, has become a highly influential piece of the crime puzzle (U.S. Department of Justice, 2008). However, in order to fully understand the significance of accreditation for criminal forensic laboratories, it is helpful to look at both the historical role as well as the authentication of the work done by today's forensic scientists. Probably one of the most significances advances in forensic technology evolved from one of the most significant tragedies of our history: the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City, 9/11. "After the terrorist strikes, 21,741 remains were recovered. So far, 11,989, or 55 percent, have been identified. More than 1,100 of New York's 2,750 victims have not been identified because many of the remains were too badly compromised by heat and time . . ." (Frasier). Today, years after the attack, identification of victims through DNA technology is still going on. Much of this work is being done at a private lab in Ann Arbor, Michigan called Gene Codes Corp. Gene Codes Corp's founder and CEO, Howard Cash calls his work, "the most important thing I'll ever do in my professional life" (Detroit Free Press). Cash's company has also worked to identify victims of the tsunami in Asia, and the London subway bombings. "Cash and his colleagues created software they called MFISys (pronounced EMPHASIS), for mass fatality identification, for the 9/11 project. It compared data from three types of DNA tests on 20,000 partial human remains to the DNA from more than 3,000 cheek swabs of victims' kin and 8,000 personal effects. They updated the software nearly 140 times . . ." (detroit free press). In June of 2008 another victim of the attack has been identified through remains recovered in the past two years in and around Ground Zero, according to the AP. "Examiners made the identification in the past two days after retesting remains from the original recovery effort following the attacks on the World Trade Center" (Frasier). The use of forensic DNA technology is considered critical to the execution of justice in today's world. Both the science of DNA and the lens through which forensic science has been scrutinized have evolved since it was first used to identify a suspect in the rape and murder of two young women in Leicester, England in the mid 1980's (Presley, 1999). Soon after its landmark use in Europe, DNA technologies have become more sophisticated and more widely used in forensic settings in the United States, yet it was decades after its first admission in court that the laboratories responsible for the analysis of the evidence were accredited by a professional organization. For these reasons, the use of DNA technology has been at the heart of the push for accreditation for all criminal forensic laboratories and while these practices became standard in the courtroom relatively early in their history, they were not without controversy. In fact, it was the controversy which initially led to the accreditation process. In an article in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Paul Giannelli wrote about the 1989 Supreme Court case "People V. Castro". This case was one of the first to criticize DNA evidence as it was presented in court. What was successfully argued in this particular case was the " . . . DNA evidence testing laboratory failed in its responsibility to perform the accepted scientific techniques . . ." (Giannelli, 2006). It is important to note that the science of DNA technology was not called into question; it was the methods used by the laboratory that resulted in the conviction being overturned. Over half a century before the Castro case, another legal decision, Frye v. United States looked at the then new technology of one of the first polygraph machines and resulted in what is commonly referred to as the "Frye" test or rule. The Frye rule determined that to have scientific evidence admitted into court the evidence must be generally accepted by the scientific community (U.S. Department of Justice, 2008). In 1993, the "Daubert Test" replaced the Frye rule. In the case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. it was ruled that " . . .scientific evidence must pass four tests before it can be admitted into evidence for a trail . . . whether the theory or technique has been tested, whether it has been peer reviewed, its known or potential error rate and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation, and whether it has been accepted within a relevant scientific community" (U.S. Department of Justice, 2008). Several years after the Castro case, the National Research Council and National Academy of Sciences released a report that contained recommendations for forensic laboratories to "establish formal quality assurance programs, use external mechanisms of review such as certification, accreditation or regulation and receive increased National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funding for education, training and research in forensic DNA testing" (Presley, 1999). The next year, a decade after DNA evidence was first used at a trail, the National Research Council issued another report advocating forensic DNA testing laboratories "adhere to high standards, make every effort to become accredited, regularly participate in proficiency testing, and where feasible, preserve remaining forensic samples or portions for additional independent testing (Presley 1999). The FBI was one of the next organizations to heed the call for accreditation with the formation of their Technical Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (TWGDAM) whose universal recommendations remain in effect to this date (Federal Bureau 1998). "The TWGDAM guidelines and subsequent DAB standards covered the following quality assurance program areas for forensic DNA testing laboratories: planning and organization, personnel qualifications and training, equipment, materials and facilities, evidence handling procedures, validation, analytical procedures, proficiency testing, case work documentation, interpretation, report writing and review, safety and audits" (Presley, 1999). TWIGDAM was later replaced by Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWIGDAM). The FBI's DNA Quality Assurance Board (DAB) also is responsible for the new Quality Assurance Guidelines that are scheduled to take effect next summer. In general, in order for labs to be accredited they must demonstrate that as ". . . laboratory procedure is robust, reliable, and reproducible in the hands of the personnel performing the test in that laboratory. . ." (Cormier 2005). Compliance with federal standards and the accreditation process are interrelated. In order to comply with the Quality Assurance Standards, a laboratory is expected to actively pursue accreditation; to become accredited, a laboratory must demonstrate compliance with the Quality Assurance Standards; and to become a participant in the National DNA Index System (NDIS), a laboratory must demonstrate compliance with both the Quality Assurance Standards and the NDIS Requirements. Karen Cormier writes, "Internal validation involves verifying that established procedures examined previously under the scrutiny of developmental validation (often by another laboratory) will work effectively in one's own laboratory. The method must be tested by the crime lab using known and nonprobative samples, reproducibility and precision studies need to be performed, as well as match criteria, sensitivity and stochastic studies, mixture studies, contamination and qualifying tests" (2005). From the beginning of the use of DNA evidence in criminal cases, close cooperation between both public and private members of the forensic community has resulted in the evolution of accepted standards for quality assurance in DNA laboratories, and as a result the establishment of forensic DNA technology as a solid investigative tool (Cormier, 2005). "The DAB standards and . . . TWGDAM guidelines have helped to ensure the reliable use of DNA technology in the scientific resolution of judicial matters, regardless of the adversarial legal system" (Presley 1999). Yet another accrediting body is the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB). The ASCLD/LAB are "voluntary programs in which any crime laboratory may participate to demonstrate that its management, personnel, operational and technical procedures, equipment and physical facilities meet established standards" ASCLD WEB PAGE. Today, the accreditation by ASCLD/LAB is considered by some to be the highest honor a forensic criminal laboratory can achieve. While it is a completely voluntary process, according to Tracy Gordman Fox "the successful completion of the accreditation process is a validation of the performance of a lab, ensuring that the results are not only forensically reliable and but can be used successfully in a court of law" (Fox, 2008). While accreditation by ASCLD/LAB is voluntary, it is required for labs to submit their DNA samples to certain national databases, like those of the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives. Although many public and private criminal forensic laboratories choose to seek accreditation, there are critics of both the process and the rate of errors like botched results or falsely interpreted results at the labs themselves. In an article titled, "Breaking up the Forensics Monopoly" Roger Kopple wrote that for many forensic disciplines the error rate exceeded 10% (2007). While Kopple is a fan of the accreditation process, he feels that the system of forensic justice is hampered by the "monopoly" labs have on their results (2007). Often samples are tested just one time and sent to a national database. Without "checks and balances" of a tests being run "blind" and at several labs, there is more potential for errors to go undetected and uncorrected. Kopple goes on to say that reforms which include federal oversight will make forensic science stronger in the end (2007). Illinois state representative Jim Durkin also believes that forensic labs need more oversight. According to the article in the Chicago Tribune, the use of an accredited forensics laboratory in New Jersey had deadly consequences. Orchid Cellmark of New Jersey is an accredited forensic lab which made a deadly clerical mistake. "Last year the lab made a major clerical error on DNA testing and an ex-convict remained free and allegedly killed a 14-year-old boy in Lincoln Park" (Watching over the crime labs, 2006). Durkin argues, "Plenty of reputable crime labs refuse to seek accreditation because they believe the process to be costly and meaningless. The process, they argue, pays too much attention to equipment and procedures and not enough to individual qualifications and technicians' track records. It is hardly better than nothing" (Watching over the crime labs, 2006). Durkin also argues for more independent, ongoing monitoring of the labs that are used. In spite of the tragic errors that have been made in the analysis of evidence, the use of the new forensic technology has undoubtedly changed the legal system. In fact the demand for criminal forensic laboratories has far outpaced the rate at which state and federal labs can complete the testing. According to Ralph Keaton, the executive director of American Society of Crime Lab Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB), "The work demands in the government labs is exceeding their ability to do it," (Kawar, 2005). Nationwide, only 12 of the almost 300 labs accredited by ASCLD/LAB are private, though experts said many other unaccredited private labs also exist. However, the need for services that are performed by the lab far outpaced the workload that these labs could accommodate, thus, state and private labs continue to grow and seek accreditation (Kawar, 2005). Keaton goes on to say, "You may have the perpetrator of a rape or a murder running loose because you can't do the DNA work" (Kawar, 2005). In response to this situation, President Bush proposed more must be done to help victims with DNA and created the President's DNA initiative: Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology. The goals of this program are to: "Eliminate the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples and biological evidence for the most serious violent offenses; improve crime laboratories' capacities to analyze DNA samples in a timely fashion; stimulate research; Provide access to appropriate postconviction DNA testing of crime scene evidence not tested at the time of trial; ensure that DNA forensic technology is used to its full potential to solve missing persons cases and identify human remains; protect the innocent" http://www.dna.gov/info/#sheet. In the past two decades that DNA evidence has been used to clear those falsely accused of crimes, 328 defendants have been exonerated: over half of these cases were cleared by DNA evidence (2005). Conversely, as a result of the President's DNA Initiative, there has been a reduction of the backlog of untested DNA evidence with the ultimate goal being preventing crimes by using DNA samples from convicted criminals to compare to the DNA that was previously untested. Additionally, the creation of national DNA databases by the FBI has helped solve crimes that occur in several different states or even countries (U.S. Government, 2008). Works Cited Cormier, K. (February/March 2005). Evolution of quality assurance documents for DNA laboratories. Forensic Magazine, Retrieved October 21, 2008, from http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asppid=30 EDITORIAL: Watching over the crime labs. (2006, March 16). Chicago Tribune (IL), Retrieved October 23, 2008, from Newspaper Source database. Gordon Fox, T. (2008, January 9). Lab's Accreditation Celebrated: State-Of-The-Art Testing Cited; Work Plays Role In Criminal Cases. Hartford Courant, The (CT), Retrieved October 21, 2008, from Newspaper Source database. Frazier, M. (2008, June 19). BRIEF: City identifies remains of another 9/11 victim. Newsday, (Melville, NY), Retrieved October 25, 2008, from Newspaper Source database. Giannelli, P. (2006, Summer2006). Forensic science. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 34(2), 310-319. Retrieved October 21, 2008, doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00036.x Kawar, M. (2005, August 18). Inland lab to join others analyzing DNA evidence. Press-Enterprise, The (Riverside, CA), Retrieved October 21, 2008, from Newspaper Source database. Koppl, R. (2007). Breaking up the forensics monopoly. Reason. 39, 44-45. (2005). DNA evidence frees falsely accused. USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education, Retrieved October 22, 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2718_133/ai_n13246718 Presley, L (1999). The Evolution of quality standards for forensic DNA analysis in the United States. Profiles in DNA, Retrieved October 21, 2008, from http://www.promega.com U.S. Department of Justice, (2008). Retrieved October 24, 2008, from NCJRS - National Criminal Justice Reference Service Web site: http://www.ncjrs.org/spotlight/forensic/legislation.html U.S. Government, (2008). Fact sheet: The President's initiative to advance justice through DNA technology. Retrieved October 25, 2008, from Presdent's DNA initiative Web site: http://www.dna.gov/info/ Walsh, T. (2007, February 13). Detroit Free Press Tom Walsh column: Firm vital to ongoing 9/11 project. Detroit Free Press (MI), Retrieved October 25, 2008, from Newspaper Source database. Read More