Majority Statement

• Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV

  Chairman

  U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
  Read statement

  Majority Statement

  Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV

  Prepared Opening Statement – Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Chairman

  “From the Lab Bench to the Courtroom: Advancing the Science and Standards of Forensics”

  Wednesday, June 26, 2013 2:30 p.m.

  Today’s hearing continues a discussion we started last Congress about improving the science used to catch criminals and solve crimes. But before we get to the ongoing challenges in forensic science, I’d like to start with an amazing success story. It’s called “DNA fingerprinting.” We’ve seen this incredible technology represented so many times on “CSI” and other crime shows that we take it for granted. But, we shouldn’t. It didn’t exist 30 years ago. Today, it is one of our judicial system’s most important tools for convicting the guilty and exonerating the innocent.   

  DNA fingerprinting has grown so effective, and so precise that even a few cells collected from sweat, blood, or saliva can be enough to link a suspect to a crime. This powerful forensic technology didn’t develop by chance. It was the result of careful, thoughtful collaboration between the law enforcement and scientific communities. It was the result of a process in which technical experts developed objective measurements for determining whether DNA recovered at a crime scene precisely “matched” a suspect’s DNA.   

  In a hearing held last year, this Committee heard testimony from a prominent molecular geneticist – Dr. Eric Lander – who, in 1989, served as an expert witness in one of the very first criminal trials to consider DNA evidence. Dr. Lander told us that during this trial, the scientific experts from the prosecution and the defense literally kicked the lawyers out of the room so they could discuss the quality and validity of the DNA evidence. It was discussions like these – led by independent experts – that eventually turned DNA matching into a scientific process rather than a matter of subjective professional opinion and made DNA fingerprinting the gold standard of forensic science it is today.  

  Unfortunately, the techniques used in some forensic disciplines – such as ballistics, bite mark, and fingerprint analyses – have not been subjected to the rigorous scientific scrutiny that Dr. Lander and his colleagues applied to DNA matching. We now know that some of the forensic evidence presented in courtrooms proved unreliable and contributed to the wrongful conviction of innocent people.  

  In 2005, Congress responded to this problem by asking the National Academy of Sciences to assemble a group of experts from the law enforcement and scientific communities to take a hard look at forensic science. Four years later, the Academy sent us a book-length report called “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward.” Most of the people in this room are familiar with the findings of this report. They demand action. The report concluded that a number of the forensic techniques used in our country today were developed and practiced “with little foundation in scientific theory or analysis.”  

  The report called on Congress and the federal government to start building this missing scientific foundation. While we haven’t reacted to this challenge as quickly as I would have hoped, we are beginning to make some progress. President Obama’s 2014 budget requests funding to establish a new Forensic Science Advisory Committee, increases funding for NIST’s work in forensic science, and proposes to transfer funds from the Department of Justice to NIST and the National Science Foundation to further address this problem.

  In the next few weeks, I will introduce an updated version of my bill submitted in the last Congress (S. 3378) directing our federal science agencies to increase forensic science research and standards development useful to the law enforcement community.  Promoting truth and justice in our judicial system is a bipartisan cause, and I invite all of my colleagues on this Committee to co-sponsor it.

  ###

Minority Statement

• Senator John R Thune

  Ranking Member

  U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
  Read statement

  Minority Statement

  Senator John R Thune

  Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller, for holding this hearing to examine the state of forensic science and related standards and the challenges facing the forensic science community.

  Popular television shows like CSI, NCIS, and Law and Order, to name a few, have showcased the role that forensic science can play in helping law enforcement carry out investigations and convict criminals.

  However, these shows can also create the misimpression that all courtroom evidence that is presented as scientific evidence has been subjected to high-tech, foolproof analysis, and that every state and local crime lab around the country has easy access to these sophisticated lab technologies. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. 

  A National Academies Report issued four years ago raised serious concerns about the state of forensic science and, among other things, called for structural reforms and new research. While the forensic science community did not embrace all of the Report’s reform recommendations, there seems to be general agreement that law enforcement, prosecutors, and crime labs would benefit from greater research and training efforts to increase crime lab capacity and accuracy, and to strengthen the scientific foundations of forensic science. For instance, advances in forensic DNA analysis have improved the strength of evidence that can put criminals behind bars and also clear the innocent. 

  However, as we explore ways to improve forensic science, we must be careful not to undermine or threaten the ability of local prosecutors and other law enforcement professionals to prosecute cases by fostering unrealistic expectations that every case can be solved through science. We must also avoid unintentionally and undeservedly casting doubt on the good work that the vast majority of practitioners perform. Federal efforts to improve forensic science should utilize input from, and be cognizant of the needs of, state and local practitioners in both the forensic and law enforcement fields.

  I would like to hear today about the extent of involvement of state and local practitioners in the National Commission on Forensic Science, recently established by the Administration. Along those same lines, I would like to hear the witnesses’ views about how to best leverage existing federal efforts and longstanding partnerships with state and local forensic scientists to improve forensic sciences.  I also look forward to hearing your thoughts about what the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under this Committee’s jurisdiction could do to advance forensic science standards, and how the Department of Justice and NIST could best work together to enhance both public safety and confidence in our system of justice. 

  I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses today. I would also like to thank all the witnesses for being here, some of whom have flown in from across the country and even from abroad. 

Testimony

• Dr. Tjark Tjin-A-Tsoi

  Chief Executive Officer

  Netherlands Forensic Institute
  Download Testimony (53.05 KB)

• Mr. Michael Bromwich

  Managing Principal, The Bromwich Group LLC; Partner, Goodwin Procter LLP

  Former Inspector General, Department of Justice
  Download Testimony (116.36 KB)

• Dr. Gregory Schmunk

  President, National Association of Medical Examiners

  Chief Medical Examiner, Polk County, IA
  Download Testimony (192.93 KB)

• Ms. Jill Spriggs

  Secretary, Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations

  Laboratory Director, Office of the District Attorney, Sacramento County, CA, Laboratory of Forensic Science
  Download Testimony (2.92 MB)