MINOR AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS
'l 4. J 89/1: 104/40
ninor and (liscellaneous [Ulls; Seri...
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIAEY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 1241, H.R. 1533, H.R 1552, H.R. 2359, and
H.R 2360
SEPTEMBER 2i,^|9flgrK|fiT'9.^«
Serial No. 40 OmSffff^f^^^B
May OS
tS96
F*rinted for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
23-253 CC WASHINGTON : 1996
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-052452-0
MINOR AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS
Y 4. J 89/1:104/40
ninor and lliscellaneous Bills* Seri...
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIAEY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 1241, H.R. 1533, H.R 1552, H.R. 2359, and
H.R 2360
SEPTEMBER 2|,g^|J5
Serial No. 40 ^ <llS.
MAY 06 J33S
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
I
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
23-253 CC WASHINGTON : 1996
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-052452-0
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
Wisconsin
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana
MARTIN R. HOKE, Ohio
SONNY BONO, California
FRED HEINEMAN, North Carolina
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois
BOB BARR, Geoi^a
JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan
PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JOHN BRYANT, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
XAVIER BECERRA, California
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
Alan F. Coffey, Jr., General Counsel /Staff Director
JUUAN Epstein, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Crime
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida, Chairman
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ZOE LOFGREN, California
FRED HEINEMAN, North Carolina SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ED BRYANT, Tennessee MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia
Paul J. McNulty, Chief Counsel
Glenn R. Schmitt, Counsel
Daniel J. Bryant, Assistant Counsel
Tom Diaz, Minority Counsel
(II)
CONTENTS
HEARING DATE
Page
September 28, 1995 1
TEXTS OF BILLS
H.R. 1241 4
H.R. 1533 6
H.R. 1552 7
H.R. 2359 10
H.R. 2360 12
OPENING STATEMENT
McCollum, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida,
and chairman. Subcommittee on Crime 1
WITNESSES
Bryant, Hon. Ed, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee ... 25
Chabot, Hon. Steve J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio ... 16
Di Gregory, Kevin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Justice, accompanied by Thomas R. Kane, Assistant Director
for Information, Policy and Public Affairs, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and
Milton Ahlerich, Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation 29
Miller, Marvin D., director, National Association of Criminal Defense Law-
yers 136
Tanton, Richard L., director. Palm Beach SherifPs Department Crime Lab,
and past president of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors .. 135
Wynn, Hon. Albert Russell, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Maryland 18
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Ahlerich, Milton, Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation: Interim
standards material 48
Bryant, Hon. Ed, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee:
Prepared statement 27
Chabot, Hon. Steve J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio:
Prepared statement 17
Di Gregory, Kevin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Jus-
tice: Letter dated September 27, 1995, to Chairman McCollum, from An-
drew Fois, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Depart-
ment of Justice 30
Kane, Thomas R., Assistant Director for Information, Policy and Public Af-
fairs, Federal Bureau of Prisons:
Information concerning donated goods 39
Number of walkways (escapes) from BOP nonsecure facilities 44
Lawn, John C, CEO, the Century Council 132
Miller, Marvin D., director. National Association of Criminal Defense Law-
yers: Prepared statement 140
Wynn, Hon. Albert Russell, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Maryland: Prepared statement 19
(HI)
IV
Page
APPENDIX
Material submitted for the hearing 149
MmOR AND MISCELLANEOUS BILLS
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1995
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in room
2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill McCollum (chair-
man of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Bill McCollum, Fred Heineman, Ed
Bryant of Tennessee, Steve Chabot, Bob. Barr, John Conyers, Jr.,
Charles E. Schumer, Robert C. Scott, and Melvin L. Watt.
Also present: Paul J. McNulty, chief counsel; Glenn R. Schmitt,
counsel; Daniel J. Bryant, assistant counsel, Aerin D. Dunkle, re-
search assistant; Audray Clement, secretary; and Tom Diaz; minor-
ity counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN McCOLLUM
Mr. McCollum. The Subcommittee on Crime will come to order.
I really appreciate people coming out this morning. I think perhaps
both parties may have conferences going on, but I want to begin
this hearing.
We've got several bills to consider today, and I think this is im-
portant because it is a new precedent in some ways for this sub-
committee and for this Congress. We are going to be hearing about
some bills that are not massive in nature, and throughout the past
decade it's been my experience that, for better or for worse, the
Crime Subcommittee and the Justice Department's issues have
been addressed through big omnibus crime bills. However, these
big bills that contain hundreds of laws, and so forth, are not nec-
essarily the best way to legislate. They have been necessitated in
large measure because of the fact that we have a rules situation
over in the Senate with the filibuster opportunities, and so on, that
make it very difficult to produce individual bills in a deliberative
fashion. And I realize that there is little that we can do to avoid
these bills and I have strongly supported some of them even
though I opposed one last year.
It's my intention to provide members of this subcommittee and
Members of the House as a whole the opportunity for proposals to
be considered individually where possible. And today we're going to
start taking up, as I say, several of these. This is going to be the
first of a series of hearings, so some who may have other bills that
are not on the agenda today need not fear. We are going to delib-
erately go through these and see how many of the proposals that
(1)
we can get to have hearings on them and will mark up a sizable
number of these as well.
Let me begin by describing today three of the bills that we have
before us. H.R. 1241 is a bill that I introduced. It's called the DNA
Identification Grants Improvement Act of 1995. I was introduced at
the request of the FBI and the American Society of Crime Labora-
tory Directors. As originally drafted, it would reorder the funding
levels authorized in subtitle C of title 21 of last year's crime bill.
These grants, the DNA identification grants, provide funding to the
FBI to operate its combined DNA index system, known as CODAS,
and to the States to develop an improved DNA testing.
We are all well aware of how important DNA identification is be-
coming as an investigative tool to the criminal justice system. It's
a positive development for both the Government and the accused
since in some cases it's made the difference between guilt or inno-
cence for those accused of committing serious crimes and it's cer-
tainly ruled out prosecutions in any number of cases.
H.R. 1241 would merely reorder the grant amounts authorized
over the next several fiscal years so that more of the funds are
available sooner but that the total amounts spent over the next 5
years is unchanged. The FBI's requested that these funds be front-
loaded because of the significant startup costs in operating and cre-
ating DNA testing progprams and databases.
After I introduced the bill, the FBI requested that only that por-
tion of last year's crime bill making grants to the States be modi-
fied. Accordingly, H.R. 1241 will be modified at markup to reflect
this change or a clean bill will be introduced so that the new fund-
ing levels are reflected.
H.R. 2359 is another bill that I introduced at the request of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons in this case. This bill clarifies the meth-
od of executing Federal prisoners under a sentence of death. The
bill does not expand the death penalty or affect the judicial review
in any way. Under last year's crime bill a new provision was unin-
tentionally added to title 18 that specified the method of execution
for several Federal offenders sentenced to death. The method of
execution specified was to be that method used in the State where
the conviction occurred. If the State has no death penalty, the
judge is required to select another State for purposes of determin-
ing the manner of execution.
Under this procedure, some persons convicted of the same capital
crime but tried, convicted, and sentenced to death in different Fed-
eral judicial districts would be executed in different ways — some by
electrocution, some in the gas chamber, and, in at least one State,
by the firing squad. H.R. 2359 would amend last year's provisions
to state that the Attorney General will prescribe by regulation a
uniform method of execution for any person sentenced to death in
Federal court. This was the law prior to the passage of last year's
crime bill and the Bureau of Prisons has constructed a facility in
Indiana for the specific purpose of housing death row inmates and
administering capital punishment by lethal injection. I am con-
fident that the regulation promulgated by the Attorney General
pursuant to this bill will restore the previous policy.
Last of the three is H.R. 2360, I introduced also at the request
of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. For some time. Federal prison of-
ficials have been telling us that it is increasingly difficult to avoid
idleness and keep inmates busy. Prison industry progprams have
limited availability and there is only so much additional work to
be done in an institution. We've also learned that Federal prisoners
derive tremendous satisfaction from making products, especiallv
toys, that can be donated to underprivileged persons. This bill
would help these realities by authorizing Federal prisons to use in-
mate labor to provide goods or services to State and local govern-
ments and nonprofit agencies. The goods and services would be
provided free of charge or at minimal cost.
These services provided by the inmate labor could onlv be used
for the benefit of the recipient agency. Any goods made by the in-
mates could only be made from scrap or waste materials, and the
recipient organizations would be prohibited from selling these
goods. The inmate labor would be used to provide these goods or
services and they would be provided by those Federal inmates who
are not employed in the Federal prison industry program. There-
fore, the bill will have no detrimental impact on Federal prison in-
dustry programs. The bill will also safeguard the jobs of employees
in the organizations who receive inmate services by stipulating
that the services cannot be provided if they will result in the dis-
placement of an employee of the recipient or reduce the number of
hours, amount of wages, or level of benefits received by any em-
ployee of the recipient.
Well, those are the brief summaries of the three bills that I have
introduced today.
[The bills, H.R. 1241, H.R. 1533, H.R. 1552, H.R. 2359, and H.R.
2360, follow:]
104TI1 CONGRESS
IST Session
H.R.1241
To improve the capability to analyze deoxjTibonucIeic acid.
IX TILE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 15, 1995
Mr. McCOLLUM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciar\-
A BILL
To improve the capability to analyze deoxjTibonucIeic acid.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 fives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the "DNA Identification
5 Grants Improvement Act of 1995".
6 SEC. 2. DNA IDENTIFICATION GRANTS.
7 Section 1001(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and
8 Safe SiPeets Act is amended by striking paragraph (22)
9 and inserting the following:
10 "(22) There are authorized to be appropriated
1 1 to carr\' out part X —
12 "(A) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
2
1 "(B) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
2 "(C) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
3 "(D) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
4 "(E) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.".
5 SEC, 3. ADVISORY BOARD AND DNA EVDEX,
6 Section 210306 of the Violent Crime Control and
7 Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is amended by striking
8 paragraphs (1) through (5) and inserting the foUowing:
9 "(1) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
10 "(2) $4,500,000 for fiscal year 1997;
1 1 "(3) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
12 "(4) $5,500,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
13 "(5) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.".
104th congress
1st Session
H.R. 1533
To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase the penalty for escaping
from a Federal prison.
IN TIIE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATR^S
May 2, 1995
Mr. Bryant of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. McCOLLUM, Mr. SMITH of Texas,
Mr. ScHiFF, Mr. Hei.veman, Mr. Emerson, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Ingus
of South Carolina, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Largent, Mr. Barr,
and Mrs. Chenoweth) introduced the foUowing bill; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciarj-
A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase the
penaltj' for escaping from a Federal prison.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 fives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That section 751(a) of title 18, United States Code, is
4 amended by striking "five" and inserting "10".
104th congress
1st Session
H.R.1552
To amend title 18, United States Code, regarding false identification
documents.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATRTS
May 3, 1995
Mr. Chabot (for himself and Mr. W'V'NN) introduced the following bill; which
was referred to the Committee on the Judician-
A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, regarding false
identification documents.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represent a-
2 titles of the United States of America in Congress assembled.
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TFTLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the "False Identification
5 Act of 1995".
6 SEC. 2. MINIMUM NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS FOR CERTAIN
7 OFFENSE.
8 Section 1028 of title 18, United States Code, is
9 amended —
8
2
1 (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking "five" and
2 inserting "3"; and
3 (2) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by striking "five"
4 and inserting "3".
5 SEC. 3. REQUIRED VERIFICATION OF MAILED IDENTmCA-
6 TION DOCUMENTS.
7 (a) L\ Gexeral. — Chapter 83 of title 18. United
8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow-
9 ing:
10 **§ 1739. Verification of identification documents
11 "(a) \Mioevcr knowingly sends through the mails, or,
12 intending or knowing that it will be deposited for mailing.
13 produces any unverified identification document that bears
1 4 a birth date —
15 "(1) purporting to be that of the indi\idual
16 named in the document; and
17 "(2) showing that indi\idual to be 21 years of
1 8 ape or older;
19 when in fact tliat indnidual has not attained the age of
20 21 years, shall l>e fined under this title or imprisoned not
21 more than 3 years, or both.
22 "(b) As used in this section —
23 "(1) the term 'unverified', with respect to an
24 identification document, means that the sender has
25 not personally \iewed a certification or other written
3
1 communication confirming the age of the individual
2 to be identified in the document fi-om —
3 "(A) a governmental entit}- within the
4 United States or any of its territories or posses-
5 sions; or
6 "(B) a duly licensed ph\'sician, hospital,
7 medical chnic within the United States; and
8 "(2) the term 'identification document' means a
9 card, certificate, or paper intended to be used pri-
10 marily to identify an indi\'idual.".
11 (b) Clerical A.mexdmext. — The table of sections
12 at the beginning of chapter 83 of title 18, United States
13 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
14 item:
"1739. Verification of identification documents".
15 (c) Conforming Amendment. — Section 3001(a) of
16 title 39. United States Code, is amended by striking ""or
17 1738'"and insertmg "1738, or 1739".
10
l()4Tn COXCiRESS
1st Skssiox
H. R. 2359
To clarify the method of execution of Federal prisoners.
IX THE HOUSE OF REPRESEXTATRT]S
Septembku 19. 199.")
.Mr. .McCoLLl.'.M introclueed the follownntr hill; wliieli was referred to the
Committee on the Judieiaiv
A BILL
To clarih' the method of exoeution of P^edoral prisoners.
1 Be if enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 fives of flif United States of America in Congress assend)led,
3 SECTION 1. IMPLEMENTATION OF SENTENCE OF DEATH.
4 Subsection (a) of section 'My9i) of title 18, United
5 States Code, is amended to read as follows:
6 "(a) I\ GK.\P:ii.\L. — A person who is sentenced to
7 death shall he committed to tiie custody of the Attorney
8 (Jeneral. At the time the . entence is to be carried out,
9 it shall l)e implemented pursuant to reo:\dati()ns prescribed
10 l)v the Attorney General.".
11
2
1 SEC. 2. USE OF FEDERAL FACILJTIES.
2 Subsection (a) of section 3597 of title 18, United
3 States Code, is amended to read as follows:
4 "(a) Ix GEXER.VL. — ^A United States marshal
5 charged with supervising the implementation of a sentence
6 of death shall use the appropriate Federal facilities for
7 this purpose.".
12
104th congress
1st Session
H. R. 2360
To amend title 18, United States Code, to permit Federal prisoners to
enpage in community service projects.
IN TILE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 19, 1995
Mr. McCoLLUM introduced the followinp; bill; which wa.s referred to the
Committee on the Judiciar\'
A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to permit Federal
prisoners to engag^e in communit}'^ senice projects.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 lives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. PRISONER COMMUNITY SERVICE PROJECTS.
4 (a) Ix General. — Chapter 303 of title 18, United
5 States C^ode, is amended by adding at the end the follow-
6 ing:
7 "§ 4048. Conutniinity service projects
8 "(a) Subject to the hmitations of this section, and
9 pursuant to rules prescribed by the Attorney General, the
10 eiiief executive officer of a Federal penal or correctional
13
2
1 facility may, as part of an inmate work program, provide
2 products or sendees, free of charge or at minimal cost,
3 to private, nonprofit organizations (as defined in section
4 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) or to
5 a component of any State government or political subdivi-
6 sion thereof.
7 "(b) Products provided under subsection (a) shall be
8 constructed in substantial part through the use of scrap
9 or waste materials that constitute excess propert}', as de-
10 fined in section 3(e) of the Federal Property and Adminis-
11 trative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 472(e)). Such
1 2 products shall not be resold by the recipient.
13 "(c) Senices provided under subsection (a) —
14 "(1) shall be used only for the benefit of the re-
15 cipient entity and not for the benefit of any indi\id-
16 ual or organization other than the recipient; and
17 "(2) shall not displace an employee of the recip-
18 lent or result in a reduction in hours, wages, or em-
19 plo\Tnent benefits of any employee of the recipient.
20 "(d) Xo goods or services may be pro\ided under this
21 section by a Federal penal or correctional facility, if the
22 [)ro\ision of those goods or services would reduce the num-
23 ber of inmates employed at any Federal Prison Industries
24 operations at that faciht\'. Notliing tliis section shall be
14
3
1 construed to increase or otherudse affect the powers of
2 Federal Prison Industries.".
3 (b) Cleric^vL ^Vaiexdmext. — The table of sections
4 at the beginning of chapter 303 of title 18, United States
5 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
6 item:
"4048. Community sennei' projects.".
7 SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
8 (a) Feder^u. Property .vxd i\j).MixisTRi\Tn'E
9 Sermces Act iVMEXDMEXT. — Tiie second undesignated
10 paragraph of section 602(d) of the Federal Property and
11 Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 I'.S.C. 474), is
1 2 amended —
13 (1) by .striking the period at the end of sub-
14 paragT-aph (21) and inserting a semicolon; and
15 (2) by inserting after subparagraph 21 the fol-
16 lowing:
17 "(22) the Federal Bureau of Prisons with re-
18 spect to the disposal of property used to produce
19 those products described in section 4048 of title 18,
20 United States Code.".
21 (b) Exception to PRoiiini -iox ox vSiiipmext of
22 (JooDs.— Section 1761(b) of title 18, United States Code,
23 is amended by striking tlie period at the end and inserting
15
4
1 ", nor to products provided pursuant to section 4048 of
2 this title.".
16
Mr. McCoLLUM. I would like to get to the other witnesses who
are here and who are going to tell us about bills they've introduced.
Two of the three are nere; I'm sure Mr. Bryant will join us before
the completion of the testimony. I would first of all introduce my
colleagues.
First — well, if you have an opening remark, Mr. Schumer, I
should yield to you. I'm just getting to our colleagues, I guess, by
courtesy or a thought pattern.
Mr. Schumer. Well, it's a good thought pattern to have, Mr.
Chairman.
First, I'd like to say that I think that these hearings will be a
little different than the last major set of hearings we had on Waco.
Mr. McCOLLUM. I think so, too.
Mr. Schumer. A little less controversial, a little more abbre-
viated, and, you know, that's good and that's bad, I guess. I'd like
to say, though, I think it's a good idea to have these hearings.
These bills, I support the concepts of all of them and will probably
end up supporting all of them. But, there are details that have to
be worked out and that is the purpose of these hearings, and that's
a good thing to do. I want to join you in welcoming our colleagues
here to testify without further ado.
Mr. McCoLLUM. That's fair enough.
Mr. Scott, do you have anything? No? Well, all right.
Let me go on and introduce our two witnesses. I don't know that
they need much introduction to us, but maybe there's somebody
here who doesn't know them.
First is Steve Chabot who represents the First District of Ohio.
Mr. Chabot has been a schoolteacher as well as a private practicer
of law. He served as a member of the Cincinnati City Council for
5 years and as Hamilton County commissioner for 5 years, and he
is another valued member of our Crime Subcommittee. So I don't
know how I could very well be introducing him and he be unknown
to us, but obviously we're introducing you as a witness today,
Steve.
The second is a friend from over in the Banking Committee with
me. It's good to have you with us. Albert Wynn represents the
Fourth District of Maryland. Mr. Wynn served as executive director
from Prince George's Consumer Protection Commission from 1979
to 1982; he then served for 3 years in the Maryland House of Dele-
gates and for 5 years in the Maryland State Senate. And I, of
course, as I said, I have the privilege of serving with Al over in
Banking Committee.
I welcome both of you here, and when Ed Bryant comes, as I am
sure he will shortly, I will be glad to introduce him.
Mr. Chabot would you like to describe your legislation for us
and — or give us words of wisdom? Please do.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE J. CHABOT, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Chabot. I'd be happy to.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing
to consider H.R. 1552, which is the False identification Act of 1995.
Before I address the merits of the bill before us, I just want to
pay tribute to my good friend and colleague from Maryland, Con-
17
gressman Albert Wynn. Since being elected to Congress, Al Wynn
has been a driving force behind efforts to stem the tide of casual-
ties which result from illegal underage drinking. He first intro-
duced the False Identification Act in the 103d Congress, and as the
principal cosponsor of H.R. 1552, he and his staff have worked tire-
lessly to pass the bill into law. I want to thank Congressman Wynn
for all of his hard work, and I also have the honor and privilege
to serve on another committee with Congressman Wynn. We're on
the International Relations Committee together and have worked
well together on that committee, and so I'm just very pleased to
have him here today, and thank him very much for his hard work
in this important effort.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1552 amends the False Identification Con-
trol Act of 1982 by reducing from five to three the number of false
id's one may possess before being fined or imprisoned under the
act. There is no legitimate reason for anyone to be a purveyor of
false id's. Such documents undermine the State's efforts to regu-
late the drinking age, and they lead to carnage on the Nation's
highways. This provision of the bill toughens current law but it
does not, and I want to emphasize, it does not expand Federal ju-
risdiction. Further, the bill prohibits the use of the U.S. mail to
send unverified identification documents to minors, and we intend
to fine-tune the postal provisions at markup to make clear that we
are cracking down on mail order enterprises that traffic in false
ID'S.
We think the False Identification Act is a good bill. We think its
adoption will help in the battle to curtail illegal, underage drink-
ing, and we look forward to working with the subcommittee and
the Justice Department in the weeks ahead as we move toward
passage of the bill.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the other members of
the committee. Most particularly, I thank Congressman Wynn for
his fine efforts in this bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chabot follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Ohio
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing to consider H.R. 1552, the
False Identification Act of 1995.
Before I address the merits of the bill before us, I just want to pay tribute to my
good friend and colleague from Maryland, Congressman Albert Wynn. Since being
elected to Congress, Al Wynn has bleen a driving force behind efforts to stem the
tide of casualties which result from illegal, underage drinking. He first introduced
the False Identification Act in the 103rd Congress, and, as the principal co-sponsor
of H.R. 1552, he and his staff have worked tirelessly to pass the bill into law. And
I want to thank Congressman Wynn for all of his hard work.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1552 amends the False Identification Control Act of 1982 by
reducing from five (5) to three (3) the number of false ID's one may possess before
being fined or imprisoned under the Act. There is no legitimate reason for anyone
to be a purveyor of false ID's. Such documents undermine the states' efforts to regu-
late the drinking age, and they lead to carnage on our nation's highways. This pro-
vision of the bill toughens current law, but it does not expand federal jurisdiction.
Further, however, the bill prohibits the use of the U.S. mails to send unverified
identification documents to minors. And we intend to fine-tune the postal provisions
at markup to make clear that we are cracking down on mail order enterprises that
traffic in false ID's.
We think the False Identification Act is a good bill. We think its adoption will
help in the battle to curtail illegal underage drinking. And we look forwara to work-
18
ing with the subcommittee and the Justice Department in the weeks ahead as we
move toward passage of the bill.
TTiatJc you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Mr. Wynn, would you like to
STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT RUSSELL WYNN, A REPRESENT-
ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much and good morning, Mr. Chair-
man, members of the committee.
It is my pleasure to be here today in support of H.R. 1552, and
I want thank you for calling this hearing. I want to stop for a mo-
ment and thank my colleague, Steve Chabot, for his hard work and
leadership on this bill and thank him for his very gracious and
kind remarks. It's been a real pleasure working with him and his
staff.
Mr. Chairman, as you may know, 114 of our House colleagues
have cosponsored the False Identification Act of 1995, recognizing
the need for stronger legislation to address the problem of the man-
ufacturing and distribution of false identification. It has proven to
be a major contributing factor in underage drinking. Use and man-
ufacture of false identification have become a growing problem for
many local law enforcement officials, has literally become a cottage
industry on many college campuses.
My colleague has very ably described the specifics of the bill, so
I will not repeat them, but just to give you a sampling of the sig-
nificance of this issue, let me cite a few examples. In 1993, a
Georgetown University student was arrested and charged with
false id's and mailing them to hundreds of college age students. It
was reported that in just 3 months he made nearly $30,000. In
1994, a George Washington University student pleaded guilty to
manufacturing and mailing fake identifications to thousands of un-
derage students in several States. In 1995, in Washington, DC, a
16- and a 22-year-old were charged with 40 counts of manufactur-
ing false identifications. At that raid, authorities seized $40,000
worth of computers and graphic equipment, blank driver's licenses,
and several hundred order forms for licenses from the District of
Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and New Jersey. Some of the orders
came from underage students at George Washington University,
Georgetown University, University of Maryland, and Villanova. Ac-
cording to officials, the two gentlemen said they made $15,000 a
week selling fake ID's.
I think these are just a few of the examples of the significant
traffic in false ID's that's going on right now. I think this problem
is very significant. It confounds local law enforcement officials, it
confounds liquor regulators, or liquor inspectors, as the case may
be, and also bar owners and members of the industry who have to
engage in a constant battle with sophisticated computers, graphics,
cameras, and high tech copying equipment. I think this bill goes a
long way in addressing it.
I would just conclude by noting that, according to an Inspector
General report in 1991 entitled "Youth and Alcohol Laws and En-
forcement Report," it highlighted several concerns and rec-
ommendations that local enforcement officials would like to see
Federal legislators address. They include, one, limiting teenagers'
19
access to fake — excuse me — false identifications and two, strength-
ening Federal laws to make it illegal to sell anything through the
mail which is designed to pass as a legal ID or State license.
I already said, Mr. Chairman, I believe the bill addresses both
of these concerns by tightening the laws or certainly more fine-tun-
ing may be in order, in which case we would be happy to work with
the committee and representatives of the Justice Department.
Again, I want to thank Mr. Chabot for his hard work and leader-
ship on the bill. And thank you for allowing me to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wynn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Albert Russell Wynn, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Maryland
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opf>ortunity to thank you for conducting
this hearing today on H.R. 1552, the False Identification Act of 1995, I appreciate
your recognition of the importance of this small but important piece of legislation.
I would also like to thank my colleague Rep. Steve Chabot for nis hard work and
leadership in working with me on H.R. 1552. This is truly a bi-partisan measure.
Mr. Chairman, as you know over 114 of our House colleagues have co-sponsored
the False Identification Act, recognizing the need for stronger legislation to address
the problem of the manufacture of false identifications.
The use and manufacture of false identifications have become a growing problem
for many local law enforcement ofiicials and has become a cottage industry on col-
lege campuses throughout the country. On many campuses, the manufacture and
sale of fake ID's have become entrepreneurial ventures, while working in the college
bookstore has become a thing of the past.
In 1993, a Georgetown University student was arrested and charged with making
fake ID's and mailing them to hundreds of college aged students. It was reported
that in just three months, he made nearly $30,000.
In 1994, a George Washington University student pleaded guilty to manufacturing
and mailing fake identifications to thousands of underage student in several states.
In 1995, in Washington, D.C. a 16 and 22 year old were charged with 40 counts
of manufacturing fake identifications. At that raid authorities seized $40,000 worth
of computers and graphic equipment, blank driver's licenses and several hundred
order forms for licenses from the District, Maryland, Virginia and New Jersey. Some
of the orders came from underage students at George Washington University,
Georgetown University, the University of Maryland and Villanova. According to offi-
cials the two gentlemen said they made $15,000 a week selling the fake licenses.
These are just three two examples of how individuals have turned illegal manu-
facturing of ID's into profitable business ventures.
As noted above further compounding the problem for law enforcement officials,
liquor regulators and bar owners are in constant battle with sophisticated comput-
ers, graphics, cameras and high-tech copying machines which make the manufactur-
ing of fake identifications very easy.
Mr. Chairman, law enforcement officials need more help from the federal govern-
ment to assist them with the booming business of fake ID s. According to an Inspec-
tor General Report in 1991 entitled "Youth and Alcohol: Laws and Enforcement,"
the report highlighted several concerns and recommendations that local law enforce-
ment officials would like to see federal legislation address. They include:
(1) limiting teenagers' access to false identifications to purchase alcohol, and
(2) strengthening federal law to "make it illegal to sell anything through the
mail which is designed to pass for legal ID or a state license.'
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1S52 attempts to address law enforcement officials concerns
in three simple ways:
Currently, before a jail sentence or fine can be imposed an individual can pos-
sess up to five (5) false identifications. Our bill would amend the False ID Con-
trol Act of 1982 and reduce that number to three (3);
Second, it penalizes individuals who mail false ID's by imposing a fine and/
or prison sentence of a maximum of up to three (3) years;
Third, the bill also requires senders of ID's to verify the age of individuals
named in the document using official documents such as passports or birth cer-
tificates.
Mr. Chairman, the manufacturing and selling of fake ID's is a big problem in our
communities which results many times in alcohol related deaths. We must work to
20
strengthen federal law to decrease teenagers access to false identifications by crack-
ing down on individuals who manufacture these ID's.
I believe that H.R. 1552 makes a good faith effort to address this problem and
works to discourage the use of fake ID s.
However, it is my understanding that the Administration has expressed some con-
cerns with Section 3 of the bill wi3i regards to the "Verification of Mailed Identifica-
tion Documents." Representative Chabot and I would be pleased to work with the
Administration to address their concerns to provide a stronger and more focused biU
to address the problem of false identifications used by minors.
Again Mr. Chairman, I thank you for a holding this hearing and urge the support
of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. McCoLLUM. You're certainly welcome.
Before I go to Mr. Bryant, with his indulgence, I think because
both Mr. Wynn and Mr, Chabot are here on the same bill and have
just finished testifying, I would like to have us ask questions about
this particular bill, and then you don't have to sit for Mr. Bryant's
bill which is entirely different. I don't have very many questions,
and I doubt the panel does also, but there are some that I am con-
cerned about.
The bill is great, I think, with regard to the portion at least that
deals with reducing the number of the ID cards. This is really im-
portant for all of us. It's important in the immigration area. It's im-
portant in the area for drunk driving. But, I'm curious about the
creation of a new crime of sending an unverified identification doc-
ument through the mail and, for both of you, Mr. Wynn and Mr.
Chabot, we already have on the books crimes of producing or trans-
ferring false identification documents, and the question I have is,
why do we need the new crime? What was your rationale in creat-
ing it? Or do we need it? Maybe we do.
Mr. Wynn. I think really what we're trying to focus on, and it
may not have been done as artfully as is appropriate, is to focus
on the responsibility of the manufacturer to verify the age of the
person that is going to be the recipient of the ID. So the focus of
the crime is essentially the failure to verify. And I think that mav
be an appropriate area for new law. But certainly I would be will-
ing to defer to the judgment of the committee with respect to that
aspect of the bill.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Well, I think that clarifies my question, and I
think that's very important. I assume you agree, Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. I agree totally, ves.
Mr. McCoLLUM. The term identification document," would ei-
ther of you object if we limited it to documents that are issued by
local. State, or Federal governments? Or is this, because of what
you just said, the manufacturer question — ^you know, I don't know
where it all gets into here. But what do you think, Mr. Wynn?
Mr. Wynn. I don't think that's a problem. I would assume that
would include documents provided by health departments as well
as passport-type documents.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Sure.
Mr. Wynn. That being the case, I think your approach is cer-
tainly correct.
Mr. Chabot. I think it's something that we should discuss. I
think it's appropriate for us to investigate that area. You know a
principal concern here is, basically, generally has to do with driv-
er's license and things of that nature where you have kids that are
getting these false ID's oftentimes through the mail and then are
21
using them to go in and purchase beverages and become a danger
not only to themselves, but to other innocent drivers on the road.
I've seen this particularly in my community. In Cincinnati we're
right on the border with Kentucky, and we've had a problem with
kids going back and forth between the two States. They have a lit-
tle difference in the laws. The ages used to be a little bit different.
So, I think some of the border areas have particular concern with
the danger of how false ID's have been used.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Well, I don't want to cover too many of these
things — but you've already touched upon the problem of the mail-
ing of things. We've thought about perhaps requiring the Grovern-
ment to prove a commercial purpose or prove that the mailing was
part of a commercial enterprise. Would that present a problem, Mr.
Wynn?
Mr. Chabot. Excuse me, I'm sorry.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. It does not present a problem for me. In fact, we
were already investigating massaging the language to make that
clearer than it currently is.
Mr. Wynn. I would have to concur. I don't see any reason why
commercial purpose would not cover the circumstances we're talk-
ing about. But, obviously, the mailing for money, basically, and
that being the case, that's a commercial purpose.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Sure.
Mr. Schumer.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you.
I'd just like to make three points. The first relates to yours, Mr.
Chairman. I think the second part is kind of broad. You could find
examples of the Elks Club or the Boy Scouts being prosecuted by
some prosecutor who didn't pass the knot test back when he was
a boy scout, and he's getting back. I don't know. That's facetious,
but still — I failed the knot test in the Webelos; that's how I
empathize.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Schumer. In any case, I think it's got to be made narrower
to make sure it's commercial enterprise, to make sure that just
sending through the mail isn't enough.
I just make two other points. One is, and I bring this up to all
of my colleagues, we are really involved again in the federalization
of crimes. Now, as this committee knows, I have no problem with
that. I don't think my constituents when faced with crime are say-
ing "Oh, well, I don't want the Federal Government to come in and
be involved; I want just the local and State governments." But
there's been so much talk in so many places that we should leave
things to the localities and States, that I would remind my col-
leagues that everybody says that when they don't want something
done, but not when they do want something done. This is increas-
ing the Federal mandate in an area that has been a local area ex-
cept for the interstate aspect and for sending things through the
mail.
I just received a memo from the National Association of Defense
Lawyers, a group I don't very often agree with in this area of
crime, but they are already saying it violates Lopez, which is you
22
know the gun control case. I don't think Lopez has very broad read-
ing, but that's a federahzation issue.
The only other point I'd make is this: for those who manufacture
these false ID's, tough penalties are, indeed, called for, and I know
that's the intent of the bill. However, when you're reducing the
number from five to three, I think you run into a potential problem
that somebody who is underage and is carrying three false ID's
with no intent to sell them, no intent to distribute them, the law
states for use in an unlawful purpose and the unlawful purpose
they'd be attempting is to get a drink, might face up to 5 years of
jail time. I think that's somewhat onerous, and I think the appro-
priate penalty, particularly if it's a first offense, is taking away the
driver's license to age 25 or 30 — some kind of civil tough penalty
that scares these kids and will not let them do it. But this is not
what we want to be filling our prisons up with, is with people who
for the first time used false ID's to try and get a drink.
And I would urge — I'd ask both of you your opinion of that. Was
it your intent that, say, somebody who's carrying three false ID's,
never sold them, never did anything, but is trying to get a drink
below age, should get prison time first offense or would some civil
remedy in those instances be far more appropriate? Such as in my
judgment what I'd say to that person, "You can't drive until you're
25,' or something like that. You tell a 17-year-old or 16-year-old
they can't drive until they are 25, I think they'd rather go to Sibe-
ria.
Mr. Chabot. I think certainly the intent here is to crack down
on those that are involved in a commercial enterprise to sell false
id's to make money, and then because of the damage they are
doing to society and to children that are involved. Not — clearly the
target is not this child who is trying to get this drink. Obviously,
we don't want him to do that, but he's not the target of this par-
ticular law.
Relative to additional Federal
Mr. SCHUMER. Let me just pursue that because I just made a di-
dactic point here. Would you object to some kind of refining of the
language that made it clear in tnat instance too that a commercial
enterprise was the purpose and focus of the law?
Mr. Chabot. I think we'd have no problem with that. In fact, we
were massaging this language recently and on page 2, item No. 11,
we were talking about modifying the language somewhat to say in-
stead of "whoever knowingly sends through the mails," et cetera,
saying "whoever is part of a commercial enterprise involving the
sale of identification documents," so making it clearer that we're
talking about a commercial enterprise rather than somebody carry-
ing documents on their person.
Mr. ScHUMER. I was referring not to section 3, which is the mail-
ing which Mr. McCollum, the chairman, went over, but actually
section 2, I guess it would be, where you reduce from five to three
and the language that it tracks which is not in your bill because,
as you stated, it's existing law, just talks about an unlawful pur-
pose. I think if we are reducing it, maybe we ought to clarify that
as well.
Mr. Chabot. I think that would be entirely appropriate to clarify,
and, again, that is the purpose of this hearing, to get other commit-
23
tee members', like the distinguished gentleman from New York's,
ideas about this because we want to have the best bill possible.
Mr. ScHUMER. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Mr. Heineman.
Mr. Heineman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In line with what Mr. Schumer had to say, I read the bill, and
I was going to ask you prior to his question. It doesn't say anything
in the bill, the language in the bill that pertains to possession. Un-
less you can clarity that for me, it just says the manufacture, the
production, and the sending. And I agree it would be ambiguous
were it not specified that this is a commercial enterprise as it re-
lates to the msmufacture and then the sale of that or distribution
of those false ID's. Would that be a correct interpretation of mine?
Mr. Wynn. If I could interject — the bill references existing law on
page 1, line 8, and basically existing law prohibits the possession
of five id's. This is a section separate from the mailing section. Ex-
isting law prohibits possession of five ID's. We reduced that to
three, and I believe the thinking was, and my colleague can cer-
tainly speak himself, but I believe the thinking was that we want-
ed to send a somewhat tougher message. A person holding five
id's, if you just slap them on the wrist, that person may well, in
fact, be engaged in trafficking. So, the effect of tightening it is to
reduce the number of ID's that you have. There's no reason why
anyone should have more than one legitimate ID.
But I think Mr. Schumer makes an excellent point when he says
perhaps we could reduce the number of ID's a person could have
on his possession, but change the nature of the fine so that we
would not be contemplating jail sentence for this type of thing. I
may have made it more confusing.
Mr. Heineman, No, I'm a little confused as it relates to State and
Federal jurisdiction. I can see the commerce aspect of this in mail-
ing using the Federal Government or mailing across State lines; it
still would be the Federal Government as it relates to a violation.
But possession of false ID's seems to be to be a State issue under
State law as it relates to ordering those ID's for the purpose of,
well, buying cigarettes or purchasing alcohol. And I
Mr. Chabot. If the gentleman would yield — that was one of my
concerns as well. However, the law already exists on the books
now. It's already Federal law that prohibits a person from having
five id's. What we are doing is toughening that law and making
it three ID's.
Now we can argue whether that law should have been on the
books to begin with, but it's there. So since it's there, I guess you
could also talk about a person who's carrying counterfeit money on
them and they're in Ohio, and should the Federal Government be
involved in that, and I would argue they should be. And, generally,
our problem is I, as m^ colleague, we've had people that are in one
city that are doing this mail order, and especially on college cam-
puses where the kids are border line as to whether they are al-
lowed to drink at all. And so what we're trying to do is toughen
an existing law and make it more workable.
Mr. Heineman. One further thing, and I don't have the code here
as it relates to penalties as it relates to these violations. Would
there be an increased penalty for repeat offenders? I mean in the
24
manufacture bit, and would this pertain to Mexico as well as Can-
ada. The business is a lucrative business. I don't believe that would
come under NAFTA, but, anyhow, I'm just wondering whether
someone could produce these documents in Canada and mail them
here and still be under our jurisdiction as producing.
Mr. Wynn. Actually, that's a very good question. Obviously, it's
not addressed in the bill, but it's certainly something I would like
to see covered. Similarly, repeat offenders are not addressed in the
bill, but, again, I think that would be a very good improvement in
terms of toughening the bill.
Mr. Heineman. Well, I should be aware of all these questions I'm
asking you because I did cosponsor the bill. But if you'd like to —
perhaps we can talk a little about fine-tuning the details.
I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Heineman.
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. I'm just getting a little counseling here [speaking
with staff off record]. What I'm trying to get at is we're talking pos-
session and distribution. If I've got five ID's, false ID's, saying I'm
over a certain age, a driver's license from Virginia, a driver's li-
cense from North Carolina, and a driver's license from Maryland,
all identifying as overage, that's obviously possession. But if you
catch me having just made up one for five different people, that's
obvious I'm making it for somebody else, which is distribution.
My question is, was there a differentiation between an ID used
obviously for your own purposes as opposed to an ID used for some-
one else's purposes, and this bill doesn't have that. It's obviously
part of the present law because you didn't change that.
Mr. Wynn. I don't think present law makes a distinction on that.
Mr. Scott. As we go through this, I think we ought to make a
distinction between distribution and possession because that gets
into the commercial enterprise. If I'm doing it just to buy drinks
for myself, that's one thing; it's wrong. But it's different when
you're manufacturing and distributing and making $15,000 a week.
I think it's slightly different. It's not part of your bill; it's part of
the present law, and I think there ought to be a differentiation.
We went through a similar thing about distribution and posses-
sion a week or two ago when we talked about crack cocaine. We
didn't make a differentiation. It's 5 years mandatory minimum for
simple possession of a couple hundred dollars worth of crack.
That's what you get. It's wrong and you get the mandatory 5 years
minimum. We didn't bother to differentiate then, and I think we
should have then, and I think we should here. We talked about
whether you're going to consider whether or not there are going to
be the Government-issued ID's. As you consider that, consider col-
lege id's or employer ID's which would probably be as valid at a
bar, I might think, as a driver's license that has a birth date on
it. I would hope we would might not liberalize that too much by
just sticking to the Grovernment-issued ID's. I think a lot of college
kids, if they had a college ID v/ith a birth date on it, might be as
emboldened as if they had a false college ID.
I just wanted to make those two points, Mr. Chairman, that we
ought to differentiate between the possession
25
Mr. McCoLLUM. I think your point's really well made. I agree
with it, and I think that as we go through this we'll get a chance
to maybe delve into some of this.
Mr. Scott. And before I yield back, I would hope that, Mr.
Chairman, you would be as agreeable as we talked about the dif-
ferentiation between possession and
Mr. McCOLLUM. I know what's coming.
Mr. Scott [continuing]. Of other material.
Mr. ScHUMER, Would the gentleman yield for just one minute?
Mr. Scott. If I still have time.
Mr. McCoLLUM. You still have time.
Mr. ScHUMER . The only point I would make, which counsel has
pointed out, while the bill was clearly intended to deal with alco-
hol, it does have serious ramifications in the immigration area,
though, and I think that we ought to look at those as we try and
refine it.
Mr. McCoLLUM. It does, and I appreciate it.
Mr. Wynn?
Mr. Wynn. I would just add, I appreciate Mr. Scott's comments
about the differentiation as to the commercial use versus use for
one's own self. I would just add, given the problem of underage
drinking, it is still a matter that ought to be tightened up with re-
spect to false id's for one's own consumption because that is equal-
ly dangerous. I certainly appreciate the point you are making.
Mr. McCoLLUM. I think the point both you gentlemen made to
us by bringing this bill forward is real positive, and you can see
from what the interest has been here that the bill is important for
a lot of reasons and maybe even beyond what you originated with
it. So, it will carry your names and we're going to do something
else with it, but we'll probably mark it up very shortly here. Thank
you both for coming.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Our third witness on this panel, that I sort of
segregated out from the rest because of circumstances, is our col-
league, of course, who really doesn't need an introduction to us, but
I introduced Steve Chabot to us, so I'm going to introduce you, too,
Ed.
Ed Bryant represents the Seventh District of Tennessee. Mr.
Bryant served as a captain in the Army JAG General Corp., has
taught at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He also served
as U.S. attorney for the Western District of Tennessee and is a val-
ued member of our subcommittee. And I know you have a good
product to talk about with us today, so please proceed, Ed.
STATEMENT OF HON. ED BRYANT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mr. Bryant of Tennessee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appre-
ciate this opportunity to speak before my own subcommittee on be-
half of H.R, 1533, a bill that I introduced earlier this year.
H.R. 1533 takes a simple step. It would increase the maximum
penalty for escaping from a Federal prison from 5 to 10 years. It
simply doubles the penalty for escape from Federal prison.
26
It's time to raise the stakes for escaping from a Federal prison.
Currently, a Federal escapee who is recaptured faces a maximum
5-year penalty. And due to sentencing guidelines, few receive this
maximum of 5 years.
There are two reasons for raising the maximum penalty for es-
cape. First, obviously, as a deterrent, and, second, to maintain
alignment with today's longer base sentences. First, this legislation
would send prisoners a clear message. While the percentage of pris-
on escapees — relative to the increased prison population — ^has actu-
ally dropped, the actual number of escapes has risen, according to
Marshals Service data. In 1994, for instance, 660 Federal prisoners
escaped. That's more than 50 more than in 1993, and 100 more
than in 1992.
Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Marshals Service is responsible for the
custody of those who are arrested by Federal law enforcement
agencies. Deputy marshals often work with other law enforcement
officers to help locate and apprehend these fugitives. And three-
fourths of all Federal fugitives returned to custody each year are
arrested by the U.S. Marshals Service. Furthermore, the marshals
transport Federal prisoners they transfer them between corrections
facilities, and protect the Federal judiciary, among other duties.
The Marshals Service has done a good job executing its duties,
as has the Bureau of Prisons. This bill is in no way an indictment
of their performance. Rather, this legislation is intended to give
those convicted of crimes and imprisoned further disincentive to es-
cape or to attempt an escape and risk recapture.
Last year the marshals caught nearly 500 of those 660 escapees.
Nevertheless, 160 escaped convicts remained at large — or do re-
main at large today — to prey upon society. Deputy marshals, cor-
rections personnel, and private citizens are killed or injured in con-
nection with these Federal prison escapes and attempts. This legis-
lation would have deterrent value.
Second, Mr. Chairman, this bill would coordinate the available
escape penalty with today's longer base sentences. When the
present maximum penalty was set. Federal prisoners seldom re-
ceived life imprisonment or the death penalty. Federal prisoners
now receive longer sentences and, coupled with sentencing guide-
lines, face a low additional penalty for escape. Raising the maxi-
mum penalty available for escape and recapture would bring it in
line with the present base sentencing realities.
H.R. 1533 works on behalf of not only the U.S. Marshals and
Federal Bureau of Prisons personnel, BOP personnel, but also fam-
ilies, friends, and our constituents who are put at risk from fugi-
tives. In short, this bill would help to make the price of getting
caught higher than that of chancing the escape and recapture.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice supports
this bill. I trust that this subcommittee will consider this measure
and act favorably on it. H.R. 1533 represents another brick in the
wall of restoring law and order in America.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bryant of Tennessee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ed Bryant, a Representative in Congress From
THE State of Tennessee
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak before this subcommittee on
behalf of H.R. 1533, a bill I introduced earlier this year.
H.R. 1533 would take a simple step. It would increase the maximum penalty for
escaping from a federal prison from five years to ten years.
Mr. Chairman, it's time to raise the stakes for escaping from a federal prison.
Currently,, a federal escapee who is recaptured faces a maximum five-year penalty,
and due to sentencing guidelines, few receive the maximum.
There are two reasons for raising the maximum penalty for escape — first, as a de-
terrent, and second, to maintain alienment with today's longer base sentences.
First, this legislation would send prisoners a message. While the percentage of
prison escapes relative to increased prison population has dropped, the actual num-
ber of escapes has risen. In 1994, 660 federal prisons escaped; that's 50 more es-
capes than in 1993 and 100 more escapes than in 1992.
Mr. Chairman, the United States Marshals Service is responsible for the custody
of all those who are arrested by federal law enforcement agencies. Deputy Marshals
often work with other law enforcement officers to locate and apprehend fugitives.
And three-fourths of all federal fugitives returned to custody each year are arrested
by the Marshals Service.
Furthermore, the Marshals Service transports federal prisoners, transfers them
between corrections facilities, and protects the federal judiciary, among other duties.
The Marshals Service had done a good job executing its duties, as has the Bureau
of Prisons. This bill is in no way an indictment of their performance. Rather, this
legislation is intended to give those convicted of crimes and imprisoned further dis-
incentive to attempt an escape and risk recapture.
Last year, the U.S. Marshals caught nearly 500 (497) of those 660 escapees. Nev-
ertheless, 160 escaped convicts remained at large to prey upon society. And Deputy
Marshals, corrections personnel, and private citizens are killed or injured each year
in connection with federal prisoner escapes. This legislation would have deterrent
value.
Second, Mr. Chairman, this bill would coordinate the available escape penalty
with today's longer base sentences. When the present maximum penalty was set,
federal prisoners seldom received life imprisonment or the death penalty. Federal
prisoners now receive longer sentences and, coupled with sentencing guidelines, face
a low additional penalty for escape. Raising the maximum penalty available for es-
cape and recapture would bring it in line with present base sentencing realities.
H.R. 1553 works on behalf of not only U.S. Marshals and Bureau of Prisons per-
sonnel, but also families, friends, and our constituents, who are put at risk from fu-
gitives. In short, this bill would help to make the price of getting caught higher than
that of chancing escape and recapture.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice supports this bill. I trust
that the subcommittee will consider this measure and act favorably on it. H.R. 1533
represents another brick in the wall of restoring law and order in America.
Thank you.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Mr. Bryant, Ed, do you know if the prison sys-
tem today has internal sanctions that it imposes, especially on
those who have escaped when they return to the system beyond,
of course, the crime of escape?
Mr. Bryant of Tennessee. I don't, I don't think that they have
that severe of a sanction. I know that they have certain adminis-
trative penalties available for certain, I would think, in-house pris-
on violations. But, again, something that would amount to a Fed-
eral crime, which an attempt at escape or escape would have to be
governed bv the sentencing guidelines.
Mr. McCfoLLUM. I haven't asked them, and I'm sure we will later
today, but I was reminded because you were JAG in the Army, and
I was JAG in the Navy, somebody who escaped from prison, when
they got back, they were put in close face cells. I think that whole
policy has changed over the years in the military, but they used to
put them in a cell that had no windows and slipped the food under
the door and keep them there for an interminable time. That was
28
a pretty big deterrent to escape for the other prisoners, but I think
that courts and others have kind of said that we don't do that sort
of thing. I don't know that, and I thought I'd ask you.
Last question — and I only have one other one. You gave us the
statistics on increased numbers of escapes recently, but there is,
according to what was passed to me here, apparently a pretty good
decline overall from what was going on in the way of escapes back
in 1981, 1982, and 1983. In other words, if you go back 10 years
or so, while we may have had a little rise in escapes now in the
last couple of years, percentagewise and numberwise it's still quite
a bit down. Is that your understanding?
Mr. Bryant of Tennessee. Well, as I alluded in my statement,
that is, in essence, is the case, that actually the percentage has de-
creased, but the actual numbers have increased. We have actually
more in number than we used to have.
I don't know — I would expect that's probably reflective in large
part by the better job that we are doing — that our BOP personnel,
that our U.S. Marshals who have to move these folks back and
forth to trial, they're doing a better job. But what I would like to
do is make it even better and try to strive to perfection in this, if
we can, and perhaps furnish that missing ingredient here, and that
is stiffer sentences because, as I mentioned in my statement, as the
Justice Department has mentioned in its recommendation, this has
not kept track with the longer base sentences that are there now.
Now a person who is in Federal prison with no parole knows he
is going to be serving, let's say, 18, 17 years; another realistic 2 to
3 years for an attempt at escape is not much of a deterrent. So,
we've got to, I think, fill in the gap here and help put a deterrent
there.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Well, your bill is very straightforward.
I don't have more questions. Maybe, Mr. Schumer, you do?
Mr. Schumer. No, I think it's a fine bill. The only thing I'd ask
is that you add my name on as a cosponsor and offer that oppor-
tunity to other Members on this side of the aisle
Mr. Bryant of Tennessee. Certainly.
Mr. Schumer. That's certainly an excellent bill.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Mr. Heineman.
Mr. Heineman. No questions.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Bryant, for coming and testify-
ing.
Oh, Mr. Conyers is in. I didn't see anybody sitting over there.
Well, I thank you very much for coming today. We're going to
move on to our next panel of witnesses at this point.
I don't have a glorious list of accomplishments to give for each
person who has come here to testify today. I don't think that some-
body got the bios for our panel from the Justice Department, the
FBI, and so forth. But, I'm going to introduce you, and if you will
come forward, please take your seats.
Kevin Di Gregory, Deputy Assistant General, Criminal Division
of the Department of Justice; Thomas R. Kane, Assistant Director
for Information, Policy and Public Affairs, the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, and Milton — am I pronouncing it right? Ahlerich?
Mr. Ahlerich. Ahlerich, Mr. Chairman.
29
Mr. McCOLLUM. Ahlerich, Ahlerich, I'm going to get that right.
The Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I
ought to know that, but you and I need to get better acquainted
for me to do that properly.
We want to thank all three of you for coming today. Normally,
as Mr. Schumer has done in years past, and I have done up until
now, is let the public hear a little bit more of your background. We
iust need to be better at getting that information down here and —
but I don't think you have a huge audience today to have to have
all that given to. So
Mr. Schumer. Let the record stipulate, Mr. Chairman, they each
have excellent and outstanding
[Laughter.]
Mr. McCoLLUM. That's fine, we'll concur in that.
I think it would be appropriate, perhaps, to have Mr. Di Gregory
start off today with your comments on this legislation.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN Di GREGORY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT AT-
TORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS R. KANE, ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR FOR INFORMATION, POLICY AND PUBLIC AF-
FAIRS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, AND MILTON
AHLERICH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF IN-
VESTIGATION
Mr. Dl Gregory. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I'm pleased to
appear before you to present the views of the Department of Jus-
tice on the bills that the subcommittee is considering today.
As always, the Department is happy to assist the subcommittee
in evaluating legislative proposals to further the goals of law en-
forcement. We have submitted a more detailed statement of our
views in a letter to the chairman, and I ask that the letter be in-
cluded in the hearing record.
[The information follows:]
23-253 96-2
30
U. S. Deparliiieiil of Justice
Office of Legislative Affairs
omce of ihe Auliuni ABomey GciienJ Wathlntioti . P.C. 2O5S0
September 27, 1995
The Honorable Bill McCollum
Chairman
Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 21515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am pleased to respond to the Subcommittee's request for
the Department of Justice's views on several bills the
Subcommittee will soon consider. Our views are provided below.
H.R. 12 41 - DNA Identification Grants improvement Act
The 1994 Crime Bill included the DNA Identification Act of
1994, which contains a $40 Million, five-year grant program for
the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund (VCRTf) for state and
local crime laboratories to establish or improve forensic DNA
testing capabilities. The Act provides for only $1 million in FY
1996 and $31 million in the last two years, i.e..., 1999 and 2000.
This flow of funds, if it is left unchanged, will work against
the purpose of the grant program, which is to provide funds to
jump start the DNA testing programs, thereby taking pressure off
the FBI laboratory to provide these services to states.
Karly in 1995, you introduced H.R. 1241 to correct this flaw
by shifting grant funding authorization forward in the five-year
period covered by the Crime Bill- As introduced, the bill also
restructured funding for the FBI to carry out responsibilities
for operating a national DNA index system and administering the
DNA Advisory Board.
The Department of Justice does not support any changes to
FBI funding levels under the Act, but still supports changing
funding authorization for state grants that would have the effect
of making significantly more fundi* available earlier in the five-
year period.
Because the House was unable to act on H.R. 1241 in time to
affect the appropriations cycle for FY 1996, the grant levels in
the bill for 1997-2000 should be adjusted to reflect the fact
31
that only $1 million (and not $8 million aa stated in the
original draft) was appropriated from the VCKTF by the Housa for
state DNA grants in FY 1996. Therefore, the Department
recommends that the funding levels in H.R. 1241 be amended as
follows:
1. Delete Section 3 pertaining to FBI funding for the DNA
Advisory Board and the national DNA index system.
2. Revise the funding levels for state DNA grants as
follows:
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 1996
$15,000,000 for fiscal year 1997
$14,000,000 for fiscal year 1998
$6,000,000 for fiscal year 1999
$4,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
We understand that a substitute for H.R. 1241 making these
modifications will be offered. For the foregoing reasons, we
support this substitute.
H.R 1533 - Increasing tbe Penalty for Escaping from a Federal
Prison
We support H.R. 1533, a bill that would raise from five
years to ten years the maximum statutory penalty prescribed in 18
U.S.C. 751(a) for escape from federal custody after conviction or
while awaiting trial on a felony charge. The Department
considers any criminal offense committed during the period of an
inaate's incarceration to be egregious. In particular, prison
escapes and attempted escapes represent a serious correctional
security concern for the Bureau of Prisons, as well as a general
public safety concern. We agree that the current five year
penalty (actually a much shorter period of imprisonment under the
sentencing guidelines) seems inadequate to discourage escape
attempts by federal prisoners, pending trial or convicted, who
.ire facing lengthy sentences.
The current maximum penalty was set very long ago when
federal sentences of life imprisonment or death were not
realistic possibilities. Currently, the base offense level
guideline range for escapes is only at offense level 13, and an
escape involving threat or use of force only enhances that base
offense level up to level 18 which allows a 30 to 37 month
imprisonment term for a criminal history category II defendant.
The sentencing guideline for this offense level does not allow a
60 iT\onth (5 year) punishment unless criminal history category V
is involved. In Application Note 4 to the escape guideline
(S 2P1.1), the Sentencing Commission suggests the appropriateness
of an upward departure if bodily injury or death results. Many
tederal offenders now face long prison terms due to longer prison
terms and elimination of parole. Those offenders are not likely
32
to find the prospect of an additional three year prison term much
deterrence if they are considering an escape. In addition, the
small increment currently provided for violence during an escape
will have little practical significance to an offender facing a
much longer prison term.
Consequently, we find this method of accounting for bodily
injury during commission of the crime of escape, by an exception
to the normal sentencing procedure, unsatisfactory. Therefore,
we also recommend that the legislation direct the Sentencing
Commission to significantly increase its guidelines to deter both
offenders facing severe federal sentences and violent escapes.
H.R. 1552 - Tbe False Identification Act of 1995
H.R. 1552 would amend title 18, United States Code,
regarding false identification documents. The first section of
this proposal amends 18 U.S.C. § 1028 by reducing from five to
three the number of identification documents the possession of
which with intent to use or transfer unlawfully constitutes an
offense. This proposal strengthens section 1028 in a meaningful
way and we support it.
The second section would enact a new section 1739, chapter
83, title 18, United States Code. This provision would make it a
felony to Knowingly mail or produce for mailing any "unverified
identification document" which bears a birth date purporting to
demonstrate that the individual to whom the document pertains is
over age 21 when the individual is, in fact, less than 21.
"Unverified" means that the mailer has not confirmed the birth
date using a certification from either a governmental entity or a
physician, hospital or medical clinic. "Identification document"
is defined as "a card, certificate, or paper intended to be used
primarily to identify an individual."
We believe that it is entirely appropriate for Congress to
focus upon the problems presented by the use of false
identification documents. Such documents are rife in our society
and frequently are used by wrongdoers to facilitate the
commission of more serious offenses. However, we must oppose
this proposal because it is too broad. Under this bill, an
"identification document" is any card intended to be used for
identification purposes, not just a card issued by a governmental
entity, as in the case of section 1028 of title 18. Thus, an
Identification card issued by the Elks Club or the Boy Scouts of
America, for instance, would be covered. Furthermore, the bill
covers any person who mails such a card for any purpose. One
could suggest a scenario in which a minor child would request a
parent to mail to the child's friend, who had been visiting and
returned home, the friend's membership card in the ABC Bicycle
Club, which the friend had left behind. If the card identified
the child's friend as being over 21 and the parent mailed it, the
parent would be in violation of the proposed statute. There is
33
no reasonable basis on which to impose a duty of inquiry in such
a situation, and no such mailing should be a criminal offense.
We would be pleased to work with members of the
Subconunittee or staff to assess the specific harms that H.R. 1552
was intended to address and tailor a remedy narrowly drawn to
address these harms.
H.R. 23S9 - implementation of the Sentence of Death
H.R. 2359 would allow Federal executions to be carried out
at Federal facilities pursuant to uniform Federal regulations.
The Department strongly supports this proposal. This position
has previously been taken by the Administration and was detailed
in the June 13, 1994 letter from the Attorney General to the
House and Senate Conference Committee, detailing the
Administration's views on various sections of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (VCCLEA) .
Currently there are six Federal inmates that have been
sentenced to death under the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act (21 U.S.C.
§848 (e)) for murders committed as part of drug-related continuing
criminal enterprises. With the passage of the VCCLEA, we
anticipate that more prisoners convicted of capital offenses will
be committed to the custody of the Attorney General. Federal
regulations at 28 CFR Part 26, which became effective in January
1993, stipulate that Federal executions would occur in a Bureau
of Prisons facility, under the auspices of the facility's warden
and the U.S. Marshals Service. The method of execution would ba
lethal injection. In accordance with these regulations, the
Bureau of Prisons identified the U.S. Penitentiary at Terre Haute
for this purpose and recently finished construction of a death
row unit and execution facility there.
However, use of the Terre Haute facility for Federal
executions is in q\iestion because of a little-noted provision in
the VCCLEA of 1994. Under the technical language found in the
death penalty implementation section, which is now codified as
18 U.S.C. §3596, executions for offenses under the VCCLEA are to
be carried out under the supervision of the U.S. Marshals Service
in the manner prescribed by the law of the State in which the
sentence is imposed. In the case of a State without a death
penalty, the court will designate a State with capital punishment
and the execution will be carried out in that State, in the
manner prescribed by the law of that State. This means that the
only executions for offenses under the VCCLEA that could occur at
Terre Haute are those for which lethal injection was permissible
in the State in which the inmate was convicted.
We believe that it is highly desirable to have a uniform
system for implementing Federal death penalties in a Federal
institution. From a policy as well as a practical perspective,
it makes no sense to burden States with this clearly Federal
34
responsibility, particularly when the Bureau of Prisons has a
facility already built specifically for this task. H-R. 2359
would remedy this situation by amending 18 U.S.C. §3596 to allow
for the implementation of Federal death santences pursuant to
Federal regulations promulgated by the Attorney General. In
addition, 18 U.S.C. §3597 would be modified to provide for the
use of Federal facilities in carrying out Federal executions. As
a technical matter, the heading of section 3597 has not been
changed in H.R. 2359. The heading, which currently references
the use of state facilities, should be amended to read, "Use of
Federal Facilities."
The Department also suggests the addition to H.R. 2359 of
another necessary modification to the Federal death penalty
procedures. The VCCLEA created comprehensive death penalty
procedures for Federal crimes. However, the existing death
penalty procedures for drug crimes found under 21 U.S.C.
§848(g)-(r) were left intact. Repeal of these provisions will
remove potential confusion and litigation regarding their
application. One exception to our suggestion is found in 21
U.S.C. §848 (q) (4) - (10) , Which creates procedures that are not
duplicated as to subject matter in the VCCLEA. Therefore we
suggest that these procedures be retained and redesignated as 21
U.S.C. §848 (f H 1) -(7) (currently, through a codification error,
section 848 has no subsection (f))-
H.R. 2360 - Prisoner Community Service Projects
The Department strongly supports H.R. 2360, which would
allow Federal inmates to perform work, and provide products for
State governments, local governments or private, non-profit
organizations. Federal inmates currently perform maintenance and
clean-up work for various Federal entities such as the National
Park Service. This bill would give the Bureau of Prisons the
flexibility to develop agreements with non-Federal governmental
entities or private, non-profit groups to provide inmate labor
for community service projects.
H.R. 2360 would also allow Federal inmates to produce
minimum-cost products made from scrap materials and to donate
these products to State governments, local governments, or
charitable organizations. Examples of such products include
wooden or cloth toys that could be given to charitable agencies
assisting underprivileged or institutionalized children.
The Bureau of Prisons continues to look for additional work
opportunities in order to reduce inmate idleness and to keep
inmates constructively occupied in meaningful work programs that
teach marketable skills, instill good work habits and prepare
inmates for a productive life upon release from prison. This
proposal would create such an opportunity to put more inmates to
work without unduly impacting the private sector.
35
Again, we are pleased to assist the Subcommittee's
consideration of these bills. Please do not hesitate to contact
mo if you need any additional assistance.
^incerely, / *
Andrew Fois
Assistant Attorney General
cc: The Honorable Charles schumer
Ranking Minority Member
36
Mr. Dl Gregory. With me are Tom Kane, Assistant Director of
the Bureau of Prisons, and Milton Ahlerich, Assistant Director of
the Crime Labs of the FBI. They will assist me in answering any
questions you may have at the conclusion of my statement.
First, I'd like to talk about the DNA Identification Grants Im-
provement Act. The 1994 crime bill included the DNA Identifica-
tion Act of 1994 which contains a $40 miUion, 5-year grant pro-
gram in the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund for State and
focal crime laboratories to establish or improve forensic DNA test-
ing capabilities. The act provides for only $1 million in fiscal year
1996 and $31 million in the last 2 years, 1999 and the year 2000.
This flow of funds, if it is left unchanged, will work against the
purpose of the grant program which is to provide fimds to jump
start the DNA testing programs, thereby taking pressure off the
FBI laboratory to provide these services to States.
Early in 1995, you introduced H.R. 1241 to correct this flaw by
shifling grant funding authorization forward in the 5-year period
covered by the crime oill. As introduced, the bill also restructured
funding for the FBI to carry out responsibilities for operating a na-
tional DNA index system and administering the DNA Advisory
Board.
The Department of Justice does not support any changes to FBI
funding levels under the act, but still supports changing funding
authorization for State grants that would have the effect of making
significantly more funds available earlier in the 5-year period.
Because the House was unable to act on the H.R. 1241 in time
to effect the appropriations cycle for fiscal year 1996, the grant lev-
els in the bill for 1997 to the year 2000 should be adjusted to re-
flect the fact, we think, that only $1 million, and not $8 million as
stated in the original draft, was appropriated from the Violent
Crime Reduction Trust Fund by the House for State DNA grants
for fiscal year 1996. Therefore, we recommend that the funding lev-
els in H.R. 1241 be amended as detailed in our letter to the chair-
man.
We understand that the substitute— and you noted it today m
your statement, Mr. Chairman— for 1241 making these modifica-
tions will be offered and for the foregoing reasons.
Mr. McCoLLUM. That's correct.
Mr. Di Gregory. Secondly, I'd like to address the bill which was
introduced which would increase the penalty for escaping from a
Federal prison. We support this bill, the bill that would raise from
5 years to 10 years the maximum statutory penalty prescribed in
18 U.S. Code 751, subsection A, for escape from Federal custody
afler conviction or while awaiting trial on a felony charge.
The Department considers any criminal offense during the period
of an inmate's incarceration to be an egregious one. In particular,
prison escapes and attempted escapes represent a serious correc-
tional security concern for the Bureau of Prisons as well as a gen-
eral pubHc safety concern. We agree that the current 5-year pen-
alty seems inadequate to discourage escape attempts by Federal
prisoners pending trial or conviction, especially those who are fac-
ing lengthy sentences.
Next, I'll turn to the False Identification Act of 1995. H.R. 1552
would amend title 18 regarding false identification documents. The
37
first section amends 18 U.S. Code 1028 by reducing fi-om five to
three the number of ID documents the possession of which the in-
tention to use or transfer unlawfully constitutes an offense. This
proposal strengthens 1028 in a meaningful way, and we are in sup-
port of it.
The second section would enact a new section 1739, chapter 39,
title 18, U.S. Code. This provision would make it a felony to know-
ingly mail or produce for mailing any unverified identification doc-
ument which bears a birth date purporting to demonstrate that the
individual to whom the document pertains is over age 21 when the
individual is, in fact, less than 21 years of age.
We believe that it is entirely appropriate for Congress to focus
on the problems presented by the use of false identification docu-
ments. However, we oppose this specific proposal because it's too
broad. Under the bill an identification document is defined as "any
card intended to be used for identification purposes" and not just
a card created by or issued by a governmental entity as in the case
of section 1028 of title 18. Thus, an identification card, as Mr.
Schumer pointed out earlier, perhaps issued by the Boy Scouts of
America, would be covered under the proposed legislation.
We would be pleased to work with the subcommittee to assess
the specific harms that H.R. 1552 is intended to address and to tai-
lor, along with the subcommittee, a narrow remedy to address
these harms.
Next, I'll turn my attention to H.R. 2359, implementation of the
sentence of death.
H.R. 2359 would allow Federal executions to be carried out at
Federal facilities pursuant to uniform Federal regulations. The De-
partment strongly supports this proposal. Federal regulations at 28
CFR, part 26, which became effective in January 1993, stipulate
that Federal executions would occur in a Bureau of Prisons facility
under the auspices of the facilities' warden and the U.S. Marshals
Service. The method of execution would be lethal injection. In ac-
cordance with these regulations, the Bureau of Prisons identified
the U.S. penitentiary at Terre Haute for this purpose and recently
finished construction of a death row unit and execution facility
there.
However, use of the Terre Haute facility for Federal executions
is in question because of a little noted provision in the 1994 Crime
Act. Under the technical language found in a death penalty imple-
mentation, which is now codified at 18 U.S. Code 3596, executions
for offenses under the 1994 Crime Act are to carried out under su-
pervision of the U.S. Marshals Service in the manner prescribed by
the law of the State in which the sentence is imposed. In the case
of a State without the death penalty, that section provides that the
court will designate a State with capital punishment, and the exe-
cution will be carried out in that State in the manner prescribed
by the particular law of that State. This means that the only execu-
tion for offenses under the 1994 Crime Act that could occur at
Terre Haute are those for which lethal injection was permissible in
the State in which the inmate was convicted. We believe that it is
highly desirable to have a uniform system for implementing Fed-
eral death penalties in a Federal institution.
38
From a policy as well as practical perspective, it seems to make
no sense to burden States with this clearly Federal responsibility,
particularly when the Bureau of Prisons has a facility already built
specifically for this task. H.R, 2359 would remedy this situation by
amending 18 U.S. Code 3596 to allow for the implementation of
Federal death sentences pursuant to Federal regulations promul-
gated by the Attorney General. In addition, 18 U.S. Code 3597
would be modified for the — to provide for the use of Federal facili-
ties in carrying out executions.
I'll next turn my attention to H.R, 2360, Prisoner Community
Service Projects. The Department strongly supports H.R. 2360
which would allow Federal inmates to perform work and provide
products for State governments, local governments, or private non-
profit organizations. Federal inmates currently perform mainte-
nance and cleanup work for various Federal entities such as the
National Park Service. This bill would give the Bureau of Prisons
the flexibility to develop agreements with non-Federal Grovemment
entities or private nonprofit groups to provide inmate labor for
community service projects. H.R. 2360 would also permit Federal
inmates to produce minimal cost products made from scrap mate-
rials and to donate these products to State governments, local gov-
ernments, or charitable organizations. Examples of such products
include wooden or cloth toys that could be given to charitable agen-
cies assisting underprivileged or institutional children.
The Bureau of Prisons continues to look for additional work op-
portunities in order to reduce inmate idleness and to keep inmates
constructively occupied in meaningful work programs that teach
marketable skills and instill good work habits and prepare inmates
for a productive life upon release from prison. This proposal would
create such an opportunity to put more inmates to work without
unduly impacting the private sector.
Again, the Department of Justice is pleased to assist the sub-
committee's consideration of these bills, and we would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Di Gregory. I gather
that you're making the statement, and Mr. Kane and Mr. Ahierich,
if you have statements, you are welcome to make them, do you
wish to?
Mr. Kane. I have none, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Ahlerich. Nor do I, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Thank you.
Well, I have a couple of questions to ask, and I'm sure my col-
leagues do as well, about some of these bills at least so we can
have a better understanding of them.
With regard to the last bill, the prison bill with regard to these
products that are being produced — and I don't know whose the best
to answer, maybe Mr. Kane or Mr. Di Gregory. I'm very curious as
to whether you expect these services that are being provided by the
inmates will diminish in any way wages or benefits earned by the
recipient organizations. I think it needs to be very clear as to
whether you think they would and why they wouldn't, if they
wouldn't.
Mr. Kane. Absolutely not, Mr. Chairman. We expect that the im-
plementing regulations that will follow from this legislation would
39
clearly specify that any program to be considered by an institution
to involve inmates on behalf of a non-Federal or private nonprofit
should not in any way undercut the opportunity for civilian work-
ers to obtain employment if it were otherwise available to do this
kind of work. The idea is that we would supply primarily mainte-
nance and cleanup sort of labor to non-Federal governments, pri-
vate nonprofits, that would otherwise not be done.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Fair enough. I just want to make sure the
record's clearly put to rest on that point because it's often raised
with us when we start dealing with prison-made goods.
My understanding also is that this is going to be made from
waste or scrap materials, and is it true that these materials would
be just thrown away?
Mr. Kane. That is true, Mr. Chairman. The sort of donated
goods, as it were, that Mr. Di Gregory referred to — ^the examples
of toys for children who are infirm or institutionalized would be
made from scraps that otherwise are thrown away, and typically
there are textile scraps and wood scraps that are Federal prison in-
dustry's bjrproducts that could be used to do this. We simply do not
have the authority to
Mr. McCoLLUM. Do you know if any toy manufacturers or retail-
ers are concerned about this proposal?
Mr. Kane. Well, again, we believe we would be producing prod-
ucts of minimal value that also would not otherwise be available
to these children.
Mr. McCoLLUM. But nobody's come to you since this has been
floating around in bill form or otherwise that we think this is a
horrible idea or something, I gather? You haven't had any knocking
on your door?
Mr. Kane. We are aware of no one.
Mr. McCoLLUM. OK
Mr. Kane.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCOLLUM. And the last question in this area, you've got a
prohibition from reselling these donated goods by the recipient or-
ganization, and I'm just curious whether tnat's workable.
Mr. Kane. I'm sorry.
Mr. McCoLLUM. You've got a prohibition on the recipient from
reselling these products. Is that really workable? Can you effec-
tively prohibit that or is that just something we would like to pro-
hibit?
Mr. Kane. It's something that we certainly intend to prohibit,
and we have not attempted to design implementation strategies at
this point to actually prohibit, and if you wish, we could submit
something for the record.
Mr. McCoLLUM. I would appreciate that.
[The information follows:]
The Bureau of Prisons has not as yet flnalized implementation strategies designed
to prohibit organizations that would receive donated goods from reselling them.
However, when such strategies are developed, we will fully inform the Subcommit-
tee.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Mr. Ahlerich, I think maybe I should ask you
these questions about DNA. I think we ought to put on the record
whose going to be eligible for these DNA grants that are there and
40
what the States think about this effort to change the funding.
Would you do that please?
Mr. Ahlerich. Yes. Municipal and State laboratories would be
eligible to receive the grants, as it's envisioned right now. States,
as you may know, have done a good job over the last several years
of coming online with convicted offender statutes with 40 States
passing convicted offender statutes which allow for the collection of
DNA sample from convicted offenders. This system, as you know,
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, is designed to
allow for placing convicted offenders' DNA profile on record and
then at later time evidence from crime scenes being run against a
data base and giving assistance to those investigators. We are
starting to recognize success. The plan as it was envisioned we
really didn't know that it would work, but we now know that it
does. We have recorded 29 instances where associations have oc-
curred through the database — several occurring in your State, Mr.
Chairman — as a result of eight of your laboratories participating in
the CODIS program.
DNA testing is expensive and to develop the capabilities, we need
the seed money moved towards the front of the time frame instead
of the back of the time frame to get the seed money in place, so
that the State's can do what they need.
Mr. McCOLLUM. And, obviously, the States do support this, I
gather?
Mr. Ahlerich. They strongly support it. I maintain a close asso-
ciation with the American Society of Crime Lab Directors; they are
here in town in Quantico this week, and I know that they feel very
strongly about this and the need for some assistance, and some
grants will allow us to jump start the program.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Well, I know that you are very excited, your
agency is — ^the Justice Department — about the DNA prospects in
this whole area, and therefore, we are, too. It's a very fascinating
and very critical development.
I've had my time expire. I'll see if Mr. Schumer has some ques-
tions.
Mr. Schumer. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am in agree-
ment with your memo on these bills. But I did have one question —
one question on the death penalty statute — which, as you know, I
support and helped write in 1994. What would be the envisioned
time horizon, when would the prisoner be transferred to Terre
Haute? Would that be after every appeal?
Mr. Di Gregory. I, I
Mr. Schumer. How does that work? I come from a State where
we haven't had a death penalty, so I am not familiar with when
the transfer occurs. Our State has chosen one place as well, so the
idea of having it in every Federal penitentiary doesn't make any
sense. But, on the other hand, I am concerned about the access to
counsel, the ability to be with loved ones, and all of these other
things. And so, the first question I have is, when does the transfer
occur from whatever facility the prisoner is in to go to Terre
Haute?
Mr. Kane. Thank you. Congressman Schumer. The — I'm afraid
I'm not going to be able to give you a clear and concise answer at
41
this point, primarily because we haven't opened the death row at
Terre Haute as yet.
Mr. ScHUMER, Well, what happens in States that have had a
capital punishment statute?
Mr. Di Gregory. I can only speak to what happens in Florida
because I was a prosecutor there, Congressman.
Mr. ScHUMER. OK
Mr. Di Gregory. In Florida, all of the inmates who are sen-
tenced to death are transported immediately — well, not imme-
diately; they are usually left in the county jail facility. Their coun-
sel will have an opportunity to perfect a motion for a new trial and
notice of appeal. But they are sent directly to the Florida State
prison at Stark-
Mr. SCHUMER. Is there just one maximum-
Mr. Di Gregory. There's not — there are more than one maxi-
mum security prisons in the State, but that particular prison is
designated as
Mr. ScHUMER. So once conviction at the trial level occurs they all
go there?
Mr. Di Gregory. That's correct.
Mr. ScHUMER. And where is Stark?
Mr. Di Gregory. Stark is near — somewhere between Tallahassee
and Gainesville. Congressman McCollum may know better
Mr. McCollum. It's actually to the east toward Jacksonville
from Gainesville. It's kind of out in the middle of nowhere.
Mr. SCHUMER. OK, so how do they deal with that issue then?
Let's say the prisoner comes from Miami, the crime was in Miami,
the trial was in Miami, the attorney is in Miami, the family is in
Miami. The attorney has to travel to Stark
Mr. Di Gregory. To the best of my knowledge, yes, sir.
Mr. SCHUMER. Which is what, a 5- or 6-hour car ride, I would
guess.
Mr. Dl Gregory. Probably a little longer from Miami. I think
more like about 7 hours.
Mr. SCHUMER. So I guess my question then is, Mr. Di Gregory
or Mr. Kane, obviously, when you have a national situation it's a
little different. It's not even a 1-day car ride, but a plane ride and
everything else. How do you expect to deal with the issue of coun-
sel— I mean these appeals even with the tightening up of the ha-
beas corpus procedure will go on for a long period of time. You ex-
pect there to be iust the whole bar that will come in Terre Haute,
a new bunch of lawyers, and the prisoner will have to get a new
lawyer in Terre Haute? How does it all work? And what about fam-
ilies and things like that?
Mr. Kane. Again, Mr. Schumer, we are, as you are, very con-
cerned with not only the security of the death row, but also the hu-
mane and dignified treatment of these offenders, including access
to their families; we know that's important. And we chose the
Terre Haute location because of it's central geographic location in
the country. And we will have to balance as we open a unit those
issues of access with cost efficiency.
Perhaps under certain circumstances we could contract with the
State near the court of jurisdiction where appeals are being proc-
essed if the State has a death row. A unifying principle here for
42
us would be that these offenders be maintained on a death row. If
there is no State nearer Terre Haute with a death row, then pre-
sumably
Mr. ScHUMER. Well, that's easy, but most States do now have
them. Again, I think the legislation makes eminent sense. I think
it was inadvertent to let eacn State — ^you know let the Federal Gov-
ernment follow what went on in each State. That doesn't make
much sense. And so the concept of having one unified procedure
makes a good deal of sense to me, but having one death row may
be difficult.
And I would ask Mr. Chairman, that the Department of Justice
submit within a week maybe — at least a week before we mark up
the bill, whenever that will be, some writing on what thought has
gone into this and how you expect to deal with these questions.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Well, I would certainly concur in making that
request. We would like to mark this bill up — all of these bills up —
fairly soon after we get back from this recess. We will be out for
most next week, if not for all of it. So the earlier you can give us
a memo on this the better.
[See appendix.]
Mr. McCoLLUM. Mr. Heineman.
Mr, Heineman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome.
The bill before us has to deal with the funding of DNA, but it
doesn't have any details in there, and I'm a firm oeliever in DNA,
I think it's one of the best processes and procedures we've had
since we've refined the fingerprints and kept files on fingerprints.
Has there been any challenge to the constitutionality of filing DNA
identification?
Mr. Ahlerich. Yes, there's been a challenge in Virginia of one
individual who challenged us on the basis of lourth amendment is-
sues. This was heard in Federal court and was upheld at the court
of appeals level.
Mr. Heineman. What was upheld, the challenge or the law?
Mr. Ahlerich. The law was upheld.
Mr. Heineman. Was that a nontestimonial or was that just the
filing and keeping
Mr. Ahlerich. It dealt with the issue of collection of the blood.
The privacy issue and the intrusive nature of the collection of the
blood from the convicted offender was the basis of the appeal. And
it was upheld, the law was upheld.
Mr. Heineman. The purpose of collection was merely for future
identification?
Mr. Ahlerich. That's correct, the idea is — 40 States have passed
these convicted offender laws. For violent criminals and certainly
sex offenders, after conviction a court order is given as a matter of
routine, a profile is developed from that, and that is turned into
computer language and put on file for future reference.
Mr. Heineman. Something which I'm fully in favor of Is there
a quick turnaround on DNA? Somewhere earlier in the year, I
heard they had a process now that could turn DNA around in 2
weeks.
Mr. Ahlerich. The technologies are — there are different types of
DNA analysis, as you may know. The most discriminating is the
RFLP-based which takes several weeks for this to be completed.
43
There are newer technologies that are coming onHne, and you are
correct, that are faster. They are not as robust, they are not quite
as accurate, but they are faster. We are developing these tech-
nologies and putting them online in the FBI laboratory, they are
being put online in municipal laboratories in certain places, and
they've been used abroad also, sir.
Mr, Heineman, When you say "not quite as accurate," I didn't
know as it relates to DNA that there was a degree of accuracy.
Mr, Ahlerich. There is. It's a statistical probability. And I am
not a scientist, so forgive me, but I will take this as far as I can.
The best or most reliable and the one that gives the highest defini-
tion of precise statistical prediction is the RFLP. The PCR-based
types are less discriminating but, nonetheless, very reliable, ex-
tremely reliable. We're talking one in thousands versus with RFLP
one in millions and sometimes billions.
Mr. Heineman. OK, that basically would be used as a
disqualifier at some point?
Mr, Ahlerich, That's correct. Or a pointer to develop a suspect
that would then allow us to test further and go deeper and get
more precision fi'om tests.
Mr, Heineman, This funding that you're seeking and will get, I
assume, how is that used? As R&D?
Mr, Ahlerich, No. This is for grant money that would be admin-
istered by the Department's NIJ. And it's used to assist the States
in their development of their DNA testing capability, not for hiring
new employees, but rather for training the employees they have,
renovation of their space and other improvements to bring the test-
ing on line. We currently have 200 forensic laboratories in the
United States that do either DNA or serology work. Ninety to one
hundred of them are doing DNA work. They all want to do it in
most instances. It's an expensive technology. We have tried to play
a leading role in that we have trained 460 individuals over the last
several years from State and local laboratories to be able to carry
out DNA work, but we can't carry the workload on our own and
there are other trained facilities, that cost money, quite frankly,
that the States need,
Mr. Heineman, Thank you. I yield back my time.
Mr, McCoLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Heineman.
Mr, Scott,
Mr, Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On the DNA, you mentioned the different technologies. If Vir-
ginia had its profiles computerized and another State had used a
different technology, are they
Mr, Ahlerich, Compatible?
Mr, Scott, Compatible, yes.
Mr. Ahlerich. They are, Mr. Scott. The CODIS, the index sys-
tem that's being built, will allow for that. While different methods
are being used, still the computers can take this into account. Pro-
grams can be built — are being designed — that will allow for dif-
ferent technologies, and we can still test through the central bases.
Mr. Scott, Everybody's going to be compatible?
Mr, Ahlerich. Yes.
Mr, Scott, Everybody is compatible right now?
44
Mr. Ahlerich. They are. We are not on the national system yet.
There's three levels to this, the municipal, the State, and then the
national. We are operating on a municipal basis and on a state-
wide basis. For instance, Florida throughout the State laboratories
can be checked. But the national level is expected to be turned on,
at least tested within 6 months.
Mr. Scott. I know you mentioned Virginia. Last time I checked,
which was a couple oi years a^o when I was in the legislature, we
were drawing the blood, but didn't have enough money to actually
do the tests and the profile. So if you had a suspect, you could
check out the suspects by going back to the blood. And once a pro-
file was put in the computer, you wouldn't use that as evidence;
you would use that as probable cause to have a new test taken and
then you would compare the new test to the evidence, and that way
you wouldn't get caught up in the chain of custody with all the
Mr. Ahlerich. No charges are filed strictly on a computer match,
but rather there has to be further expert analysis — scientific analy-
sis.
Mr. Scott. Of the new blood. And I would assume that — could
this money be used to help Virginia to convert the stored blood that
hasn't been tested?
Mr. Ahlerich. Indeed, it could through the training of their ern-
ployees, training new employees. But it will not pay — ^it's not envi-
sioned to pay salaries or to build new facilities.
Mr. Scott. Not equipment?
Mr. Ahlerich. Yes, equipment, supplies, and training and ren-
ovation of current space is envisioned by the grants.
Mr. Scott. OK, let me move to another bill, on the escapee bill.
The evidence we have wasn't quite consistent with the numbers
that Mr. Bryant gave. I've got different numbers. How many
escapees do we have — I've got 1994, one escapee from inside a se-
cure facility. Is that accurate?
Mr. Kane. Congressman Scott, that is accurate.
Mr. Scott. And of the guys that escaped fi*om the essentially un-
secure facilities, how many of them committed crimes?
Mr. Kane. While on escaped status?
Mr. Scott. Right.
Mr. Kane. I'm sorry, I don't have data on that with me. Mr. Di
Gregory. No.
Mr. Scott. If they did not commit any crimes on escaped status,
then there wouldn't be much point in the bill because you are add-
ing 5 additional years of expense, in addition to when you catch
them they've got to serve whatever they escaped from. If they are
not committing any m.ore crimes, then there's no point to the bill.
If they are committing a lot of crimes, then there is a point to the
bill. So we would like to know essentially what we'd be getting for
the additional money we'd be spending in terms of crime reduction.
So if you can get those numbers.
[The information follows:]
In 1994, the number of walkways (escapes) from the Bureau of Prisons nonsecure
facilities was 211.
Mr. Scott. On the ID bill, the bill says that whoever knowingly
sends through the mails. Is "the mails" a term of art so we know
what we're talking about?
45
Mr. Di Gregory. I assume that the bill meant United States
mail, as opposed
Mr. Scott. We need to make that clear.
Mr. Di Gregory. But one of the things that could be added to
the bills, consistent with the amendments to the mail fraud stat-
utes that were made in last year's crime bill, would be to include
private carriers like Federal Express.
Mr. Scott. OK, and on the death penalty bill, in State death
penalty cases 40 percent are subsequently overturned for various
reasons. Do we have any evidence on how many federally-imposed
death penalties are overturned on appeal?
Mr. Dl Gregory. I don't have anything for you at this time, Con-
gressman.
Mr. Scott. If it's anywhere close to that, then I think that the
questions that the gentleman from New York asked would be ex-
tremely important, because if you've got people who are in fact in-
nocent or wrongfully sentenced or improperly sentence, you've cre-
ated an impossible situation by forcing them to — Mr. Chairman, if
I could ask just one more question?
Mr. McCoLLUM. Go ahead, Mr. Scott.
Mr. ScOTT. Are you suggesting that there's deterrent effect to the
death penalty? Because moving people to a State — because having
somebody put to death in Indiana isn't going to have deterrent ef-
fect on somebody committing a crime in Virginia. So, you're not
suggesting that's there's any deterrent effect in the death penalty,
are you?
Mr. Dl Gregory. I'm just suggesting that a more uniform meth-
od, the Federal death penalty, is desirable from the Department's
point of view.
Mr. Scott. But not for the purposes of preventing crime.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Mr. Bryant, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bryant of Tennessee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Scott brings up a good issue in terms of the numbers, and
I will check into that, but let me bring up a point he just raised
regarding the death penalty. I'm one of those who believes that the
death penalty does serve as a deterrent for people from committing
murder, crimes like that. Not everyone will be deterred — just as
going to jail does not deter everyone from committing crime, be-
cause our jails are full of people who were not deterred, but it does
deter some people, and I think the death penalty would deter some
people who mi^t be contemplating committing murder.
Mr. Di Gregory, does the fact that — let's say someone commits a
Federal capital offense in Florida, and he is tried and convicted,
and he goes through the appeals process and then ultimately would
go to Indiana to have the actual sentence enforced. If one believes
that the death penalty is a deterrent, would the mere fact that he
is actually executed in Indiana make any difference to the deter-
rent effect you'd have in Florida with, I'm sure, the media coverage
that had preceded the death penalty as well the media coverage
that would cover that? Is there any relationship between the fact
that he's executed one place in this deterrent equation?
Mr. Di Gregory. I — ^that's a difficult question to answer. I hon-
estly don't know whether there is or there isn't. Congressman.
46
Mr. Bryant of Tennessee. Would the fact that there would be
media coverage of the death penalty — maybe CNN and whatever
else, maybe live coverage — maybe not live coverage, but>— beamed
back to the State. I'm not sure that I see the connection that you
merely move someone to a central location for a uniform procedure
of execution, and how that would play back into this equation of
deterrence back in the home State. I'm not sure I follow that. And
I'm not sure I'm making myself clear to you. But is there any con-
nection to that argument Mr. Scott makes? Do you see any validity
to that argument that he makes?
Mr. Dl Gregory. I don't, I don't — I'm really not here to comment
on the validity of one person's argument — on one Cong^ressperson's
arguments or another. And I hope you will allow me to simply pass
on that one, and say to you what I said to Congressman Scott, that
the reason that we think that this is desirable legislation is that
it will make uniform the manner in which capital punishment is
implemented by the Federal Grovernment. As the law stands right
now, someone convicted under title 18 of a capital offense is subject
to the provision that I mentioned earlier that is currently on the
books, which would subject them to the method of execution in the
State in which they were convicted. And someone who is convicted
under title 21 is subject to the Federal regulations which call for
lethal injection. And it may be that we will have someone convicted
in a State where there is another method of execution other than
lethal injection. We think that uniformity would be desirable.
Mr. Bryant of Tennessee. Thank you.
Mr. Kane, you're with the DOJ. I take it that you support this
concept of imification?
Mr. Kane. Absolutely, Mr. Bryant.
Mr. Bryant of Tennessee. Now Congressman Schumer brought
up a very good point, I thought, in terms of working out the details.
Could this possibly be extended to maybe regional locations beyond
the one in Indiana, if that truly becomes a problem — if you could
go to maybe two or three additional regional locations where the
death penalty could be implemented?
Mr. Kane. It would be very costly to do that, sir.
Mr. Bryant of Tennessee. And I take it, Mr. Ahlerich, that the
BOP supports all of these bills that we're talking about today?
Mr. AJiLERlCH. The FBI certainly does, sir, yes.
Mr. Bryant of Tennessee. You're the FBI?
Mr. Ahlerich. Yes, sir, I am.
Mr. Bryant of Tennessee. Oh, I'm sorry, I've got you down for
the Bureau of Prisons on our list.
Mr. Ahlerich. That's all right; they're a fine organization.
Mr. Bryant of Tennessee. Thank all of you for coming today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Bryant.
Mr. Watt, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to spend all my
time with Mr. Ahlerich here. I'm not sure I'm pronouncing your
name right. Is it
Mr. Ahlerich. It's Ahlerich, sir.
Mr. Watt. Ahlerich. On this DNA bill, you may recall that I was
one of two or three Members of Congress the last time who voted
47
against upgrading and expanding the CODIS system. I've trying to
get my conservative colleagues \^o keep saying they are more con-
servative then me to come to the understanding that this is the ul-
timate example of Big Brother, When we take somebody's blood,
and we put it in a central storage bank and we analyze it, it's even
beyond fingerprints. Because, as I understand it, I have on me one
set of fingerprints, and I'm the only person in the world that has
that. But this is a statistical analysis. It's really not an individual
analysis. So, I'm very troubled by a government doing this, particu-
larly in cases like the one you said nad been tested in court, even
though the courts upheld what was being done — where a person
who just happens to be in jail for some offense gets his blood taken
from him and put into a bank unconnected to that particular of-
fense. And so I want to ask a couple of very pointed questions
about some concerns that I have along this line.
First of all, at the time that we voted on this issue — expansion
of the CODIS system and upgrading it — the last time the Federal
Government really had no standards or criteria for what was an ac-
ceptable DNA testing process. Do we have any standards or criteria
now by which we measure whether this stuff we're getting is reli-
able?
Mr. Ahlerich. Yes, we do. The laboratories that have partici-
gated in DNA profiling — the FBI taking the lead and certain other
tates — most other States — ^have banded together in a working
group over the years to develop a standard
Mr. Watt. I won't ask you to tell me what the standards are now
because we've got only 5 minutes, but I would love to have the
written standards that have been developed in this area. I think
this is criticallv important if we are going to have this system —
which I don't think we ought to have — that we at least have some
specific standards by which we are measuring the reliability. And
if you could give me in writing
Mr. Ahlerich. Two quick answers to that. The interim stand-
ards that were adopted and put into the law and recognized by the
Congress were the technical working group on DNA which dealt
basically with quality assurance issues in terms of the amount of
training, proficiency testing, general quality of laboratory proce-
dures. The Congress also gave the standard- setting authority to the
Director of the FBI who will be advised by an advisory board who
has — that has been appointed by the Director of the FBI in March
of this year, chaired by Dr. Joshua Lederberg, a Nobel prize-win-
ning scientist.
Mr. Watt. I don't want to cut you off because I want this infor-
mation, but you're not going to be able to give me — I'd love to see
the process by which you got to the standards — which is what
you're talking about — and the standards, if I can, in writing.
Mr. Ahlerich. I'd be happy to supply that.
[The information follows:]
48
10/6/95
PKppnwBFfl TO CONGRESSMAN WATTES QUESTIONS DURING FBI TESTIMONY
BEFORE TPB HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE ON SEPTEMBER 28. 1995
1 Please provide the current written standards for acceptance
of data into the FBI's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and the
current written standards for DNA testing in the forensic crime
laboratory community.
Response: Attached for your review are the written standards for
accepting data into CODIS, and also the written standards used by
the forensic laboratory community for DNA testing. These later
standards have been designated the interim standards by Congress
until the FBI Director's DNA Advisory Board, which was
established by Congress in the 1994 Crime Bill, advises the
Director on a revised set of standards for use in DNA testing.
2 Can the FBI Labora^-oty provide assurances that the FBI is not
working to develop z. 'profile" of a criminal, or who might be
capable of criminal act^ -l^y, based upon genetic information
contained in DNA profiles of convicted offenders in CODIS?
Response: Yes. The DNA profiles in CODIS are used only for the
specific purpose of identifying an individual. This
identification is used only to include or exclude a person as a
suspect in a crime, based on a DNA match, or the lack of a match
The FBI is not now, and will not in the future, develop a profile
of a criminal based on genetic information from DNA samples m
CODIS.
Approved :
Milton E. Ahlerich
Assistant Director
Laboratory Division
49
CODIS
STANDARDS FOR CODIS ACCEPTANCE OF DNA DATA
DRAFT - January 29. 1996
Send comments to Dr Barry Brown. Room 3658. Tenth Street Northwest. Washington. D C
20535, (202) 324-1337 FAX 202-324-1276 .
50
drafi revised Januan 19 1996 draft
Table of Contents
Definitions 1
Purpose 6
Correspondence 6
Changes in the STANDARDS FOR CODIS ACCEPTANCE OF DNA DATA 6
Laboratory Procedures and Practices 7
CODIS SutKcrlber Obligations 7
Waivers 7
Application for a Waiver 8
Sections Subject to CODIS RFLP Waivers 9
Waiver - Laboratory Procedures and Practices 9
Waiver - RFLP Protocol; 9
Waiver - RFLP Human DNA control; 14
Waiver - Minimum loci constituting a DNA profile accepted by CODIS: 14
RESTRICTION FRAGMENT LENGTH POLYMORPHISM (RFLP) METHODS 15
Protocol; 16
Changes to the CODIS protocol: 16
CODIS check samples: 16
Molecular weight size marker (MWSM): 17
Human DNA control; 17
Monomorphic human DNA controls: 19
Interpretation of DNA profiles: 19
CODIS accepted loci; 20
Minimum loci constituting a DNA profile accepted by CODIS: 21
Application of probes: 21
Accepted molecular weight size marker: 21
draft '•''■a''
51
draft revised Januan.' 39. 1996 draft
Definitions
Allele - Operationally, one of several variable number of tandem repeat DNA sequences which may be
found at a given locus. An allele is described by the approximate number of base pairs it contains.
Alternative Image Analysis Work Station - An image analysis work station that uses software developed by
an organization, company, or individual other than the FBI.
Amplification - Increasing the number of copies of a desired DNA sequence.
Amplification Blank - A control that consists of only amplification reagents without the addition of sample
DNA This control is used to detect DNA contamination of the amplification reagents and materials.
Analytical Electrophoretic gel type - Analytical electrophoretic gel type is defined by the category of
specimens that are loaded onto the gel. These classes are population, forensic, convicted offender and
missing persons. Examples: population analytical electrophoretic gel type - only population specimens are
on the analytical gel; population/convicted offender analytical electrophoretic gel type (mix category
example) - one or more population and convicted offender specimens are on the analytical gel.
Autoradiooram - An image produced on a piece of film by radioactive or chemiluminescent material.
CODIS - Originally, the COmbined DNA Index System, it now refers to the national DNA identification index.
CODIS contains four separate files or indexes: population, forensic, convicted offender and missing
persons The DNA profiles in CODIS are used for law enforcement purposes only, and access is limited to
public law enforcement DNA cnme laboratones. CODIS facilitates comparisons of DNA records to
generate investigative leads. It also functions as a national repository for population DNA records, of use in
accessing the statistical significance of a forensic DNA match
CODIS compansons - Comparisons of one DNA record to another for the purpose of establishing an
association between two specimens.
CODIS Check Sample - A DNA sample, in the form of a body fluid stain, that produces known restnction
patterns of one or more alleles at each locus supported by CODIS. The fragment sizes of these alleles will
not be disclosed to the DNA analyst The patterns derived from the CODIS Check Sample are compared
with expected patterns to evaluate the acceptability of the analytical results from a CODIS subscnber for
inclusion in CODIS files
CODIS protocol - The DNA analysis procedure used to perform DNA profiling in a CODIS subscribing
laboratory It is a method that produces reliable and CODIS compatible DNA results
draft
52
Jratt revised Januan' 29. 1996 draft
CODIS subscriber - Any federal, state, or local public forensic DNA analysis laboratory conducting DNA
Identification analysis for law enforcement purposes and which has access to CODIS CODIS access can
include adding, changing, deleting, and using DNA Identification records
Convicted offender - See offender.
Convicted offender file - See offender file.
Convicted offender sample - See offender sample
Cvcle - The PCR cycle consists of three steps: 1) Denaturation of the template. 2) Annealing of primers to
complementary sequences at an empirically determined temperature, and 3) Extension of bound pnmers
by a DNA polymerase
DNA Contamination - The unintentional introduction of exogenous DNA into a DNA sample or PCR reaction
pnor to amplification
DNA Record - The numerical representation of a DNA profile that is in a form suitable for computer
storage, processing, and retrieval.
Extension • The covalent linkage of deoxyribonucleoside tnphosphates in a template-directed manner by
DNA polymerase Linkage is in a 5' to 3' direction starting from the 3' end of bound pnmers PCR pnmers
are extended one nucleotide at a time by a DNA polymerase dunng each PCR cycle.
Forensic file - The CODIS file (or index) that contains the DNA results from the analysis of crime scene
body fluid stains The DNA records contained in this file onginate from cases with suspects and from cases
without suspects This file is searched to establish a link between two or more cases on file.
Forensic sample - A body fluid stain or body part tfiat is found at the scene of a crime. DNA analysis is
conducted to establish an association between the crime scene and an individual, normally a perpetrator.
DNA profiles developed from separate cnme scenes are compared to identify cases perpetrated by a senal
offender
Hybridization - The process of complementary base painng between two single strands of DNA and/or
RNA
Image Analysis Work Station - The computer assisted image capture and processing system used in the
interpretation of DNA profiles
draft
53
dran>vv,scdJanuarv29. 1996 draft
Human DNA control - A specimen from a single human source analyzed concurrently with other DNA
specimens The patterns derived from the human DNA control are compared at local, state, and national
CODIS levels with expected patterns to evaluate the acceptability of the results for inclusion in CODIS files.
Kllobase (kb) - Unit of 1 ,000 base pairs of DNA or 1000 bases of RNA
Laboratory - See CODIS subscriber.
Locus - A location in the human genome revealed by the application of a specific probe Loci supported by
CODIS are polymorphic, and hence of value in forensic Identification.
Missing Person file - The CODIS file (or index) that contains the DNA results from the analysis of body
parts blood of a living or deceased person whose identity is unknown, blood or other tssues from the
missing person collected pnor to their disappearance, and close biological relatives of missing persons.
The DNA record from the missing person is searched against the DNA results from missing persons pnor to
their disappearance, when available Alternatively, the DNA record from the missing person is searched
against the DNA records from the close biological relatives of reported missing persons.
Molecular Weight Size Marker (MWSM) - The MWSM. commonly referred to as the "ladder" or "sizing
ladder" contains DNA of varying known fragment sizes. It is separated by size along with specimens being
subjected to DNA analysis on the same analytical electrophoretic gel It is used for reference to determine
the molecular weights or base pair sizes of the alleles present in specimens
Molecular weight - Used interchangeably with fragment size or number of base pairs. " as the unit of
measure of alleles revealed by RFLP/Southem blot DNA analysis
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899
Offender - An individual who has been convicted of a cnme defined by statute and whose DNA profile is
legally required for inclusion in a DNA identification index
Offender file - The CODIS computer file (or index) that contains DNA kJentification records resulting from
the DNA profiling of convicted offenders.
Offender sample - A body fluid sample containing DNA. typically a blood sample, that is collected from a
convicted offender for the purpose of DNA profiling. These DNA profiles are used to establish an index of
DNA identification records that can then be searched for matches against the DNA derived from a cnme
scene DNA profile.
PCR An acronym for the Polymerase Cham Reaction. The PCR is an enzymatic process by which a
specific region of DNA is replicated dunng the repetitive cycles (see Cycle)
;/,;« draft
54
Imtlnvi^edJanuan. 2') IW6 'iraft
Perpetrator - The perpetrator Is the individual who commits a cnme(s) The identity of a perpetrator may or
may not be known to the police.
Polymorphism - A vanation in the sequence at a given locus where no one allele exists in more than 99
percent of the population
Population file - The CODIS computer file that contains DNA results derived from population samples.
Population sample - A body fluid sample containing DNA. typically a blood sample from an anonymous
individual that is subjected to DNA analysis. The results of the DNA analysis are examined along with many
other samples for statistical purposes The statistical analysis then is applied to the interpretation of
forensic DNA results. The population samples form the basis of the analyst's opinion as to the significance
of a DNA match
Pnmers - Small oligonucleotides complementary to the 3' ends of the target DNA sequence A pair of
pnmers specifies the boundaries of the region being amplified dunng the PCR
Probe - A single-stranded DNA fragment which is radioactively labeled and used to detect its
complementary DNA sequence (the allele) in DNA denved from a specimen For example the alleles at
the genetic locus D2S44 are detected using the probe YNH24
Quality Assurance - Those planned or systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that a
product or service will satisfy given requirements for quality.
Quality Audit - A systematic and independent examination and evaluation to determine whether quality
activities and results comply wrth planned arrangements and whether these arrangements are
implemented effectively and are suitable to achieve obiecDves
Quality Control - The day-to-day operational techniques and the activities used to fulfill requirements of
quality
Quality Plan - A document setting out the specific quality practices resources and activities relevant to a
particular product, process, service contract or project
Reagent blank - This control consists of all reagents used in the test procedure minus any sample. This is
used to detect DNA contamination of the analytical reagents and matenals
Restriction Enzyme - A bactenal enzyme that recognizes a specific palindromic sequence of nucleotides in
:ouDle-stranded DNA and cleaves both strands: also called a restriction endonuclease
draft
55
■iseciJanuan'J9. 1996
draft
Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) - The variation occurnng in the length of DNA
fragments revealed by digestion with a specific restriction enzyme.
RFLP/Southern blot DNA anal\fsis - The DNA analysis method taught by the FBI Laboratory. It involves the
extraction and punfication of DNA from a specimen followed by; restncton endonuclease digestion;
electrophoretic separation of the digested DNA fragments; immobilization of the separated DNA fragments
by Southern blot transfer to a membrane; and detection using single-locus probes, applied to and stripped
from the membrane sequentially.
Southern Blot - DNA that has been separated by electrophoresis, transferred from the gel to an immobile
support (e.g., nitrocellulose or nylon), and bonded onto the support in single-strand form for hybridization.
Specimen - The body fluid, typically blood or semen, that is the object of DNA analysis for purposes related
to forensic identification or statistical population sampling.
SRM - Standard Reference fvlatenal is standard reference matenal available for analytical calibration
purposes. Specifically SRM 2390 "DNA Profiling Standard" (1992) is DNA reference matenal for the
Human DNA Control K562. It is available from NISI. Attention; Standard Reference Material Program.
Stnnoencv - The conditions of hybndization that increase the specificity of binding between two single-strand
portions of nucleic acids, usually the probe and the immobilized fragment Increasing the temperature or
decreasing the ionic strength results in increased stnngency
Suspect - An individual whose identity is known to the police and who is believed by the police to be the
perpetrator of a crime.
Victim - The individual who directly suffers as a result of the commission of a cnme For example, a woman
who is sexually assaulted is a victim
drafi
56
dntfl revised Januan 29. 1 996 '^fi
STANDARDS FOR CODIS ACCEPTANCE OF DNA DATA
Purpose
The CODIS concept is based on a single central repository of DNA records. These DNA records
will be locally generated by subscnbing laboratones from around the country. The centralized repository of
DNA records will be used to generate investigative leads and to establish statistical estimates of significance
of DNA matches in case work. These system-virtde standards have been established thereby ensuring that
only reliable and compatible DNA profiles are contained in the CODIS files.
Correspondence
Any correspondence regarding STANDARDS FOR CODIS ACCEPTANCE OF DNA DATA should
be sent to:
Attention: NDIS Custodian
CODIS Program
FBI Laboratory, Rm 3658
Tenth Street. Northwest
Washington, DC 20535
Changes in the STANDARDS FOR CODIS
ACCEPTANCE OF DNA DATA
From time to time changes to the STANDARDS FOR CODIS ACCEPTANCE OF DNA DATA may
be issued These changes will be promptly instituted in CODIS subscnbing laboratories upon notification of
the changes. Any laboratory recommending a change to the STANDARDS FOR CODIS ACCEPTANCE
OF DNA DATA shall contact CODIS Program office in wnting. This communication should include the
name of a contact person and telephone number, as well as a descnption of the proposed change and any
reasons that would justify the change
CODIS will accept a DNA profile after it is determined to be compliant with the STANDARDS FOR
CODIS ACCEPTANCE OF DNA DATA in effect at the time the DNA profile was derived or compliant with
the standards that are in place at the time the DNA profile is offered. For example, a "new" molecular
weight size marker may be added to the list of acceptable molecular weight size markers. Any DNA
profiles offered but previously reiected solely as a result of the use of the previously unrecognized
molecular weight size marker will be accepted after the STANDARDS FOR CODIS ACCEPTANCE OF
DNA DATA are revised to include the new " molecular weight size marker
draft
57
dralitvvisedJanuatx 29. 1996
Laboratory Procedures and Practices
All DNA profiles offered to CODIS will be produced in accordance with good laboratory practices.
The CODIS subscnber will follow tts established and documented quality assurance procedures whenever
offering a DNA profile to CODIS. These procedures will include, at a minimum, compliance with the current
TWGDAM Document on Quality Assurance.
CODIS Subscriber Obliaatiorrs
CODIS may, from time to time, send DNA samples to a CODIS subscnbing laboratory for DNA
profiling analysis The CODIS subscnbing laboratory will analyze the sample(s) according to instructions
included with the samples.
Waivers
CODIS viflll conditionally accept DNA results obtained pnor to the effective date of the
STANDARDS FOR CODIS ACCEPTANCE OF DNA DATA Waivers will only be granted to certain
sections of the STANDARDS FOR CODIS ACCEPTANCE OF DNA DATA. These sections are disclosed
under Sections Subject to CODIS RFLP Waivers" Except as otheiwise herein noted, no waivers will be
granted to DNA records derived after the issuance of STANDARDS FOR CODIS ACCEPTANCE OF DNA
DATA including current quality assurance procedures as descnbed by TWGDAM
CODIS will grant a waiver only after the DNA results covered by the application are demonstrated
by the laboratory to be reliable and CODIS compatible The granted waiver m\\ only apply to those DNA
records listed in the waiver The laboratory will retain documents, including notes, raw data, and other
appropnate matenals that support the waiver application
Jrafl
58
draft revited Januan 29. 1996 '^"'fi
Application for a Waiver
The format depicted in Figure 1 shall be followed in the application for a waiver of STANDARDS
FOR CODIS ACCEPTANCE OF DNA DATA. The application will specify the DNA results that are to be
covered by the waiver:
Figure 1 Application for a Waiver of CODIS Standards.
Application tor a Waiver
DATE
LABORATORY
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NUMBER
CONTACT PERSON
REASON FOR WAIVER
DNA RESULTS COVERED BY THE WAIVER
DATE OF FIRST DNA RESULT -
DATE OF LAST DNA RESULT -
CATEGORY OF SPECIMENS (population (orensic offender, missing person and/or population) ■
GENERAL COMMENTS
DATA SUPPORTING WAIVER
draft
59
draft
drall revised Januan- 29. 1996
q,.rtmn'- g..hj..rt tn rnnis RFLP Waivers
Applications for waivers to the sections from STANDARDS FOR CODIS ACCEPTANCE OF DNA
DATA listed below will be accepted. No other waivers will be granted. Granting of a waiver is at the sole
discretion of National CODIS Custodian, and a waiver may be denied for any reason.
Waiver - Laboratory Procedures and Practices
Waivers may be granted for those DNA records that were derived pnor to the issuance of,
TWGDAM Guidelines on Quality Assurance, as described by TWGDAM. when rt is determined that the DNA
results covered by the waiver are nonetheless reliable. The laboratory must demonstrate that the qualified
DNA records were derived in a manner largely consistent with the Guidelines For Quality Assurance for
DNA Analysis", as described by TWGDAM.
The application shall state the specific standards described by TWGDAM that were not followed in
denving the specific DNA profiles covered by the application. Also the dates these analyses were
conducted shall be provided. The certification shall be signed and dated (date signed) by a DNA
Supervisor an individual who is administratively responsible for the DNA analysis work of laboratory
personnel Finally the Laboratory Director shall certify that the laboratory has followed all other standards
described by TWGDAM. and that the DNA Supervisor is qualified to make the certifications of compliance.
Waiver - RFLP Protocol:
Waiver to Paragraph 5 under RFLP Protocol:
Data demonstrating that Image Analysis Work Station system other than that developed by the FBI
(alternative lAW) produces reliable and CODIS compatible DNA records is required. Also, a test plan and
data demonstrating the conversion of the electronic fomnat of the DNA records to a CODIS compatible
format are required The electronic conversion of DNA records to a CODIS data compatible format must
be demonstrated to retain the mtegnty of the DNA record through the conversion process
The waiver application shall include a detailed descnption of the alternative lAW software and
hardware The alternative lAW system must feature: capture of a digital image, semi-automatic band
placement- geometnc correction for electronic migration and electronic capture: and recording of numencal
results The application shall specifically state which of these features are supported by the alternative lAW
(all are required). The application shall also include a detailed descnption of all secunty features of the
alternative lAW. including those secunty features specified by CODIS.
draft
60
ilralt revised Januan 29. 1996 draft
The minimum data required to demonstrate compatibility and reliability of the alternative lAW are
band size determinations obtained using the FBI developed image analysis work station and the alternative
lAW. These comparative determinations shall be performed on the same autoradlogram or set of
autoradiograms. Some or all autoradiograms may, at the discretion of CODIS, be furnished by CODIS for
comparative sizing. When provided by CODIS, these autoradiograms shall be sized according to
instructions provided by CODIS.
When CODIS does not provide autoradiograms, size determinations of at least three different
alleles vwthin each of the following size ranges are required;
less than 1500 base pairs (bp)
1501 bpto2000bp
2001 bp to 2500 bp
2501 bp to 3500 bp
3501 bp to 4500 bp
4501 bp to 5500 bp
5501 bpto6500bp
6501 bpto7500bp
7501 bptoSOOObp
8001 bp to 8500 bp
8501 bp to 9000 bp
9001 bp to 9500 bp
greater than 9500 bp
All alleles exhibited by a DNA sample at a locus used for companson purposes shall be sized. Also.
the autoradiograms from which size determinations were rendered, along with the base pair determinations,
shall be submitted wrth the waiver application Documents that descnbe the procedure employed during the
evaluation shall be provided. This shall include a clear articulation of which samples on each submitted
autoradlogram were sized These data shall be submitted to CODIS in the format depicted in Figure 2.
Since CODIS virtll maintain a list of acceptable alternative lAWs, it is recommended that a laboratory
wishing to employ an alternative lAW contact CODIS pnor to conducting a comparative analysis.
DNA profiles denved using an alternative lAW softwareAvork station will only be accepted by CODIS
after the alternative lAW has been demonstrated to meet all CODIS performance standards, including reliability,
compatibility, and data integrity.
Image Analysis Software and Data Secuntv Software and data security are required of an alternative
lAW The level of security must be. at a minimum equivalent to that offered by the CODIS supported Image
Analysis Work Station and data files.
draft
61
draft revised Jonuat\' JP. 1996
draft
A software security description, a test plan, risk analysis, and ttie results of the tests performed in
accordance witfi the test plan are required for CODIS evaluation of the alternative lAW. The nsk analysis will
descnbe the alternative lAW secunty features as the features relate to potential compromise of the
confidentiality and integnty of the data acquired using and stored In the alternative lAW system.
The secunty requirements listed herein are Intended only as a summary. Other CODIS security
requirements may exist. Additional secunty and CODIS interface requirements for alternative Image Analysis
Work Stations will be published separately.
Some of these secunty measures are:
User Authentication and Access Control - The software must uniquely distinguish each user of the
software from every other user No user will be able to falsely identify him/herself
Transaction log - The software will record the image analysis work station activities related to imaging
and editing/deleting DNA profiles Some of the required transaction activities are who did what (add/edit/delete)
and when
Backup and Restore Procedures - The alternative lAW software will feature procedures that reduce or
eliminate the impact of system hardware failures or malicious user activities
Partitioning of User Authority - The alternative lAW software will segregate the activities that one user
may perform while another user may not (add/edit/view/delete)
Data Base Integrity - Software features that effectively prevent the alteration or deletion of DNA records
are required Thus, for example, a DNA profile can not be changed or deleted in a way that circumvents other
alternative lAW software secunty features.
Unattended Software Protection - The alternative lAW software must ensure that the active software
can not be used by a user other than the user logged in the system Thus, the software, for example, may
automatically turn itself off after a penod of non-attendance
Object Re-Use - The alternative lAW software must function in a way that prevents the re-use of data
or data elements that have been altered or deleted. Thus when a change or delete is executed, only the
change or delete is retained The unintended restoration of altered data elements shall be precluded. This
includes the use of back/restore procedures.
User Security Training - CODIS requires a user security training plan that covers the nature of the
security training and how the training will be conducted
draft
23-253 96-3
62
draft revised Januarv 29. 1996 draft
Other - The CODIS security requirements may ctiange from time to time Upon notification of new or
additional security requirements, the altemative lAW software will be promptly modified to encompass the new
or additional security requirements.
Duration of the waiver: A waiver granted under this paragraph will remain in effect until CODIS issues
superseding security requirements and/or superseding minimum performance standards. Previously granted
warvers may be renewed upon approval by CODIS. Approval for a waiver renewal will be granted only after
additional Information relevant to the superseding requirements are found by CODIS to ensure that the
superseding requirements are met by the altemative lAW.
draft
63
drajl revised January 29. 1996
Figure 2. Alternative lAW/CODIS lAW Comparison Work Sheet.
draft
ALTERNATIVE IMAGE ANALYSIS WORK STATION
data dennonstrating CODIS compatibility and reliability
LABORATORY: DATE: DETERMINATION:
BAND RANG£ BANP# AUTORAD#/ ANALYST CODIS RSLT ALT. lAW RSLT % DIFF
LANE#
<1500bp
1501/2000
2001/2500
2501/3500
3501/4500
4501/5500
5501/6500
S50 1/7500
7501/8000
8001/8500
8501/9000
9001/9500
>9500
Use one (omi for each set of data determinations
BAND » List the evaluated tiand first then any other alleles
% DIFF Percent difference calculated as follows
'00 % X (CODIS lAW RSLT (result) - AITERN lAW RSLT)
CODIS lAW RSLT
draft
64
draft revised Januarv 29. 1996 draft
Waiver - RFLP Human DNA control:
Waiver to Paragraph 1 under Human ONA Control:
All analytical electrophoretic gels exhibiting DNA profiles for use by or Inclusion in CODIS will also
exhibrt a human DNA control. Human DNA controls other than K562 (alternative human DNA control) will only
be accepted when sufficient data are presented to determine acceptable values for the alternate human DNA
control
The waiver application shall include the initial and final dates on which analyses using the altemative
human DNA control were performed and the total number of specimens listed by class (for example,
population, convicted offenders, etc.).
CODIS will review the waiver application and either reject or tentatively accept the application. Upon
acceptance of a waiver applicatjon. CODIS shall speafy an expenmental design to enable the establishment of
tolerance values for the alternative human DNA control. The CODIS laboratory shall conduct the necessary
tests and expenments specified by the experimental design and forward all requested data to CODIS. CODIS
will then evaluate these data and establish the acceptable tolerances for the alternative human DNA control.
The waiver will only apply to analyses conducted prior to 90 days after the effective date of the STANDARDS
FOR CODIS ACCEPTANCE OF DNA DATA
Waiver - Minimum loci constrtutina a DNA profile accepted by CODIS:
CODIS will accept any locus listed as "CODIS Accepted Loci" for "population" and "offender" classes
of specimens, where results are available for the specified minimum number of loci. Thus CODIS will accept
any combination of four loci for the "population" class of specimen and any combination of three loci for the
"offender" class of specimen: where these locus comt)inat]ons are defined from among the "CODIS Accepted
Loci' D1S7. D2S44, D4S139. D5S110, D10S28. D14S13. D16S85. D17S26, and D17S79.
The application for a warver under this section shall include the class of specimens, the dates of
analysis the loci probed and planned for submission to CODIS. and the reason why additional analysis at
minimum CODIS loci is not possible.
No waivers to this section will be granted for analysis begun ninety days after the effective date of the
STANDARDS FOR CODIS ACCEPTANCE OF DNA DATA
draft
65
ilrafi revised Januarx' 29. 1996 draft
RESTRICTION FRAGMENT LENGTH POLYMORPHISM (RFLP) METHODS
STANDARDS FOR CODIS ACCEPTANCE
draft
66
Jrali rt'viseJ Januan' 29. 1996 draft
Protocol:
1 Only DNA analysis protocols that are demonstrated by the laboratory to produce CODIS compatible
DNA results will be used In the analysis of samples offered to CODIS Inrtially, a protocol will be shown by the
laboratory to produce CODIS compatible results by submitting to CODIS DNA results, as part of the normal
CODIS quality assurance checks performed automatically, from control samples authonzed by CODIS (e.g.
K562).
2. The laboratory will demonstrate that it continues to use a protocol that produces CODIS compatible
DNA results by its application of controls, like the human DNA control. The control(s) will appear on every
RFLP electrophoretic analytical gel that exhibits a DNA profile that will be offered to CODIS The protocol is an
acceptable CODIS protocol as long as the control results are routinely within CODIS tolerances
3 The restnction enzyme will be HAE III.
4 Only DNA profiles derived by applying DNA probes to loci listed on the "List of CODIS Accepted
Loci" will be accepted by CODIS.
5 Derivation of base pair values will be electronically obtained using computer software provided by
the Federal Bureau of Investigaton
Changes to the CODIS protocol
1 A laboratory that changes its CODIS protocol will not use the modified protocol in the analysis of
specimens that are intended for submission to CODIS until the laboratory demonstrates that the modified
protocol produces CODIS compatible results CODIS compatibility is demonstrated to CODIS by the
application of the CODIS human DNA control on analytical electrophoretic gels and obtaining results from
these controls that are routinely within CODIS tolerances
2 The use of a protocol that routinely fails to achieve control results within CODIS established
tolerances will be discontinued No DNA results denved from the use of such a protocol will thereafter be
offered to CODIS
3 At the request of CODIS. a laboratory will demonstrate the reliability and/or CODIS compatibility of
Its DNA profiles These requests from CODIS will only anse when CODIS articulates concerns about the
reliability or compatibility of the DNA results obtained by the laboratory
CODIS check samples
CODIS may. from time to time provide the laboratory with one or more stains for DNA analysis The
analysis of these specimens by the laboratory will augment the loutine procedures of CODIS to assure CODIS
iniit draft
67
draft revised Januar\' 29. 1996 draft
subscnbers of the reliability of DNA results maintained by CODIS.
The CODIS subscnber shall promptly conduct DNA analysis of these specimens according to the
laboratory's protocol for DNA analysis. The analysis and reporting of results shall be conducted in a manner
consistent with instructions included with the samples.
Molecular weight size marker (MWSMV
1 A MWSM from the list of acceptable MWSMs will be run on each gel that exhibits a DNA profile that
IS offered to or used by CODIS.
2. All specimens and human DNA control(s) on analytical electrophoretic gels will be bracketed by
MWSM
3 MWSMs that bracket specimens, and/or human DNA controls will be of sufficient clarity and
intensity within the relevant measurement area of the gel. so that meaningful measurements can be made.
4 No more than five (5) lanes will be contained between any two MWSMs.
5 The MWSM and MWSM lanes will be free of any other samples, standards, markers, or material
that would cause the addition, subtraction, or alteration of bands otherwise present in an unadulterated MWSM.
6 The addition of a MWSM ("new MWSM") to the list of acceptable MWSMs will be made by CODIS
only after data are presented to CODIS that demonsti-ate that the "new MWSM" will result in CODIS compatible
results and will span the RFLP size range of 600 base pairs (bp) to > 10,000 bp.
Human DNA control:
1 The human DNA control K562 (ATCC registered cell line) will be on each analytical electrophoretic
gel that exhibits a DNA profile that will be offered to CODIS
2 Any human DNA control measurements outskle acceptable values will result in the rejection of all
specimens offered from the analytical electrophoretic gel at that locus from CODIS compansons and from
retenOon for CODIS compansons. Also, these excluded specimens will not be used by CODIS as population
samples
3 Any human DNA controls other than K562 included in a DNA analysis will not be evaluated by
CODIS (except as may be descnbed elsewhere in this document) All sized K562 human DNA controls will be
evaluated before DNA results from any specimens are accepted by CODIS (for either use or inclusion in CODIS
files) These K562 human DNA controls will be within each participating laboratories established tolerances
before any DNA profiles from the analytical electrophoretic gel are accepted.
.inifi ' j draft
68
ilrafl revised Januarv 29. 1996 <^°ft
4 The NDIS Custodian will monitor K562 human DNA controls for quality assurance as defined
according to the following function'
V
H:^J ■ -'"(^I^J ' (^I ^ "^'■^'>
given:
X = Size value determined for allele 1 by analyst
X^ = Expected inter laboratory size values for allele 1^
S, = Expected inter laboratory "reproducibility - a" of allele 1'
y = Size value determined for allele 2 by analyst
Y„ - Expected intehaboratory size values for allele 2*
S, = Expected interiaboratory 'reproducibility - a" of allele 2"
R = Expected intralaboratory correlation between size value measurements for alMes 1 and 2"
K = Constant for coverage of 100 (1-a)% of a bivuriate normal distribution'
Certified allele band sizes as stated in the Natiooal Institute of Starxtards and Technology Certificate of Analysis for Standard
Reference Matenal 2390 DNA Profiling Standard", available from Standard Reference Matenals Program. NIST. Gaithersburg. MO
:0899n992)
Predicted standard deviation tor trie NIST certified band sees using equation (7) of J L Mudd ef al Intertaboralory
Comparison ol Autoradiograpnic DNA Profiling fWeasurements Part II Measurement Uncertainty and Its Propagation ' AnalyOcal
Chemsirv (in revision - 19941 assuming 0 3% migration distance measurement uncertainty
Empirically determined lor eacn locus using data supplied by numerous city, county state and federal forensic laboratones
.Correlations were oetermtned for each laboratory supplying data (between 16 and 20 unique data sets depending on the locus)
"he median correlation at eacn locus was found to be 0 62±0 04
The limiting critical K lor 99% coverage of a bivanate normal distribution = K,» = x '( 01 2) = 9 21
anitt
draft
69
draft revised Januarv 29. 1996
draft
ParametBTS from: NISTSRM2390,
ICADPM Pan 1, Meta-Analysis
LOCUS
x„
s.
Y„
Sr
R
Kd-m
D1S7
4577
37
4231
34
0.62
5.71 1
D2S44
2907
24
1791
18
0.62
5.71
D4S139
6474
63
3438
27
0.62
5.71
D10S28
1757
17
1182
15
0.62
5.71
D17S79
1982
19
1520
16
0.62
5.71
Monomofphic human DNA controls:
The use of a monomorphJc human DNA control Is not required by CODIS. However, any CODIS
subscnber using a monomorphic probe is required to observe the following:
The monomorphic probe applied to DNA profiles that will be offered to CODIS will not be applied
concurrently with a probe to any locus listed on the "List of CODIS Accepted Loci". That is. the application of
the monomorphic probe will be sequential with other probes.
interpretation of DNA profiles:
1 DNA profiles offered to CODIS will be free of artifacts that preclude the
interpretation of the DNA profile by a forensic expert
2. A laboratory offering a DNA profile to CODIS that is derived from a population or convicted offender
sample will only offer those alleles that are directly attributed to a human allele and thus always reproducible
from fresh blood samples from the Individual.
3. A laboratory offering a DNA profile to CODIS that is derived from forensic evidence, will only offer
those bands that are directly attributed to human alleles and to the putative perpetrator(s). Alleles derived from
forensic profiles that are unambigiously attributed to a victim or individuals other than the perpetrator(s), such
as but not limited to a husband or boyfriend, will not be offered to CODIS.
4 The DNA results from any locus, in which an ambiguity exists in the assignment of one or more
alleles to the perpetrator(s), can be offered to CODIS The mere observation of alleles that may be attributed to
draft
70
ilral'i revised Januarv 29. 1996 draft
individuals other than the putative perpetrator, does not in itself, preclude offering results to CODIS at the locus.
5. No "correction factors " that alter or adjust the readings derived directly from an Image Analysis
Work Station vtnll be applied to the ONA profile offered to CODIS.
CODIS accepted loci:
This list constitutes all loci from which results will be accepted by CODIS. The absence of any
particular locus from this list does not suggest the unsuitability of the locus for forensic application. Only
radioactrvely labeled probes will be used to detect alleles at these loci.
The addition of a locus or use of a non-isotopic prot>e to detect a locus will be accepted by CODIS only
after the locus or probe is shown to meet the critena established by the TWGDAM CODIS Subcommittee.
CODIS Accepted Loci
D1S7
D2S44
D4S139
D5S110
D10S28
D14S13
mfisfis
niRS7fi
n 17.979
draft
71
draft irvatdJamimy 29. 1996
dnfi
Minimum loci constitutino a DMA orolile accepted bv CODIS:
The inclusion of ONA profiles in CODIS derived from population samples, forenstc samptes. and
convicted offender samples requires conclusive fragment size determinations from certain specific loa. In
addition, ttiere is a minimum numt>er of loa from «vtiich conclusive results are required DNA profiles wtiich fail
to include these loa (numt>er and name), at a minimum, will not be accepted t>y CODIS
1
Minimum Loci Required by CODIS 1
Index Category M
nmum
• loci
Minifnum # loci
selected from
population
4
D1S7. D2S44. D4S139.
D5S110* D10S28
offender
4
D2S44. 04S139. DSSHO*. O10S28
forensic
3
CODIS core loa
missmg person
TBD
CODIS core loa
' OSS 110 will be required after January 1 . 1997
AoDiicanon of probes:
Alleles detected following tfie f)yt>ndizat)on of a membrane must be unambiguously ascnbed to a
single locus Therefore, only one locus mt / be probed dunng the hybndizaOon of a membrane The mung
of probes to more than one locus (including CODIS and non-CODIS supported loa) for concurrent
application to a single memt>rane s prohibrted
Accepted molecular weioht size marker:
The accepted MWSM are listed below:
^^^^MotocuJarWeightSHeMafJiers^Aece^e^
GIBCO BRL. DNA Analysis Marlier System
Ufecodes. 23 lib sizing standard
draft
72
I .>. Dt'pui'lllU'lll "I .lu^ill
CRIME
LABORATORY
APRIL 1995-
Guidelines for a
Quality Assurance Program
for DNA Analysis
73
InstmctiainsifbiAiiftlu^
Editor
Rru.cButkmlc
yujniiu> V \
MiinaKinK I'diliir
IXiiiM-K tK-niKil
AsMK-iiitr Kdili>r<.
SkphcnP Mkii Ji
Oujn(it.O- \' \
l-rjnkhit/pjirKk
Sjnlj -Xnj. (' \
(iraphic l>rsi)!nrr
[>.ri. O Bi>«l<
\\ j^hincum. IX
Kdilurial Kiurd
M.inUN^ripK ^iibmilli-J lor puhlK.itioit .irt-
.Kicpltxttm thi-^i>tulilt(>ii th.il tlu-\ h.ucniM hivn
or mil n..l h.- publi-h.-d lU «h.r.- \l.iniwri|M-
miivi K- wnlti-n in iU-.)r .inj viiiuisi- Liitcuact-
riuv nuisl K- U.cii.ilk ..ri;."'i/,>l i'r.k:r.--im;
..l...il>-.l.i....tJin>;
I lolh,'l.>ll.<>Mi><iril.'ri.i l.i>~it:iiih..ii\..'.'l,.<nlri
\ huli.'ii il'l liihnu.il .ivuir.iiv hi ,i|>(t..|ti,iI.
5 rl.>..l...n- \l.l
' lolh.l.
hulii.ii
2 iu-~~lMr lh> '^»lrn.ll.lllJl.'lu. .iiuli.b.l.i
« \ll m.inii~,ri|M- .in- -iiI'km !.■ (Svr r.iii>>
5 hv .11 l.-.wl liM. -uhKM. u,M pn.l,- i.il- nh..
^ r.m.iin .iii«n\mi>u- \ullt.<t. m.u ~ii>:o-i Hu
I "■""- •""•■'•■ '-
I Ih.- .■>lil..n.il .1.11 '.• > •.■■!. /..l-.-i.-."u
I l>iv,-l r,-%,-r\.-^ Ilu' nchl I.. .Jil .ill iii.iiiii.>ripi-
vl.-.«r..
In.luH
.1/ (iiv.
Ill, '
K..K-nCrj>cv
ijnij Aiu. C \
llutoWIX-jJnun
\^J^hll1l:ll•ll.(X
,. vx.u .,pr.-~.iil. .1,1 .ml.,
m.nl ,.r r.-...mni,n,l.i i ..| .iiu p.irl ..| I
■irli.l.- I.\ 111. i.-.l.r.ii o'l.fiini.iu lli.- IVp
m.nl.M liiMi..' .Till.' l-.'.l,'i.il lliir.Mii.'l lin.
v:.iii..ii 1. ..iilnhuliiic .uilli.T- ,1-11111. 1..I..I
-(MiiMl-ihu s.r 111.-, ,.111,111. .111.1 l.>hiii,.ii .1,
r.i,> ..I Ih.ir .iibiiii 1-
*.uhnii^.i..ii. I
Irlirr lo Ihr Ldil
ili.'i..ll..'
.1, piihli.li. .1 p..|.,--
P.l.r lXh.l.--l l..liii\l
s,■„1..ll^^ w.ii. , •
IXjr I .llCh.ll
yu.in \ \
3 RrKifH \rliclr: VKi.i, iiiir,«
j Rrsrjrch rjprriir It'jlutr \rliil,'
lulJhium,-, I).,. .;m n..f.. ^^^^^^ i ..i .urr.iil ni.ili.sl- .im.I -i\, n, ..-
Ij^j.CjnjO) \l,:ni-.- IN | ^^^„,^ . .,J, .,„,,,^...,„k(.I,..„|, .,,,l,i.o ,.i-.
„hi,h imi.l Iv 111,' .trn;in.il, .uvoinp.inK'd K .inv
|\niiuiii l.ihl,^. >;r.ipli.. ,h.ir1.. du);r.ims. iii;un^.
..r pli,>i,«i;'.i|'li. L f*<" .iiopumc l<ir puMu.ilH>n,
.iiillu.r. .ir,- r.^|Ulr>^J 1.' .iihniil ^ , ..r ^ Jlsli
rii. m.iiiu-, ripl l.vl .111,1 ,1.11.1 .h.Hild lx-^u,\),m.>n
IIIM ...iiip.iiihl, ...nipuur in V\i«dl'>-rtiM ^O..r
". I Aiillu.r. .Ii..iil,l k,vp.i„'p\ .>llh,-m.inu..npl
Lihl.-. er.iph. .h.irl. .Ii.lcr.ims .ind lie-
iir.-..l.,.iil.lli ..l.liil.il'l.-.|u.ilil\ i..rdir.vlri-pr.,-
,lii,li,.n 111,, .lu.iil.l N -n ..(Mr.il,- .h,vl. i>l
p.i,M .ni,l iiiii.i Ml, lii.l. .ippr,.pri..l.- ..irti..n« ."
l.i;>ii,l. llficin.il pli..|,.cr.iph. .Ii.miIJ S ,I,-.u
N.1,1. .111,1 oliil.pnn 1 cl.~.\ p.ip«'
VMiin r,l.r.-n,,- i. m.i,l.- in Ih.- l.M .■• .in\
t.l.il.^l l.ihl.. cr.iph. .h.in. .Ii.icr.ini. h,;iir,-.
.-r pji,.|..cr.ipli. I,. .1.|^•,1I1, pr.kiu.l m. niiii,
.-I III,- pr,Klii,t . ni.iiuit.i, lur,T .iiid Ih,' ,il\ .inj
.1.11,' Kl 111,' ni.inul.i, tiir,-r . h«-.i,l,iii.ir(i-r. niii.l K-
.n,lii,l.',l
K,'l,'r,-ii,,-,l . il.ili.-ii. in Ih. I. vl .h.-iiM N- in
p.ir.-nlh.-..'. .inJ in.lii,!.' .iulh..t n.im,-. .in,l ,<-.it
.ipul'lu.ilu.ni \n,l,tM.n.in,IHr..., nl — ■-. VX h,-n
. ilin,; .1 p.i|H r „ niun h\ Ihr.v ..r ni..i.' iiitn.T.
V, rii.' ill.' ii.mi.- ..I ill.' iir.t .uilht.r pui. ■ (/
■ \:i,l.-....M ,1 ../ !«>•: Ilr..,, n . .■ .i( I — I 111,
i,i,r,ii,,- M-,li,.n .li.Hil,! I>- .irr.inc,-d .i Pi.irs-Ii
,.ill\ h. .iiilh..rn.ini.-~ .111.1 lh.-n.hr..n..„-.:i..iil\
ill. i..ll..,,inc.ir.-,'v.inipl,-..lr,l.-rvn,, -i.u.ST
111. I -r.,. I.,'>...l.-.-.!/ (>■...-
InurnjI \rticl«:
11.1,1- II I .111,1 I..M,. H \ -^.wn.u , ir;.i:i.-!i-
■ iipl.i.ii,.ili..rni..n,'- i-i.'l.'..,,.lK.r'.-..:.-' ' -'~
Xrticlrnrlhjplrrin J Bouknr C'nilrclivr Uoik
\l..i,.,.|i K I .111.1 |;ii,(,.„l,' li \ -,-■,:-. :,-.
..nil .11 11.1I..I .in.iK I l)\\ u.i.-r.i.l...
In 111'.- M.-ik
l)ji;j, 1\
Ntwslflirr Pulilicjlions
('ommillei- nl thi-
Vmtricjn.Smu-li "t
L'rimt l.alMirjliir> l»irriliir\
ChairprTMin
irjilkl il/pjlii,k
SjlHJ Anj. t*\
ko, tn Lii|hn,l-.-,-
Ljiu... II
Dj.iJEp^uiii
\,-„ lh,-rij I \
lechnicjl Artitl.- \ .1. p I-, .1. r ,1. ., npiu.n ..|
-. ri.il. .111.1 ni.lli...l. ii..'.l .111.1 .,.1111.11111- ih. I.
-ull.
Tcchnicjl Sole or Li\e Report \ n. .. .tppli. .i
iBoot Rcvir,. \ .unini.ir, .in.l .iii.il,.i.,.l i N.-k
Ml .iihniill.O ni.imis, npl. .Ii..til,l Iv I, |>sl
I .l.rnH. -(M.,xl ..n ^ ,11 o--,! .|ii.ilin >.hil,
I p.ipi-r lli,-lill,-pic.'.li..>ikl iii,lii,l.'.i...ii.i..'lilk'
I Ih, 11.1111,^ .111,1 .iimni .illili.ili..n. .-I .ill .iiilli.ir.
I Wr .iii.ll.kl.iMiiinilM.-llli...-ni.i.l.iiilli.-r M.inii
HiHik or 1 nlirc \ olumr:
\, .1.111 I ( I. /•-■■.■.l..-l. /i.l-. - ,.' Ms.l... K..,-',-M
.'-r I .inilTuI,:, I iin.r.ii, Pr.-.. I .imrr:,l.:,
1 iicl.ill.l l"^-
l'r,..l.„illN'l,Ki.i„-,l ■ilh..r..in.|.li..uM
.-. ...rr.M.xl. 111,1 r.-uirn.-.l i, ilhiii 4> h,.iir. <..t
-.-.n.-ii. 11111. 1 N' 1 1 mil. .1 I.. l\|S.cr.iphi..il .-rr. -r.
Ml iii.inii.,rip|. .ind .-Ih, r ..•mmuMi..ili..n.
I. I.ilinc I" Ih,' K.iirn.il .h.nil.l S- .i.ldt.'..,-d l.-
ripi..li..iil,IK .111
i,|...„lrnpl
74
CRIME
LABORATORY
APRIL l'-'^5
\ iiliiiiR' 22. Nunil-'cr 2
l^lC^E£S~r I
Articles
Guidelines for a Quality Assurance ' 21
Program for DNA Analysis ■
by the Tcclmicnl Working Civiifi ,
oil DNA Aiuili/>i> Mi-tlioii> \
Notes from the Technical Working Group 44
on DNA Analysis Methods ;
Departments
Message from the Assistant Director ! 18
Journal Review | 70
Editor's Note ' 70
CRSE and MPFSL Reports 70
Employment Opportunities ' 7"|
Meeting Announcements inside
j Back
; Cover
i
I
S p ECiAL Features [__
Benchmark Evaluation Studies of the [ 51
BULLETPROOF and DRUFGIRE '
Ballistic Imaging Systems
111. < ■■■, 1 .11 (.'..M /),.■, .■■lNN\(rj;.|v-:i,s., i,„i.„vi, vu.-iK.- p.MMri.il|Mil'lislioll>\ iIk-IHI I .iKm.ii.'H l)niM..iunio.T'i.T.M:.
• liiiii;.. \MKik,iiiSi^klv .'I ( niikL.ilv'i.ii..r\ l)in\i.'is. \S( 1 I). Ii i- iiiuii.UJ I,. -^ nc.i- ,i iikmm^ •>! ..'iniiiuiik.ili.Mi K-uvcciun
.: ,,:.•! K-. IMIMIIIIM'J Ml.lll.MM.I Ml^•|0^1 .111.1 V.llUi' |. • Iv .ll--cnilll.lk,l .lllli'll-J .IMIK' l.lK T.Ui.rV ~>k-|lllvl.
r-^'n,,-!.i n,m.I..>Mkv~ Ji.ciiji-. [.•I.I1I..1 ( ■:>■:, I .,1 ,;... 1 />/.■. ./ I SK ' ' 1 HI \. .kkiiu . i.Jii.iniMv \ \::iv'^
75
Focus on
Quality Assurance
Message from the
Assistant Director
in Charge of the
FBI Laboratory
A> I M.'tlli- mill mv }M-ituin ,i~ lu-.ul i-l llio llil I .iN>Mii>r\ . I .im liMrniri);
li> .ipproci.ilc tlu' iMroiiH'K iKn.iinii. n.iluri- ni icri-n-ii ^cumkv It i> wry
••.iiisrMni; 111 wotV. in .1 priili'-.ii.n m wIikIi .111 mlrrn.ilinn.il inmniimilv is
lOn-MniK iti-M'liipim; lU'u .hkI iinproM-J iiulluHUlo.ippK liiri'nMiM.icnci'
in siippirt lit llu' I rimin.il iiivlkv »\ -li'ni In .ulJitixn liinJ.inK'nt.il tnronsic
pr.iiliCi-,iri-oMil\ ini;tiiliirllKTmvri\isi'priiK-s-.ii>n.ilinu-critx l.imrfli-rnnv:
111 i|ii.iliH .issuranii.' procr.ini- .iiul the miinlli-s KmkiiI- In Iv •j.iinii.i h\
implonK'nlini; ~iii.h priii;r.ini- in llu' Inri'n-K ^i kikv-
I ,ini impri.-->(.'i.l bv tlu- cm" iiv^inniniitimnl nl l,iN>r,iliirv Jirivlor-.md
l.iKir.iliirv (vr-nnm-l to innipK with i|ii.ilit\ .i-siir.inn.' prii\;r.im- th.>l Mi-
rnu'ri;mi; lliriim;luHil l.iKir.ilnni^ wiirUwiili Tlu I'HI L.iNir.iturv i~ .\Im>
i\ nrkini; JilicotitK tn inipii mini .1 niinilHr I'l i>ru.ini/.)tii>n,il fKiluA i.h,in»;i.'»
In in-iiri'i.ni.ilitv in all nl niir work XJlhnucli tlu- llil I .ihnr.itnrv ^ kiinimit-
nu-nl tvipnu klini;-iifvriiirtiiri.n~u i-\.imm,iliiin-ir\ m- i^ ri.iniuni-vl. ninn-
sl,iiut,)ri.li/ii.l. Inrm.il uiikliliiu- inr .in.ilMk.il pnnixiiiri.-. .iro nnu Kins;
ili'M'li'lA'i) In i;ii,ir,intiv i|ii.)lilx .i~»iir.inn'
In \ui;ii-l l"^'4 UM.ihli-luililKOii>lil\ \"iir,inii- L nil in llu- 1 nn-nM.
'^ikiKi- Ivi-siMKh ,ind Tr.iinin.; I i ntir .it llu- llil \,.iJinn in Qii.inlun
\ ir.;ini.i Tlii- nun iTopn-si'iil-.i pirni.uunl n-nKohv llu- Hil l..>K>r.ilnr\ In
prnv kli- i|ii.ilit\ -irvui .1- u >■ irn\ !■ mln llu- 2\-t n-nliirv Tlu- On-'lH^
\— .ur.iiUi-L niUvill hiiplnprnninU .iiul ninnilnrprnpi. r l.ilinr.ilnrv pr.utki-
lh.11 .ippl\ prnn.iriK In inrin~K i x.imin.ilinn u-^ hnii|iii - rhrmiizh ihi- iniplo-
nuMit.ilinnnt.unnipri'lun-iM.i|ii,ilil\ .i-.siir,iiui.-prni;r.ini,thi-Qii,ilit\ A-.»iir-
•inn- L nil w ill lv,>lilflnin«uri-lh.il unilnrnuni.ilitv .1-- iir.iiui-ijukli.lini.-.ari-
lnllnvMi.l v\ hi-n (-KTlnrmin'U Inriii-k i\,imin.)luins rhnHii;h tlu- ii->(.' nt
prnikiiiu\ lo-|s ,iiul .innii.il .uiJiN. iluijii.ihu \--ur.ini.c Lnit will K- in .1
(-sisiiinn tnninnitnrim-r.ill l.iNir.ilnrv .utiv itu-s.uul n-inninu-iul priKfJiiro
Ih.il ili-liiu- »t.iiul.irtli/'i-. .iiul inipr.ni l.ihnr.ilnr^ pr,utki-s Thrnuah tlu' u-i-
HI rili,ili|i',ini.l •muiiuI l.i|inr.itnr\ pr.ulki-.inil prmjr.ini-. ihc FBI L.iK>r.itiir\
will Iv .iblo In niivt thi- i.h.illini;i-» nl lutiiri.' l.iKir.itnrx .Ki.roi.lit.iliiins nr
(vrvinnol ivrtiticitinn-
Tlu- Vjii.iliU \-.iir.iiui- L nil i\ ill .il-n ni.in.ici' tlu- ni.i.up.iliiin.il s.iict\
,inJ lu-.illh prn>;r,im tnr tlu- Mil I .ilinr.ilnrv In-uriiu; innipli.uui' with thi.-
lVciip.)tinn.ilS.itot\ .iiul llo.ilth AJniinislr.itinn .iiul KnMrnnmi'ni.il Prntiv-
lu>n AmMKV st.ind.inl- \\ ill K-.i m.nnr ri-»pnn-ibilit\ In .uKlilkin. prnlivtini;
CRIME LABORATORY
76
cmpli)vi.v> Iroiii (vi^ lui.il li.i/.ird> w hilo vvorkin); in tho l.ibiir.itonorat cnmo
••ccnonillK'.iM Mill .; 1.1 1 p.irl.w llu'priigr.mi. 000110111x1 li.)is<in«tthoQu.ilit\
A>Mir.iiKV Lnit v\ iih iiu- 1 lil I .iKir.ilory > Exiilonco Ri^ptiiiM- TtMm Unit >int1
EmiUiki.- Ki>jv>ii-> I iMni~ 111 Kith tlio Lilxir.itorv .ind in FBI liold otfico will
liolp priiMilf MTV u r- n iiK h rctloct sLito-iit-thf-art s»«tfl\ .ind ov jdenco coUoi-
tum pmcticcs. Iiuri\i-id -.iti'tv tr.iinin); \ot Evidoncc Ri->ponsi' Te.ims .ind
iithi-r Icdeml. ^t.itt. . ,iik) Im.il l.nv t-ntorcemont .ipcncios will .iImi be <i ni.i|«ir
rucii^ Hi till' (Jii.iiii\ \»~iii.ini.o L nil.
"As the Quality Assurance Unit develops comprehensive quality assurance and salety
programs, it will hopelully become a resource for the forensic community for information
on laboratory safety and health issues, crime scene safety and health issues, envlionmen-
tal hazards, proficiency testing, and overall management of quality assurance programs
l^iKV llu'Vju.iliiv X^^iir.iiivi.' L nit wiisi^tolilisiu-d. tin- tirst initiatiwu.i-
ti> -Lilt till- unit .i-i|i I u i^K .i-.[\i~Nibli. with skilled pr^lll•^>Kln.ll^,.1nd tins ciiori
i» imm'inj; \-- the i^>u,ilil\ \>-iir.inc<.' Lnit dowlops comprohi-nsivv i.|ii.ilil\
,i»>ur.iniv .iiui ^.iii i\ proi^r.im- il w ill hii^vtiillx Kiome a n-Miurco tor tin-
liiri'n»iv coninuiiulv lor inlonivitioii on l,iNir,iton ><ilt'tv .ind health ir.Mii'>.
triiiu- >ivni' -.iiii\ .iiul lu'.ilth i>^iii'>. i-nv ironmont.il h.i/.ird-. prolicioniv
li-tinu. .ind o\<.i.iii iii.in.im'nii'nl ot k|ii.ilit\ .i»iir.ince pro!;r.im>.
While the -iiiie>-liil iniplemenf.ition ol i.|u.ilitv .I'.siir.ince pn)i;r.inis
ri\niire> >.ii;nilu.iiu dediciliiMi ot luim.in .ind lin.inci.ll roMHirce^ .is well .i-
.idniiiii>lr.ilni-.iippoii.ihi'lvnelit>.ireob\ lou- Thi'M'K'nelit'..ireevenniore
.ipp.ireiil wluii \\i >iiii-.idir the consei|iienie> ol not implenientins (]ii.ilil\
.isNiir.iiue pro>;i.im~ In the end. qu.ililv .i--iir.ince sinipl\ .illow s us to li.i\ e
jjreater eontiileiu e in our work .ind .illow s u> lii locus on llieescilini; .ispivt ol
our proles-ioii — i.k I iiiidini; through the .in.ilv Ms ol lorensic evidence
.\fi7/<iii £. AUhnrh
APRIL 1995
77
! ^ i :
CRIME LABORATORY
78
Guidelines for a Quality Assurance Program
for DMA Analysis
Prepared by
Technical Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods
Bruce Budowle. Group Chair
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Quantico. VA
Introduction to 1995 Revised Guidelines
As nol.'J 111 llu' mtriiduction to the IWl edition ot the CuicMiiic^ tor ,i Qii.ililu .l"ic,»;u' /'',•.'?.■: -,.. ,-i\
\n,ilu-i- pulih-lud in the April IWl issue of the Criiiu- Lnlmntom Pkvv/ (\ oI IS. \o. 2 pp 44-"^. :• v..,-
rivof;iii/rJ th.il, li.iiim'sin thoqunlity.issumncest.ind.irdstor DNA tt--tini; n.nild be iUM-~,ir\ ln.Ko'niir.iv:.::,
I'vohmu li.'ilin.'li"_;v .\nd lohor.Uorv practices.
Siiui' llu- puhlk.ition o( (lie IWl guidelines, ,i number ot proposed di.ini;es to the guidelines !i,,\, -, ^ •..
submiUrd I,. Ill,' l.vhnjcil Working Group on DNA An.ilvsis Methods (T\VC;r:)-\\l i Qu.ilitv Assur.iiHe •>J \
Subeoinmiilei \s .1 result ot e\ol\ing laboratorv experience and practices, as well as the ad\eni 01 niiuv.-^: -
dnal l)\ \ .iii.iK sis technology-, it was determined that a review ot the current guidelines was nea-ss,;;\
!'»unn-^ llu- laiuiarv l"4n meeting ot TWCDAM, a number ot pri>posed chanue- to the ■.:uiJehr.es ,^er■.
evaluated bv tin- OA subcommittee. The proposed changes were submitted in writnv^and were av^,'irp.>.:-.;> ,;
be a iiisiiiK.iiion lor each change. Based on the evaluatiini ot tlie proposed changes .u^d the s.Il^•.^ ,-::;—
justiiK.ition I he recommendations of the Q,A Subcommittee were forwarded to the entire TWCP.W I comiv;:-.v.-
lordis^-,tsv„,ii lollouing the discussion, each proposed change wasxoted upon b\ the TWt.PWI :r.i-n::--, r-
\ lvx.>- lands niaiorit\ was required tor the adoption ot each propiwed ch.mue \s a result .<l t ■■.:-•. .:;:•_
i-eMsioiis t,. the loliowmg sections ot the I "Ml guidelines were adopted 4 I,.". 4.1 s in. 4,4 2. 1 . - "! 2 " ;.; " "
7,-rl V "^ It idc-Ieted). and 1(1.1. The jw? revised edition 01 the C//j,/./.-,v- ■,■/,) I >.,.;.;';/ \-.',. / ,-■ ■ •
n\\ ■";../:.-i- lolKuvs.
\, miiK .: N.iinl-
79
1. Planning .ind Organization
1 1 c.o.il'- II 1- liu' mMl ot Ihu laboratory's program to:
11.1 I 'r. i\ klc lIu' users ol laboratory services access tt) DN A typing ot selectci.1 biological iiialenaN
,1-Mii i.iU'ii v^ith olticial investigations using DNA testing.
I 1.2 I ii^iirr the qualitv, integrity, and reliability of the DNA typing data and it'- pro-M-ntation
ihriHigh tlie implementation ot a detailed quality assurance (QAI program
1 .2 Ob]Vi i:\ IN li IS the objectiw ot the QA program to ensure that:
1.2.1 I hi' .iiiahtKal testing procedures and reporting of DNA typing are monilnrid b\ iiiiMii-- I'l
ouaiiU I ontrol (QC) standards, proficiency tests, and audits on a routine b.i^i-
12 2 I In- 1 nine D\A tvping procedure is operating within the established peitorinanci> nu ri.i .md
lli.it llu- quality and validity of the analytical data are maintained
1 2 "i rmhleiiis .ire ni>ted and corrective action is taken and documented
1.3 .\ulhoril\ ,iiid Accountability
I ..I I i.lr-.;ani/ation Structure - Defines the relationships within the laboratory between indi\ iduaK
iob responsibilities, and operational units. It defines the relationship ot the Q.\ pro-.;r,iin U'
n\ \ anaksis and related laboratory operations as well as to the laborator\ management
1.12 1 iiiu lional Kesponsibilities -The job function and responsibilit\ tor each po-itu'ii vx uhin tiie
l,ilHM,Uor\ should beclearlv established. It should specify and describe the lines nire-ponsibiiir,
uh developing, implementing, recording, and updating the Q.A program
1 .""v ■■> 1 L\ lis ol .\ulhoritv - Clear lines of authority and accountability should be esiabii-luJ ben\ . i n
personnel responsible for the QA program and those assigned to manage and perlorm the PX \
,inal\ sis. It should be established as to who may take what action, whether appro\ al is required
.]ik\ Irom whom approvals are needed.
2. Personnel
2 I |oh IXscnptions
The lob descriptions tor all DN.A personnel should include responsibilities, duties ,md skills
2.2 Quahluahoiis
The ediu.ilion training, experience, and qualifying criteria of technical persi.nnel vMthin the PX \
lesliii- laboratory will be fonnally established by each laboratory. Supervisors or teJinu.-.l li'.uiers
,)nd i\aminer analysts must demonstrate the ability to critically evaluate and interpret the e\ ideiice.
results, and data. The minimum requirements tor those individuals are specified as loUow s
CRIME LABORATORY I K 1 <T
80
i.Hi.iiiu in;,- rrocc'iliiro
': i> liii;jil\ i.ii--ir,ibIo th.it tlu'se individiinls inideri;o <) formal qu.ililvini; priici-dun.' whuli
).\ iiw- .uui doi.Liim'nts tlwt pri'requisite critcrui li.ive beon Stitistiod prior to tlii' ,is-,iiinplioii
..I JutK"- riiosi' criteri.i should include:
12 11 kinn\li'di;c ot the scientific principles, techniques, .ind literature ol PN \ l\pnii; .1-
deiium'^tr.ited bv course work and /or written or ornl e\.imm.ilion
2 2 12 I'mcticil l.iboriitorv skills in the performance ot D\A .in.il\-.i- ,1^ dtnionNir.UrJ b\
observation and successful analvticnl results.
: 2 ! ."! Competencvofindi\idualsenpa,i;edinDN'Aanal\sisasdemoii'-lr,iteJb\ li'.e~ui.e~-i;il
completion of proficiency testing.
"2 ! 4 Conipetencv of supervisors/ technical leaders a^ demon^lr.Uni b\ !!u- -i:vvi-~' :i
cimipletion ot proticiencv testing — designed to evaluate interpret. ilh'n.il -k;!.-
M.iiiuaining Qualification - There must be a prt)cedure lor the periodK nv aw oi loii;;;:.;;!-^
■ Jui.uion, proliciencv testing, and pertormaiice ot personnel.
^I'.piTV i-or Technical Leader
i: lhe-uper\ i-oralonedoesnot meet the tolkuMiig criteria. thelabor,il,>r\ ;iui~l ii.n i.i u. /';. .
ie.uiiT or enipiov a consultant who satisfies all the cntt'n.i or who. m i.'mbir.ac.'p ■.:;.■ •: ■,
..■a.iiilication-. oi the -upereisiir. satisties the criteria. The -uperv imt tcJuiK.i: !i ...ii 1 ■■•:■■:.■. •:
.:e-ien.iled qualified indix idual must regularle re\ lew the laboratorv woik rr^ij',\! .::•..: •:•:•:
i\ .ivaiiable lor con--ultation. It is highh desirable that at least one tndiv iiiua! -.-.--i-- .. ■ ■
■ ii'^e qualilications.
2 2"! Education - \lu-t h.ive a nuninuim ot a li.\ I5S or il- ei|in\.ile:il in .i b;. ''.■,;; .
chemical, or ti>rensic science and have received cri'dil lor ^our-i- ir. ^^ :-i--.-
biochemistrv, and molecular biologv (molecular genetu- or in onieira:-: -V ■.
technologv I or other subjects vvhich provide a ba-ic under^i.iiKiir.^ .■: ::-. :'"::\i..; .■ •
ot ti>ren^K OV.A analvsis.
2 2 ~- 2 Irainini; - Must have. ,it a nuiumum:
• a) Tiainiiis; in the tiindamentals ol lorensu bioloi;v
ibi nocvimented training in l.")\.-\ analvsi-- vMth indiv uiuaU. .:^e:i. a'~ ■: ■: •. •
laboralone-- in a program that includes the nu'lhods. proce^uire- i ,:i:i;"V( :-.■
material- u-ed in toren>-ic n\.\ analv--i-- ,iiut their appluati.Mi- .'.:ki :;!;■■• ';■ ■-
|.\^CLL■' U'S^i
2 2 "■ ' l'\perience - \lu-t liave a mininuim ot 2 vear- ol evpeneiKu' a- a 'oh:i~k !•:.•!.■_■.
e\.uinner aiialv-t and meet all the requirement- m N'ctii>n 2.2 4 '"<
2 2 "< 4 Continuing EducatiiMi - Must -tav abrea-t ot development- w ithui tJie ne'ii •■: '. ''\ \
Ivpmg bv reading current -cientilic literature. Mtendance .it -eiiiiii.ir- ..■■■■->- .•
prote-sumal meetings is highK desirable. Labor.itorv manai^enn'iU mu-'. pr.". -.vie ' :\
opportunitv to compiv with the-e requirement-
81
224 Fx.iminiT/ An.ilvst
2.2.4.1 Educ.ition - Must h<ivf.i niininium ot.i BA /BS degree or its equivdlent in.i bioliigical,
chemical, or torensic science .ind h.ive recened credit tor courses in genetics.
biochemistrv, <ind molecul.ir biologv (moUcul.ir genetics, reconiliin.int DNA
tcvhnologv) or other suhjivts which pro\ ide .i Kisic undersl.indmg ol the toiindiition
ot forensic DNA analvsis
2 2 4 2 Training - Must have, at a minimum:
(a) Training in the fundamentals ol forensic biology.
(b) Training in DNA analysis with individuals, agencies, or other labiiratories in a
program that includes the methods, procediiri>>., etiuipment. and materials used
in forensic DNA analvsisand their applications and limitation- i ASCLD 1485).
2 2.4 .1 Kxfx-nence - Must include, at a minimum:
(a) One year ot forenMC biologv experience.
(b) I'riiir to independent case work analysis using D\ A technology, the examiner
analyst must haye adequate forensic D\.\ laboratory experience, including the
successful analysis ot a range of sample- tvpicalK encountered m loren-ic case
work. This typically rec)uires h months ot experience in a D\A laboratory
2 2.4 4 Continuing Education - Must stay abreast ot deyelopments within the field ot DNA
typin.g by reading current scientific literature. Attendance at seminar-, cour-e-, or
professional imvfings i- highly desirable. Laborator\ manager- nui-t provide the
opportunity to comply with these reiiuirements
2 2'^ U\ hnicians
2 2^ 1 Technicians invi>l\ed in performing analytical techniques related to D\ A analysis
should haye a minimum of a 13S/ 15.\ degree lor equivalent) and receue on-the-iob
training bv a i|ualitied anaKsi rechmcians uill iu>t interpret D\,\ Ivpini; results
prepare final report-, or provide te-limonv loncerning -iich
2 2^2 Uvhnician- not performing analvtual teihniqiie- -hould have tin- expeneiue and
education commensurate with the fob description
^. OocunientJtion
I lu |1\\ laboratory must maintain diicumentation on all significant aspects ol the DN.A analysis
pr.Mdiire a- well as any related documents ,.r laKiratory record- that are pertinent to the analv-i- or
ml. rpriMlion ol results, so as to create a traceable audit trail This documentation will serve a- an archive
l.ir ulro-peclive scientific inspection, reevaluation ol the data, ami reconstriution ol the D\ A procedure
I \h iinunlalion must exist for the following topic areas:
' I 1 1 -t \Ullioils and rriKi-dures for DNA Tv ping
I hi- doi ument must desiribe in detail the protocol currently used tor the analytical te-ting of D.\.A
I hi- protocol must identity the standards and controls required, the date the procedure was adopted,
,iikI lluMiithon/ationfor itsuse Kev i-ion-mu-t be i lea riv documented and a ppropriatelv authori/ed
"■ 2 I'lipulation Data Base- To I'-clude luimber, -ourci-. aiul elhnu and or racial cla—i heat ion ot samples
CRIME LABORATORY I li ;| ^T
82
> »Ju.iiii\ t iiiUrnl lit t'ntii.il RiMj^*'"'"^ (mkIi .)■- iniiniu'n i.il --uppln'^ .imi kits which h.ivo i-xpir.itinn
il.ik-i - lo iiuluJc lot .ind h.iUh luinilvrs. ni.iiuil.uiurir s •-pivilintuins, ,iik) iiitom.il I'wilu.itmns.
I t .iM- I ili-s t .ISO \iiti's - Must pn>\ idf loinui,ilii>n lor n-sulls ,nul hmhUiskuis mnt.iinod in Uirm.ll
ivpnrl
"> P.il.i Xii.iKs]^ ,iiu1 Ki-porluii;
i> I '. ulnuc II.UKtlm..; IVntoiols
7 I i|uipiiuiU C .ilibr.Umn .iiui M.unliii.iiKi.' I iii;s
V I'riilk n-iii A lisiHii;
>' I'lTsuniu-l 1 r.iiiiiii'.; .iiid Qu.ililu.ilu'ii KimtiIs
III \l,'tli,Hi \.iliJ,iti..ii Ki'u.rJs
II i.>u.ilil\ \s.ur,iiuf,uui AikIiI Ki\.>rJs
!2 iju.ililv \ssiir.iiui- M.iiui.il
! • I i|iiipimMU Im fiil<ir\
I 1 ^,ilrt\ \I,iiumIs
!"• M.il.ri.il ''.il.-lN n.il.i ''hii-ls
h- I li-l,.rn.il oi Vuhu.il Ki-.,.i\is
i ' I !. . lls,-s .liul I .Tlllk.Ul-s
\ .ilid.ilinn
, ; 1 ., lu r.iU .nsiiii-r.ilii'iis i..r l\A(.lopiiiiiU.il \ u;J,ili.in m llir 1 1\ \ Xii.iis -i- TriM-Jiiri-
; ; I \ .iliJ.ili.'H i~ 111.' (M.'x-s^us.-J h\ th( ~, iii-PIK i,'Hinuiiiil\ l..,u vjuin- llu- lUM-sv.irv. :?y,TP-..iluin
I,, .i^M'ss ihc .li'ihu ■'! .1 priM\iuri- 1.' n liil'K I'hl.im ,i Ji'siii\l rrsiill JiliTiiiiiu- llu i.'uiiti.Mis
uiuK 1 wiiiJi suji r. -11 lis ^, in hn^hMnuM .iiul Jrl. rmiiu- liir iiinil,ilii>ns ,.| Ihr pr.v ixi'.ir^' I hr
v.ilkl.iln'ii piiM-s- iJ, milks iJH' .niK.ii .isp,M^ ,,| ,1 puK.Juu- vviikh nuisi i\ ..iniiilK
...i-lrolK J .inJ 111, mil. .nil
M : \ .iliJ.iliiMi siiiJu's must li.u riven , .•lulii, ifJ In llu- OV \ l.ihor.il.>r\ or sui-nlilu v.';iiiminit\
prior 111 till- ,ulopiii>n ol .i pro>iJur,- in liu' I >\ \ l.ihoi.ilon
4 I ". l>iui- .111 KM I' pro^iiUiri- h.is l\v n \,iiiJ.iliJ ,ippro[>ri,iU- simliis ,,| ImiiuJ -^opc '. ■,• .
popul.ilion sill Jus luiin.in ON \ lontrol \ .iliu- liiUriiiin.itioiu nuist be .u.iil.ible lor i.uh now
lin lis iis,-vi \ sinni.ir st.nKi.irJ shoiii>l l\- iii.iii\1.iiih\I v\ lien .1JJ11V4 new Km lo the Ji:ierenl
I'C K b.iseJ leJiiikiues 1, - . .uijilion .n -horl l.uuleni repe.il i^lKi loeiis lo .1 v.liki.ileJ ^FK
proiixiiin-i
1 I 1 I he l"l\ \ pnniiTs. prolx-lsi or oliconik Uolules s.jei teJ lor use in Ihe lorensk l">\ \ .in.lU si^
111 list l>e le.uliK ,i\ .iiKiiile lo the s, kill ilk > 0111 mil nil\
\iMMi. . APRIL 1995
83
■1.1.3 Tho validation proci-ss should include thi- tollowins studies: I ) Kqwl ol ii ,si/m;'ii>/i(m on the
rnhluf ol f.irciisK S.t.i/i.vi/ [\'iH7) ,ind 2) Budowlo <■/ nl. ( 148«).
4 I /> 1 Sl.ind.ird Specimens - The tvpini; procedure should h.u e been e\ .iliMted using tresh
hodv tissues .ind fluids obt.imed .ind stored in .i conlrolied ni.iniier DNA isolated
Irom dillerent tissues troni the same individual should Mold the -ame type
4.1 .S.2 Consistencv - Using specimens oblaini-d troni donors ot knoun tvpe, evaluate the
repriKiucibilitv ot the technit|ue both within the laboratory and among different
laboratories.
4 13^ i'opulation Studies - Establish population distribution data in dillerent racial and/
or ethnic groups
4 1^4 RepriKiucibilitv - Prepare dried slams using bod\ tluids from donors of known tvpes
and analv/e to ensure thai the si.un spivimens exhibit accurate, mterprelable. and
reprovlucible D\ .A Ivpes or proliles that match those obtained on lK]uid s^xviniens.
4 I ^^ T \1 ixedS^HVimen Studies -Im est igale the abilil\( it the s\ stem to detect the components
ot mi\ed specimens and deline the limitations ot the s\ stem
4 1.^ 11 l-'nvironmental Studies -iivaluate the met hi kI using known or pre\ lousK characterized
samples exposeii to a varietv ot env ironniental conditions. The samples should be
selected to represent the l\pes ot spiMiiieiis to be roulineh analwed b\ the method
Thev should resemble actual evidence materials as closelv as possible so that the
ettects ot lactors such as matrix, age. and digradati\e en\iroiimenl (temperature,
humiditv. L\ ) on a sample are considered
4 1^.7 Matrix Studies - hxamme prepared bodv lliiids nuxed uith a \ariet\ ot commonK
encountered substances U- \ . d\es. soill and deposited on commoiiK encountered
substrates ic v' . leather, denim I
4 I ^ .*< \onprobati\e Evidence - Examine D\.\ proliles in nonprobalue ev identiarv stain
materials Compare the DX.A proliles obtained lor the known lk]uid blood versus
iiuesliom-d bliHH.1 deposited on t\ pical crinu' sn>ne e\ idence
t I ^ '^ \onhuman Studies - Determine il n\.\ t\ping methods desn;ned tor use with
luinian spicimens deteit 1)\.\ proliUs m nonhuman suune >tains
4 1^10 Minimum Sample- Where appropriate, establish qiiantitvol n\ \ needed to obtain
a reliable Ivpmg result
4 I "i II (In-Sile Evaluation - Si-l up newl; developed tv ping methods m the i.ise-Morkini;
laNiralorv lor on-sile evaluation ol the procedure
4 M 12 II IS essential that the n-sults ol the developmental validation studies be sh.ired as
siMin as possible with the svionlitu commiinitv through presentations at scienlitic
pri>lessional mi-elings II is imperativf that del. ills ol these studies be available lor
fxvr review through timelv publications m scienlilic lournals.
4 2 I. har.uten/ation ol Loii
I'uring the development ol a DNA analvsis svstem. basic characteristics ol the loci must be
determined and diKumented (Baird NK'J; AABU Standards (.ommillee H'^l'l
CRIME LABORATORY I
84
4 2 1 Inhorit.incc - DNA loci used in forensic testing shiill h.ive been vnlidnted bv f<imilv studies to
dem(in>tr,ite the mode ot inherit.ince Those DNA loci used in p.irentflge testing should have
.1 low lrei|uency ot mutation ,ind/or recombination.
4 2 2 Ciene Mapping - The chromosomal location ol the polvmorphic loci used for forensic testing
•^hall be submitted to or recorded in the ^ ale C.ene Library or the International Human Gene
Mapping Workshop
4 2 /! IX'tection - The molecular basis tor detecting the polvmorphic loci shall be d<H:umented in the
scientific or technical literature
4 2 ."! 1 For RFLP, this includes the restriction en/\ me and the probes used.
4.2..t.2 For I'CR. this includes the primers .mk\ probes, it used.
4 2 4 Tolvmorphism - The tvpe ol poh niorphism detecti'd shall be know n.
4 Jl Specilic Developmental \alidation ol RFLP Procedures
4 1 I Restriction - The conditions and control(s) needed to ensure complete and specitic restriction
must be demonstrated
4 ■'v2 "separation - Pa ra meters lor I hi' reproducibK'si'p.i ration ol D\.\ fragments must be established.
4 ■> "5 Traiisler - Parameters lor the reproducible IranskT oi D\ A Iragnients must be established.
4 '' 4 Petectioii -The h\ bridi/alion and sirin>;eiu\ wash conditions necessarv toprov ide the desired
Lli'gree ol spi.MiKit\ imisl be i.K'lermiiHi.1
4 -< s s,|/iiiv; - rile precision ol the si/mg pron\hire nnisl be established.
4 4 speulK l)e\elopmeiilal \alidation ol I'LR-Hased DNA Procedures
I 4 I \inplilKation
4 4 11 I lie \\\\ primers miisl be ol know n si'i|uence.
4 4 12 t oiulilions ,ind measuri's iuiess,ir\ to protect preamplltication samples Irom
lontammalion b\ posi-l'C K malenals should be determined (See Section 7 si
4 4 I '> The reailion londitions siuh as lhermoc\cling parameters and critical reagent
lonci'iitralioiisiprinuTs, poU nuTase,,ind salts) needed to provide the required degree
ol spi'iiiKih inusi be ilelermmed
4 4 14 The numberisi ol c\cles m\is^ar\ to produci- reliable results must be determined.
4 4 1^ Poti'iitial lor dillerential ampliluation nuisi K' assessed and addressed
4 4 I h Where more than one locus is amplilied m one sample mi\tiire, the ettects ol such
amplilicalion on each s\sti-m lalUK-si must be addressed and documented
44 2 Deleitionol PCR Product
The validation process u ill identil\ the panel ol piisiii\iand negative controls nivded tor each
assa\ desiTibed as lollows
\..i,n.K:: Siimivr: aprili99s 27
85
4 4 2.1 Chjracterization without Hybridization
(a) When a IXTR product ischaractcrizt-d directly, appropriate standards for assessing
the alleles shall be established.
(b) Whena PCRpniductischaracterizi-d bvdirt-ctseiiuencing.appropriatestandards
for assessing the sequence shall K- i-stablished.
4.4.2.2 Characterization with HybridiZjifion
(a) I Ivbridizatitm and stringenc\' wash conditions neci-ssiirv to pro\ ide the desired
degree of specificity must be determined.
(b) For assays in which the amplified target DNA is to be bound diroctlv to a
membrane, some mechanism should be emploviil to ensure that the DNA has
bec-n applied to the membrane
(c) For assavs in which the probe is bound to the membrane, some mechanism should
be emploved to show that aditiuale amplilied DNA is present in the sample d.y.,
a probe which reacts with anv amplified allele or a pr<Klui:t v\M gel).
Intirnal \ alidation of Established PRKeduri-s (ASCLD i^St))
Trior to implementmg a new DNA analysis priKedure or an existing DNA procedure developed bv
.mother laborator\' that meets the developmental critena di-scnbed under Section 4 1. the forensic
l.ibora(or\- must tirst demonstrate the reliabilitv ol the privi-dure in-house This internal \alidation
must include the following:
A ^ 1 The methtid must be tested usmg known s.impU>.
4 T 2 II a miKlification which matenallv effects the ri->ult> ot an analvsis has been made to an
.malvtical priH'edure, the mrniitied pr<K-edure must be compari-d to the original usmg identical
samples
4 ^ ■■< I'ri-cision ir x , measurement of fragment lengths) must be determined bv repetitive aiialvses to
establish critena tor matching.
; "^ 4 The lab»)ratorv must demonstrate that its prmiilures do not inlroducf cont.inimatuui which
would lead to errors in tvpmg
4 ^ =; The methiKl must K- ti-sted using proticiencv test s.impli-s. The proticienc\ lest ma\ be
administeri-d mtemalK. evtemallv. or collaborativelv
(Equipment, Materials, and Facilities
^ I liiiiipment
( 'iilv suitable and propi-rlv opi-rating equipment should K- empUn i-d. Where critical parameters of
equipment iiperation are identitied in the \alidation priKiilure. moniti>ring ol those parameters
should Iv conducted and documented in the manner necess.ir\- to maintain successtul operation ot the
t\ ping tivhnique.
^1.1 Inventorv - .A list ol i-quipment n-quinng calibration and monitoring for DN.A analvsis, which
includes the manutacturer. model, sc-nal numlvr. agencv inventorv iiumK-r, and acquisition
dates, should K" maintained.
CRIME UXBORATORY I k .1 ^T
86
^.1.2 Dpurdtmn M.inu.il - The m.inufactur(.'rs opcr.itum m.inu.il should be re<idilv available.
? 1 3 Calibration, Maintenance Proce<.^url.•^, and Logs - There should be written calibration and
maintenance procedures and schedules. There sht>uld be a permanent log of calibration and
maintenance ot ecjuipment essential lor DXA t\ping d y , thermal cvclers and water baths).
^ I 4 Dedicated Equipment - Dedicated ei|uipnient should be readilv identifiable as such.
Materials and Reagents
Chemicals and reagents should be ol suitable i|ualitv, correitb prepared, and demonstrated to be
compatible with the methods empUned
T 2 1 Logs must be maintained ol commercial supphc and kits which haw expiration dates d' \" .
amplification kits, probes, or en/\ iiies), as indicateci in Section 3 "<
^22 f-ormii latum -There must be a u rilten procedure lor the lormulationot reagents, standards, and
control-.
^ 2 ^' Labeling Kequiremenls - Labi'N should include idenlilv , concentration, date of preparation,
identitv ot individiial preparing reagciU-., special ^toragi' rei.|uiremenl'-. and expiration date,
\\ here appropriate
^ 2.-1 A current iiu entorv ol supplies ami materials slumld be maintained to include intormation on
supplier, catalog number, lot number, dale received, and storage location
^ 2 ^ Dedicated Materials and Keagenis - Dedicated materials and reagents should be readilv
idenliliable as such
^2 II ( .lasswareand I Mastic Supplies I 'reparation - There should bespecitic procedures tor cleaning,
pri'paralion, and sterili/alion
I aboralorv Lacilities Kir I'C K .\iiaKsis
\ I'C K laborator\ uill rei|uiri' special laboratorv lonlimiration and sample haniiling tAiiii'liTuiv
U-.-i Ciiulr hi'iiU
" ' I I x.iminalion Uork .\rea - \realsi lur exanun.ilion. phologr.iplu . .wui microsci'pv must be
separated m linu- or spaie from the rxlraclion .\nd amplilication si'lup .ireas
"- ■'v2 1 xlra<.tion Work .Arealsl - This area is tor s.imple extraction, concentration, and digestion. It
imisl be plusicalK separate Ironi the amplilieil DN.N icork area .y\K\ be separatee) in time or
spaie trom the I't Ix si'tuparea \n extraction area lor samples containing low D\.-\ leveUd- \,' .
li'logen hairs uKI bonei should be si'p.iraled m timeor sp.ni' Irom other l'>\.\ extraction areas
^ ' ■■> I'C Ix Setup Work ,\re.i - This ariM is isolated Irom the ixlraition ariw b\ time or in space to
ensure Ihal the reaction mix lOckLiiK .ire prepareil in a clean eiu ironment This area must be
plwsicalK separated Irom Iheampliiiid D\.\ uorkarea
" -'4 .\mplilied D\.\ Work. Area -This area is separated plusicalb in the laboratorv tor containment
ol .implilkd D\ A pri'diKl Tins ,\t\.\\ incUules the amplilication area with the thermal cvcler
and space tor all procedures utili/mg the product lor tvping (c x' . gel electrophoresis.
In bndi/ation.and washing) AmplilieJ l")\.\ should be stored anddisposeiiof in this area .-Xll
ei|uipmi'nt and reagents used in this area should be dedicated and should not be used in either
llu- ixiraclion or I'C Ix siiup ariMs
"i -, " I \\ontami nation - There must be v\ rii'en pron-iUires tor the cleaning and decontamination ot
lacihties and ei.|uipmenl Irom D\ \ .ii.l I'C K pioduU D\,\
\..iiMiH :: \,iMii..r: aprili995
87
6. Evidence Handling Procedures
E\idence .ind s.imples trom evidence must be collected, received, handled, s.impled and stored so ,is to
preserve the identitv. integrity, condition, and security ot the item.
b.l SaiiipU' 1 .lixlini; - E.ich sample must be labeled with a unique identifier in .iccordanie with .ij;cncv
polic\
6.2 Ch.iin ot t ii^todx- - A clear, well-documented chain of custody must be maintained trom Iho time the
evideiHc 1- tirst received until it is released from the laboralor)' (ASCLD 1986).
6.3 Sample I Liiullins; and Storage - Each agency will prepare a written policv to ensure th.it e\ ideiice
sample- iiiKludins ist>lated DNA and membranes) will be handled. priKi-sseii , and preserved so as
to protect against loss, contamination, and deleterious change. Oisposition ol e\ idence should K' iii
accordaiiie with law and agency regulations. Refer to Section ^.^ tor I'CR sample handlini;
considerations
7. Analytical Procedures
7.1 Sample Hvaluation and Preparation
7.1 . 1 C.eneral characterization of the biological material should be performed prior to D\ A aiiaU !-i-
(ividence samples submitted should be evaluated to determine the approprialeiie-s lor I IN A
aiialv-is
7.1.2 When -enien is identified, a method of differential extraction should beempUned. and. u here
appropriate, each of the DNA fractions typed (see Section 4.1.3.10).
7 l.T fe-liiiu ot evidence and evidence samples should be conducted to provide the ma\inunr
iiilormalion with the least consumption of the sample. Whenever possible, a portion ot the
ori'.;iiial sample should be retained or returned to the submittinj; agencv. as e-tabh-hed b\
laborator\ polic\-.
7.2 D\A ls,.lation
7.2 I The n\.A isolation procedure should protect against sample contamination
7.2.2 The eitectiveness of the DMA isolation prwedure should be evaluated b\ periodic u-e I't an
appropriate source of human DNA.
73 Procedure- lor Estimating DNA Recovery:
VVhereappropriate.aprocedureshouldbeused for estima ting thequalitv (extent otDX.A degradation I
and quantitv >>f DNA recovered from the specimens. One or more ot the follow ing procedures ma\
be emplov ed to evaluate the effectiveness of the DNA recover\-.
73. 1 > leld C.el - Meld gels must include a set of high molecular weight DNA calibration -tandards
tor quantitative estimate of v-ield.
7.3.2 LA' Absorbance - Absorbance and wavelength standards or a high mi>lecular weight DN.A
calibration standard mav be used.
CRIME LABORATORY I <K ■h-J
88
73.3 Fluorescence - Approximnte quantific<ition of extracted DNA can be accomplished by
comparison with known concentrations ot high molecular weight DNA.
7.3 4 Hvbridization- Quantitation with human/ primate specitic probes requires an appropriate set
ol human DMA standards.
.Analvtical Procedures for RFLI' Analysis
7.4 I Restriction En/vmes
7 4.1 I I'rior to its initial use, each lot of restriction en/vme should be tested against an
appropriate viral, human, or other DNA standard which produces an expected DNA
fragment pattern under standard digestion conditions. The restriction en/vme should
also be tested under conditions that will reveal contaminating nuclease activitv.
7 4 1.2 Demonstration of Restriction En/vme Digestion - Digestion of extracted DNA bv the
restriction enzvme should be demonstrated using a test gel which includes:
(a) Si/e Marker - Determine-- approximate si/e range ot digested DNA.
(b) Human DNA Control -Mea-u rest he ollectnenessol restriction en/vme digestion
ot genomic human DN.\
7.4.2 .\naKtical del - The anahtical gel used lo separate restriction tragnunts must include the
li)llin\ ing:
7 4 2 1 \ i-iial Marker - \ isual iir tTiiorescent markers which are used to determine the end
point ot electrophoresis
7 4 2.2 Molecular Weight Si/e Markers - Markers x\ Inch span the KFLT -\/i- range and are
used to determine the si/e ot unknown restriction Iragmeiils Case s.imples must be
bracketed b\ molecular weight si/e markv-r lani's.
7 4 2 3 I hiniaii DN.A Control - .-\ documenled posiiixe luiman l)\.\ control of kmnvn tvpc
u hich produces a known tragmeiU pattern \\ iCh each probe and serves as a svstems
chetk lor the lollowing tunctions:
(ai rieclrophoresis qualilv .\ni.\ resoliilion
lb) Si/iiig process
ic) Probe identit\
idl 1 1\ bridi/ation ellkieiux
le) Stripping ellKienc\
~ 4 2 4 A proicdiire sjuuild bi' availabli' lo mlirprel allereil inigralion ol D\.\ Iragments.
7 4 '* Suilhern l>lo|s 1 Ivbridi/ation - Tlu' iIIuuik\ ol blotting, hvbridi/atioiis. and siringencv
washes are monitored b\ the luinian DNA lonlrol and si/e markers
7 4 4 Aiiloradiograpin - The exposure intensii\ is monilored b\ Ihe use ol multiple .\-rav tilms or
b\ sLKcessiM' exposures in order lo oblain lilms ni the proper intensilv hir image analvsis.
7 4^^ Image and Data Processing - The lunctioning ol image and data prtKi-ssing is monitored by the
luiman D\.\ control allelic \alues
\..|.inu:: N.imlvr: APRIL 1995
89
An.iU lic.il Procedures tor PCR-Based Techniques
7.5. 1 lntem.ll Controls and Standards
The laboratorv's QC guidelines should amtain specific protocols to assess critical parameters
in normal operations which include the lollouinj;:
7.3.1.1 Ne);ative controls to be included with each sample set are:
(a) A reagent blank
(b) An amplilication blank
73. 1 .2 A human DN A known tvpe must be introduced at the amplification step as a positive
control and earned through the remainder of the typing
75. 1 .1 Where appropriate, controls should be collected from the ixidence and should be
pnK'essed in the same manner as evidence samples
7.?. 1.4 To characterize amplified fragment length polvmorphisms, markers which span the
allele si/e range must be used. C'asi' sampk-s must be bracketed by marker lanes.
8. Case Work Documentation, Interpretation, Report Writing, and Review
I ,\l'i>r,itorie-. should have ptilicies.chivks. and balances in place which ensure Ihereliabilitv andcomplelene--^
.il till' documentation, data analvsis. reports, and review process.
s I C a-.e Work DiKumentation
nocumentation must be m a form such that a competent analvst or supervisor/ technical leader, in the
ab-eiice of the primarv analv-t. would be able to evaluate w hat was done and to interpret the data.
nmunniilation must include, but i- not limited to. data obtained through the aiiaKtical proces'- It
-hould also include information regarding the packaging ot the evidence upon receipt and the
londilion ot the evidence itself, paving particular attention to those facti>rs w hu h are relevant to the
priMTvation ot the biological material .All documentation ol procedures, standards, and conlroi-
UMil. observations made, re^ultsol the tests performed, chart-., graphs, photograph-, autoradiograpii-.
lomnuinicafions, etc.. which are u>-ed to -.upport the analvsfs conclusions mu-t be preserved a- a
record according to written laboralorv policv Ke-ults -hould be pre-er\ed bv photographv.
autoradiographv. or other -uitable means
- 2 Infirpretation of Data
I aboratories should have general guideline- tor interpretation of data tor each method of D\.A
anah-i-
s 2 I l-valuation of Control-
■S 2. 1 1 C'.uidelines tor interpreting and acting ufH>n po-iti\ e and ,' or negati\ e control results.
S.2.1 .2 Guidelini-s tor statistical monitoring ot the human D\A control if appropriate to the
prwedure (A\SI, ASQC" AI-IMS7. ANSI/ASQC Zl.l-lW^, ANSI ASQC Z1.2-I4S3,
ANSI/ASQC Zl .^-I^S?: AT&T Tivhnologii-s HS5; \Vi~.tgard cl ,il 1481; Cryna {^79.
Bickingand (.rvna \'^7^: National Hiireau ol Standards Mhh)
CRIIVIE LABORATORY I 'U ;| -T
90
S.2.2 Kv.iluiitjon ut Snmples
X 2 2. 1 Tlu' basis for concluding when samples are or are not the same tvpo or when the results
of the analysis are inconclusive or uninterpretable should be established
^2 2.2 For RFLP analysis, confirmation of visual matches of the restriction fragment bands
must be made by quantitative analysis based on tolerance limits.
s.2.2..'! Statistical Evaluation - The frequency of occurrence for the DNA profile should be
calculated using a scientificallv valid method from an established popuiatioii data
base.
8.."! KepiTt Writing
C ont(.fil>. - It is highly desirable that reports contain the following:
S3.\ (..ise Identifier
S..'"v2 Identity of Examiner/Analvst
N.>.-> D.ile of Report
S.U The D\ A Locus (defined by the NomenclatureCommitteeot the lnternationaK;eno\Vork>ln'pi.
.1- identified by particular probe(s) or sequence(s)
S.i =; Ivistriction Enzyme, Primer Pair, or Other Descriptor of the Methodology
s..1i> Ke>ults
S ."< r (. onclusions
s "! .■< statistical Evaluation
s ■?>) Signature of the Reporting Analyst
S.4 Ke\ K'\v
Oal.i documentation, and reports must be re\ iewed independenth b\ a second i]u,>hlii.d \nj:\ \v.i.u
I'n.ii lo issuing a report, both indi\iduals must agree on the iiiterprelatuin oi the d.u.i .md i:-e
loiuiusions derived from that data.
9. Proficiency Testing
ProlKiiiKA testing is used peru>dicallv to demonstrate thequalitv pertormance of the D\ A laboralorx ,ind
ser\ es .is a mechanism for critical self-e\ aluation. This will be accomplished b\ the anah s|s .md rep.'r;inc
ot results from appri>priate biological specimens, submitted to the laboratorv as open .m^i or bliiui ^.i-c
e\ idi'iue
.Ml specimens submitted as part of an open or blind proficiencv test must be analv/ed and interpreted
accord ing to the D\.A analysis protocol approved by the laboratorv for useat the time ot the proticienc\ te-t
Participation in a proficiency testing program is a critical element of a successful Q.\ program and i~ ,i'i
essential requirement forany laborator\- performing forensic DN.A analvsis. .A forensic laboratorv in\ oK ed
in D\.\ analvsis mav establish its own proficiencv testing program or i-slablish a program in cooperation
with another irensic laboratorv .
W.lniiu:: \,,M,l->r. APRIL 1995
91
Tlu' l)\/\ l.ilxir.itorv should p.irtidp.ile in prolicii-ncv tt-stinj; pri>);roms. londuttetl bv outside institutions
nr providi-d bv olhor reputable s»>urces, which .ire .ipproprutelv di-sisnt"d 'it lorensic DNA .m.ilysis.
"I t>pen I'roliciencv Testinj;
I. )pei\ proticiencv test speeimens are presentetl to the laN>ratorv and its statt as proliciencv specimens
and are used to demonstrate the reliabilitv ol the laboratorv s aiialvtical methods as well as the
interpretive capabilitv ol the examiner/analvst rarticipalioii in an oivn proliciencv test program is
the primarv means bv which the i]ualil\ perlormance ol the PNA lalx>rator\ is ludged and is an
issontial requirement it a DNA laboratory is to perlomi casi- work.
'I I I I'ersonnel
Open proliciencv ti-stini; fvrtains to those laboratorv e\ammers anahsts and technicians
actiM'U' engagi-d in DNA tostini;.
'I 1 2 I requencv
llfxn proliciencv tests must be submitted to the D\A ti-stini; laU>ratorv such that each
examiner analvsl. as well as those technicians invulved in [H-rlorminj; analytical techniques
relat»\l to DNA anaU sis, are testi>d at least twice a \i-ar.
" 1 > SjH'Ciniens
l-ach ojx-n proliciencv tot mav consist ol driixi sp,vimens ot bliH>d and or other pin sioloi;ual
lluids, either singlv or as a mixture. Hach s.imple to Ix- ti-sted should contain ^n amount
sulticient so that a conclusion can Ix- draw n trom the n-sults ol the analv sis
lor thosi- DNA prcx-eilures which use electrophoretic analvsis lor identification ot the D\ A
poK inorphisms. the numbiT ol sjxvimens iiKludiil m the proliciencv test should be such that
all mav K- accommoitated on a sini;le anaklual i;el.
1 or those DN.N analvsis procedures which iisi- \\R lor DNA amplitication. coupled uith a
noiulei.lrophi«retic method lor the identilication ol the DNA j^.K niorphism, an equnaleiU
number ol sampli~- should K' tested
llio-e sampUs. which cimiprisi- proticieiK\ tests mlendixi tor I'CKKised Uvlimqiies must
iiKliide Ihe appropriate ne!;ati\e controls a- -pixiluxi in ^-vlion 7 "^ l.l.
^' I I -sample Preparation. Storai;e. and Distribution
Ml All -pivimens and proliciencv tests should K- iinilormK pn-pared iisuii; materials and
mitliods that ensure their inte>;ritv and kiiiiliU
ibi All ojX'nprolicieiKvti'stsjxvimens\Mll be prepared on wasluil cotton cloth, cotton swabs.
i>r other suitable material
ici lach sjxvimenand set must be lalx'kxfwiihauniv|ueidentitier that should Ix'independenlK
\ eriliis.1 bv at least one other pi-rson to eiisun- pro[X-r assignment ot the identilier
id I A cH'rtK)!! ot each spivimen used to prepare the i>}X-n proliciencv test should Ix- retained
b\ the preparmj; laborati>r\- tor possible releriv analvsis and comparison it circumstances
dictate
(el A ^XTHin in the DNA labtiratorv.asdi-sisAnati-d bv laUiratorx manauer, should acknowledi;e
the receipt ot each proliciencv test and assn;n it to the DNA laN>ratorv stall
CRIME LABORATORY :
92
'■>.2 liliiid l'roticii.Mic\ Testing
IiUmIK , blind proticioncv lost spi'ciniens slmuld bo prosontoti to tho losting laborotorv through a
■^oninii .igonc\ . Those saniplos should .ippo.ir In lhoo\.uiiinor/,in.il\st ,is routinoov idonce. Thobhnd
prolicioncy lost servos to ewiliMte M\ .ispocls ol tho l.ibor.ilorv oxiimin.ition procedure, including
oMdoncoh.indling, ev,iniiii.ition/toslmg.>ind reporting 1 1 ishighlvdosir.iblotli.it tho D\ A laKir.itorv
p.irticip.ito in >i blind prolicieiicv lost progr.im, .ind o\erv ollorl should bo m.ido to implemont such
^ progr.mi.
''2.1 I'l-rsonnel
lilmd priilicienc\ testing pert.iins oiiK to pi-rsoiiiiol \^tc\ louslv i|Uc\lilied bv their laboratory to
loiiduci D\.\ testing
^' 2.2 1 rei|iieiu V
1 hoM' l.ibor.Uorie-- \s huh h.ue impleiiiented .1 blind ti'-img program and are engaged in tho
anaK-isand uUerpretation ol IIXA proiile- -hoiild bi' tested b\ a blind prolicienc\ lest at least
once a viMr
'' 2 3 'specimens
1 ach blind proticioncv lest vmM consist ol lii|uid or dried -pecimoiis ol blood and or other
l-'ln-iological tluids, either singK or a^ a nuslure 1 ach --aniple to be letted should contain an
amount -.utlicient -o that a conclusion can be draw n Irom the results ot tho anal\si>
1 or llu'se l")\ \ procedures which use I'leilrophoretu anaUsis lor idenlilicalion ol the DNA
p.iU morphisnis the number ol spei imeiis im luded m the prolu leiu \ lest shmild be su..h that
.ill m.i\ i\' .Kiommoiiak-ii ku ,i sm.^U- an.iK lu.il gel
lor those nV \ ,maKsi> proiedures whi.h use ]\ K lor P\A .uiipliluation. coupled with a
nonelearopliorelic nulliod lor the idenlilK.ition I'l the PN A poKmorphisiii, ,\n equivalent
lUimKr ol samples should be tested
lliose s.inipies w hi. h u>mprise proluuiuv tests mli-iuli'il lor W K-b.ised leil\nu.|ues must
iiuludi' the appropriate negative Ci'iurojs as speiiliii.1 in s,cvtioii 7 s | '
"2 1 Sample I'rep.u.ilion si.u.i.^i. .nid I ''ish ilnilion
Ml \ll specimens and proli>iein\ tests sluuild \\- unilormU prepared using niateri.ils and
methods ill, it ensure their mlegnU .ind identilv
'bl \ll blind prolu ieiu\ lesls^hould beprep.ireds.iastore.ilislualK siMuil.itelheUiar.utenstus
.■I .u tu.ll ..ise vc.'lk
u 1 I he uleiililv ol e.u h spec muii .uid set niusi be mdepeiidenlK verilied b\ at least one other
person to ensure propiT .issi.^nnunl ol llu' uleiililuT
111) \ porlu>ii ol e.Kh specimen used to prep.ire the blind prolicieiicv test should be retained
bv llu' prip.inng laboratorv lor possihU- releree.in,ilvs|.,.ind comparison it circunistancos
dulaU' _
lei lliKe prep.ired. all s.miples must be pa. k.igid separ.ilelv . .md sets imisl bo stored until
submissu.n t.. the tistim; a.^eiicv s.i.i^ t,i m.iml.uii llu-u mtegrilv .iiid condition
APRIL 199S
p
93
(1) Tlif QA ciH>rdin,iUir, nr otluT individii.il ik'si^ii.ilod bv the l.ibiinitDrv, will makf .ill
neCL'ss.irv .irrongemeiits tor the anort siibnii>^ion ot tlic blind proticioncy te?>t, including
■iupportin); documentation <ind nj^ency contact
ij;l Unless specifically authorized bv the laboratorv director or QA coordinator, prior to the
analvsis and reporting ot the blind prolicioncv results, no person in the laboratory
undergoiji.i; blind proticiencv testm.v; should be au are ot the iingoinj; blind proticiencv test
or the personnel involved.
Ooiumenlation ot Proticiencv Test Result-.
M 1 1 Opcr\ Proticiencv Tests
At a miiuniuni, tlu' lollouiiii; proticienc\ test data and inlornialion should be collected and
submitted to the QA coordinator or other designated iiidi\ idual lor e\aluation:
(a) Upen proticiencv test set identitier
(b) Identitv ot e\aminer/analvst
ic> Pates ot analvsis ,\nj completion
Id) e opies ot all data sheets and notes
lei Photographs ot \ield, post-rest net ion uiigeslmn I test, and ana Ivtical gels and, or dot blots
as appropriate
II) I ot numbers o\ primers or probes and the soi|ueiKe ol use
Igl Lot numbers ol commercialK prepared supplies or kits
Ih) Original or duplicate autorads. \\ here appropriate
111 t omputer imaging si/mg data, w here appropriate
l|) Likelihood estimates lor samples
iki Kesults,. conclusions
" ■;: Hlmd Proliciencv Lests
1 hi' ri'port ot the DN.A laboratorv will be sriit to the submillmg ,igenc\ m the normal course
ol laborator\' operations, and prior arrangements should be made tor its immediate torwarding
lo the Q,\ coordinator or other designated iiulu idual
Lpon receipt ol thelorwarded n\,A report, the Q,\ loord mator or other designated indu idual
w ill rri|Oire that the n\,\ laboratorv pro\ iJe lludala and documentation specilied in Section
'I " i In addition d.vumrnl.ilion on llie nneipl sioraue. h.mdlmg. and chain ol custod\ ma\
.ils,> be rei.iues|ed lor reMew The blind prolK leiuA lest e\ idence ma\' also be reco\ ered Irom
I he U'slmg or submitting agenc\ and examined lor proper documentation and handling 1 1 the
testing laborator\ retains portions ol llu- It'sted maUrials or products ol its anahsis, these
should be examined lor proper doiunu'iitalion ,\\\^i storage.
Ke\ Kvv .\tK\ Kepi>rting ol Proluieiu\ Test Ki-sulN
Hie 0 \ coordinator or olher designaleil indi\ idual \n ill rev lew all lest materials and compare results
to the inlormation Ironi the manulacturer ol the li-sl I he Q A w>ordinator will provide a ivritten
summar\ report lor each prolicieiK\ test to the ex.iminmg examiner analvst and other appropriate
individuals ,is established bv the laboratorv policv This review should be conducted in a timely
manner .\ll original notes, records, and other data perl.iining to the open proticiencv test results
should be retained according to laboratorv policv
CRIME LABORATORY I li I ^T
23-253 96-4
94
CorrivtUL' Action
lln' sptvilic policies, procedures, <ind criteria for any corrective action taken as a result ot a
discrepancv in a proficiency test should be clearly defined and approved bv the appropriate
individuals in accordance with established laboratory policies.
'■I ^1 Aiithontv and Accountability
II I-. tile responsibility of the QA coordinator or designated individual to assure thai
discrepancies are acknowledged and that any corrective action is documented
In tile e\ent of an unresolved disagreement between the designated QA indiv idual and n\ A
laboratory, the matter should be referred to the laborator\' director
*■' ^2 \dniinistrative Error
\n\ -i>;niticant discrepancy in a proficiency test determined to be the result nl adiiiini~li,itn c
irror U- v'., clerical error, sample confusion, improper storage, inaccurate docununtation rli i
w ill be corrected according to established laboratory policy.
ti =; 1 s\ sU'inatic Error
\n\ signiticant discrepancy in a proficiency test determined to be the result ot a sv^teiiiatk
rrror d' v , equipment, materials, environment) may re<.]uire a re\ leu ot all rele\ ant case work
•-ince the DNA unit's or laboratory's last successfully completed prolicienc\ te-t Once the
I au--e of thediscrepancy has bcH.'n identified and correctiveaction has been taken, all lA.iniiner-
.inaK sts should be made aware of the appropriate corrective action in order to iiiininii/i. l!u
recurrence of the discrepancy.
'lo 4 NnaKtical/ Interpretative Error
la ) \ii\ significant discrepancy in a blind or open proficiency test re-ull determined to K- llu
I onsetiuenceot an anal vtical/interpretativecliscrepancv should prohibit theindix idiiali-'
iinoUed in producing the discrepant result from further evaniination oi ca>e ev ideiut
until the cause of the problem is identified and corrected The Q.\ coordinaior or
lie-igiiated indixidual will determine the need toaudit prior case-, aicordiimu u- tab! i>lK\i
laboratory policy.
ibi l!etore resuming analysis or interpretation of case work, .in additional -ei o; ^^pKU
proticiencx samples must be successlullv completed bv the indi\ idual re-poii-ihlr Iit iIh
discrepanc\ .
Piu iinienlalion
I Ik- re-ull- .'I all proticiencv tests will be maintained by the DNA laborator\ according to e-tabli-lud
lahoralorv policv
95
10. Audits
Audits are .in important aspect of the QA program Thevarean mdependent review conducted to compare
the various aspects ot the DNA laboratory s performance with a standard for that performance (Mills 1'189;
Savie I'JKH) The audits are not punitive in nature but are mtended lo provide management with an
evaluation of the laboratorvs performance in meeting its (.jualitv policies and objectives.
10 I Audits or inspections should be conducted at least once everv 2 vears bv individuals separate from
and independent of the DNA testing laboratory It is high I v desirable that at least one auditor be from
an outside agency.
Ill 2 Kecords of each inspection should be maintained and should include the date of the inspection, the
area inspected, the name ol the person conducting the inspection, findings and problems, remedial
.ictions taken to resolve existing problems, and the schedule of next inspection.
11. Safety
I 1 I I'olicv - The DNA testing laboratory shall operate m strict accordance with the regulations of the
pertinent federal, state, and local health and saletv authorities.
I I 2 Written Manuals - Written general laboratory satetv and radiation safety manuals shall be prepared
bv the laboratory and be madeawiilable to each member ot the DNA analysis laborator\' and /or other
persons affected (Cc/c nf Falfinl RcxiiAKkho IWSa, I'JKSb: Bond N87; (iibbs and Kasprisin 1*^87: Sax
and Lewis IW7. National Fire I'rotection Association I^Sh, National Research Council 1^81; Wangcf
III. l47?;Steere 1^71)
I 1 > Material Satetv Data Sheets (MSDS) - There should be a tile ot MSDS received from the manufacturer
lor all chemicals used in the laboratory These data sheets should he readily a\ailable to a 11 laboratopi-
perMinnel
I 1 4 storage mmA Disposal - .All chemicals, supplies, and radioactive materials must be storetl, used, and
disposed ol under conditions recommended b\ the nianulailurer and m a manner contorming to
established safet\ reuuirements.
CRIME LABORATORY I Ml il -T
96
Glossary
Allele: In classical genetics, one ot the alternate forms of the gene at a particular locus. In DN A analysis, the term
•.illeles ' is commonly extended to include DN A fragments of variable length and /or sequence which may have
no know n transcriptional product but are detected in a polymorphic svstem
Amplification: Increasing the number ot copies of a desired DN A seijuence.
Amplification Blank: A control that consists of only amplification reagents without the addition of sample
D\ A. This control is used to detect DNA coptammation of the amplification reagents and materials.
Anneal: The formation ot double strands from two complementary single strands ot DNA and /or RNA. In the
-econd step of each I'CK c\cle, primers bind or anneal to the y ends of the target sei]uence
Autoradiograph: .An image produced on a piece of film bv radioactive or chemiluminescent material
Cycle: The I'CK cvcle consists ot thrcv steps: I) denaturalion ol the template, 2) annealing ot primers to
^ oniplenientar\' sequences at an empiricallv determined temperature, and M extension ot the bound primers bv
,1 I IN. A pol\ niera>.e-
Dcnaturation: The conversion of helical, double strands ol D\ A to single strands bv heat or chemical reagents.
l\-naturalion by heat is the first step ol each I'CK cycle
Differential Evtraction: A --tep-wise extraction procedure designed to separate intact sperm heads from Ivsed
-perm and other cell Ivpes The separation generalK re-ults in an enrichment of sperm DNA in one cell fraction
nl.itiv e lo the other cell traction. The separate traction-, can be analv/ed individually.
DNA Contamination: The unintentional introduction ol exogenous DNA into a DNA sample or PCR reaction
prior to amplification
l.xtension: I lu- lov alent linkage ol deox\ ribonucleotide triphosphates m a template-directed manner bv DN.A
poKnurase 1 mkageisina =; to 'direction st.irtingtrom the '5 i-ndot bound primers I'CR primers are extended
one luk Kotidi' ,U a time b\ a DN.A poK nierase during each I'CK cvcle.
(ienomc I he genetic conslitueni ol an organism contained in the chromi>some
Mvbridi/ation The process ot a>nipleiiKntar\ base pairin- belv\een two single strands ot DNA and or RNA.
Kildbase (kb) L nit ol 1 iH'Obase pairs ot ON \ or I lUlO bases ol KNA
I ocus 1 lu- site I'n a chromosome u here a gene or a delmed si-qiience is Unaled
I'olvmerase Chain Reaction (PCR) An eii/\nialu process h\ uhuh a specilic region ol DN.\ is replicated
.lurm,; r>peliti\e iwles is,-,- i\,|el
I'oK morphism \ \ ariatum m tin- s,-,|uen,e at a gn en lo, lis u h,-ie no one allele exists m more than ^w percent
,-l the population
Primers: s,„,,lU,|,g,Muu leotidescomplenu-ntar\ to the' ends ot the target s,x|uence. A pair ot primers specities
•lu- b.nuHlarii-s ot tin- region beinu amphlied ,hirinv; tlu- PC K
Probe \ liMv;nient or sequence ot DNA that In bndi/,s to .noinplemenlarv s,-,|uenceol nucleiUides in another
smi;l,'-s|raiKi lui, leic acid Itargetl.
Quality Assurance: Those plann,-d or s\.temali, actions necess.irv lo punide adequate confidence that a
:-i,.,lii. 1 Ol s,r\K,- will s,uist\ gn,-n re,|inri-nu-nts lor ,iualil\
97
Qujiilv Audit: A ^vsti-matic dnd independent exdmin.ition .md evolu.ition to determine whether quality
.uli\ itii's .nid reMilt". ccimpiv with planned arrnn^ements and whether these arranj^ements are implemented
illi\ti\iK and are Mntable to achieve ob|ectiveb.
Quality Control: The da v-lo-day operational technkjuesand the activities used totultill requirementsot quality.
Qujiitv I'jjn: A document setting out the specitic qiialitv practices, resources, and actu ities relevant to a
parlKular product, process, service, contract, or project.
Reagent Blank Control: This control consists ot all reagents used m the test privess minus anv sample This
IS used to lietect D\A contamination ol the analytical reagents and materials
Restriction Lnzyme: A bacterial en/yme that recognizes a specilic palindromic sequence ol nucleotides in
doubli-sirandi'd D\A and cleaves both strands: also called a restriction endonuclease.
Restriction I ragmenl Length Polymorphism (RFLP) The variation occurring in the length ot D\A Iragments
\;i'iu-raled b\ a specific restriction en/vme
Southern Blot ON. A that has been separated bv electrophoresis, transferred tronithegel loan inmiobile support
I. ,' nitrocellulose or nvlon), and bonded onto the support in single-strand torm tor hvbridi/ation
Sterile Technique: In the context ol VCR uork. il does not include llaniingol hollies and pi pets (ilcues, sterile
-uppiii s .ukI 1. liMii nork.ireasare rei|uired m addition to the useol separate pipet lips tor each reagent addition
to eaji reaition lube Additional explanation ot the sterile technique tor IVK xvork can be lound in the
\''irl::uiY U'.i CkuIc ( I'-wi). Section 2 - Laborator\- Setup)
Stringency: 1 hi' londilioiis ol In bndi/ation that mcri'ase the spiviticiU ol binding beUveeii two single-strand
porn. His ,i| nikliic acids, usually the probe Mui the iinniobili/ed Iragnu'iil Increasing the temperature or
.li\rc.isinv; tlu' ionic strength results m increased stringenc\
Substrate Ciintrol: Lnstained material adjacent to, or representatiw ol llu' area upon which the biological
nialcnal is deposUcJ
\ariable Number of Tandem Repeals (VNTR) Copies ol a PN \ siqLieiKe arranged m succession in a
I liioniosi>nu'
CRIME LABORATORY l> I ~ I
98
References
AA13B st.inj.irds Ciimniiltoe. P7.000 DNA polymorphism testing. In: Strt)itlnn1> for Piirciita^c Tc>tin^
Laboitnorii-^. Kt Oct. Americ.in Association ot Blood Banks, Arlington, VA, 1990.
.Alw.in I (. aiui Hisscll, MC Time series modeling for quality control in clinical chemistrv.C/i/H(<(/C//i"iNfri/
(l^s.si 14 l.^iivMlln.
AnuTK.ui \,iti.'ii.il Standard AN51/ASQC Al-1987. Defimtiom. Symhoh. Foniiiihi<. itiui T,iN,-> h'l Cl'iiIioI
CIniil- NnK-ricin Sociefv tor Quality Control, Milwaukee, Wl, 1987.
AnUTK.ni \.U!i.M.ii Standard ANSl/ASQC Q90-1987. Qiialiti/ AAaimxcincni ami Qimlitii A-r-iinvuc <hiihl.iid- -
Ciiiilrliih-^ »iii <ilci.lioii luui U>c. American Society for Quality Control. Miluaukeo, Wl, 19,S7 ai.
.•\mori(..iii X.ilional Standard ANSl/ASQC Q90-1987. Qtmliti/ MiUM^ciiiciit mid Qwilihi ^\i-lcni Hctiirr.t-
Ciihli-lru-~ Anioricnn Society tor Quality Control, Milwaukee, Wl, 1987(b).
American National Standard ANSl/ASQC Zl.l -1985. Ciiidc for Qiinlilu Control Chiiit> AmiTKan S.vict\ tor
Quahtv Control, .Milwaukee, Wl, 1985.
American National Standard A.MSI/ASQC Zl.2-1985. Control Chart Mcthoil of Annliizin^ P.;,',; Anicrion
Societ\ tor Qiialitv Control, Milwaukee, Wl, 1985.
AmerK.in National Standard ANSl/ASQC Zl. 3-1985. Control Chart Mtihoil of Coiilrollin-; O-'"'-'" P-'- ■■.
I'rthtiu l:,<ii Xniorican Society for Quality Control, Milwaukee, Wl, l'J85.
American National Standard .ANSl/ASQC Z-1. 15-1979. Cciicric Ci/ii/Wjuc- fii) Qiuihtii Si'-.'i'i- Anuric.in
Soui-lv loi Qiialitx Control. Milwaukee. Wl, 1979.
American National Standard ANSl/ASQC A3-I978. Qualitii Siti^tcni> Tfrniinolos:\i. Xnierican NiCKt\ ror
Qualitv I. onlrol, Milwaukee, Wl, 1978.
Amcruan National Standard A5QC Standard Cl-1968. Sivcification oi General Kh^k/iim/.ii.- ,■• .■ (.'.^.i/..';-
l'io-:i,iiii American Society for Quality Control. .Milwaukee, Wl, I9h8.
Aniphl I'; 'I U-ei Cniilc {tor the AmpliTvpe HLA DQh Forensic DNA Amplification and T\pinc Kit' >vi ti.M-
2 - I ahoiatorv '^ctup Cetus Corporation. Emervxille. CA, 199(1
ASCII"). lUiiililnit'^ 'i<r Forcii^ii. lahoratoni i\Aanas;inicnt Praclia<. American Societ\ ot (.rune I .■.I'oralorv
nircitoiN. St.piember NSh.
ASt I n !''C'/ P . \i Lii-ilitalion Manual. .American Society ol Crime Laborator\- Director-.. I.aboratvrv \*credi-
lation Uo.ird. 1 ebruarv I9.S5.
ATSil l\iliiiolo;;ie-. >tati^lnal Qnalitu Conliol Handl'ook. AT&T Technologies. Indianapoli- IN. \!a\ 1-'^-
Hand. \I f.hiahlu Control anil Anwruan A<<oiiation of B/cei/ Bitnk ^tamlarit- Presented .il the \ineru.in
A--, .nation ol Hlood Banks National Conference, Leesburg, VA, April 17-19. I'-t.S'J
Bickin.;. C \. .ind Cir\ na. P. M . )r Process control by stofistiCcTl methods In: Qnalitii Coulroi llj\.i':;\- Vi
ed . ed 1 \I liiran. Section 2.->. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1979.
Iiond. W U S,itel\ in the forensic immunology laboratory. In: RrociVilint;- ot llic hitrrnalion.ii >:'"i:\'~!:on .■ .
lor,-n-u linnniHolo;^\/. 101-11)9 LS Goyemment Printing Office, Washington. IX . l'JS7.
l5o\.l. I P. and Bisaard.S. The scientific context ot quality improyement. (Jim/z/i/ /'i(>\'ii-»~ (I'-'Sri 2iMM^4-i-'!
99
ir.iJlcirJ, L W li.irricrs to qiuilitv .K'hic\ cmi'iit in crimu Uibor.ilcirv opfr.iliDn-., Iininuil i'l Forensic Science^
( l^isni 25»I)2-'J07.
iruiulli' Iv I. .Cuirnor. D D.cinti VVinenwn.r. L. Aqiiolity .isMiMnCL'pn>j;r,im lor tlio l.ibor.itorv oyamin.itum
ot ,ir--iin .iiid c\ploM\i' c.iM'S, loiinu}! i>t Ft'ic}i>ii Sikvkvs (!4,S2) 27:774-7S2.
niJoul,-, I) .IV.Klm.in.H A , \liirch, K S ,,iiu1 B.uvlitcl.r S An inlroJiution tolho motluKisot D\A.in>ilysiN
imJiT irni'sti>;.ition in the FBI L.iliomlorv. Ciiiiu- I (ihoi.iU'iu Pi^;,--! ( I'-ISS) ISSOI
Ui^^olini. r I , D.nis, A. H , ,iiid Cfoltrion, K R. A ni-w oppro.ich toqiuiiitv tor n.ition.il ri'siMrch UAi'-.Qiiiilitu
;'.,'VJV" ll^SS) 21(l);24-27.
',',(,■ ," hi.lnnl Rr'^iihiliKii-. Title III. Piirt /^) - \'(i/ici>. ///s/uk//iii;>. ,iihl Ri-i'oit> to i\'i'ikfr<: lii>i>i\luni<. LS
C.nrrnnifiil IVintini; OltKo, VV,isliinj;lon, DC, I^SSt.i)
■,•.;, .■• Ir.t,t,il Rt\uliiti,>ii<. Tillc III. I\iil 211- <tniiiliiiil-l,'i I'li'ttilH'ii .\'^,iiii^l KMliiitiiiii. LSC'.oviTnnu'nl I'rintin;;
Ollm', \V,ivliMii;ton, DC. IWHIbl
orj. n I (.'.oo^\ l.ibor.itorv pr.KlKC. hilvnil.'ni /'ni, //,,■, ( hiSS) .'!7(^)):2'>-Vv
„uiiki \1 \ ,iiid C.l.idnoN, £. S. A i]u.ilit\ .issiir.inn.- pro^r.iin lor lu.iltli ,ind iMUironnH'nt.il ilu'nii>tr\.
i".M,',.m Lihonili'iuiMv 1^»S7) 17-22
.ibh- I I .nut K.i-.prisni,C. A. hm-iiiuiiiu'iitiil >iihi\i in tlii Hl,'i<,l H.iiik Anu-rawn A-'MH.i.ition ol IMoik) B.mk-.
\ihnmon. \ A. |ilS7.
,r\n.i I \I , Ir B.i-ic si.itisticil niotliods- In: i^inililii d'utiol I iiiull'o.'k W i.x\ . v^i \ \1 liir.in, Sixtion 22
\K(,i.n\-llill, \cu 'lork. |47^>
l.u K I llu'-ii'd '■lockionci'pt .ind qii.ihU OMitrol lor ifll Inu-. l/i.i/i/(;..i/ /i/i>. /ii-»//-/n/ 1 h'SN) 171 22r-2"7.
ur.iii I \1 Oii.ilil\ P"li*K"-''ii'-l "l''K>^'i\'-- 111 O"'''''!"-'"""'' "■'"'"''"''' kI I'd . i-it I \1 lur.in. Si-v.li on .^-
\kl.i.nv-ilill. \fu ^ork. l^T'i
ki nn.\ \l I ijo.ililv , is--iir.ini. o Mil li.ins;nii;linu's propo--,)U lor ri-lorni ,inJ ri'-iMrih m tlu-ilmn.il l.ibor.itorv
lulJ, I liiih.il i^iiiiiii^lni ( l'-».S7) ■!.'!..''>2.S-"l"<(v
ki.l.i 1. I \\ li.il i|ii.ihl\ iiUMii^ lo ,111 K iVc P or^.ini/.ilion In -il-l Iiiuim/ 0"'''''" '-'''"■.■'''--''•'"-•'' •''■'•'-
\ni>iK,in '-ou.'H lorljii'ililv tontrol \lih\.uiki.v, W I. \l.n 4-ii, l",sr.
kii-ii.iu I) Oii.ilitv ,i-.-.ur.iiui' I I'hilo-opin .iiut b.i-k pruuiplr-.. \l,-,//,j/ / ,)/>,'i,i;,.m/ N i,/)i,- i |w,Sh) 4"; "77-
'^1
ki:-h,iu !■> tju.ilit\ ,i-.-ur,uUi' 2 lntorn.iK|u,ilil\ vontrol, \I, ,.'i, .// / ,//',',m(.'m/ ■>, u /i. . I l"S7.i) 4-1 7"!-S"!
kiM\,i« ll Ijii.ilitv .i--iir.iiK\' "< I \li.-rn,iK|ii,ilit\ ,i-so.,„ni.Mil. \1, ,//,,(/ /,//■,■/, //,'m/ -, /,/i,,- 1 hiS7b) 44 17.^-ISi>
\l;ll- I \ III, Oil, ihlu \ii,lil \ \hiii,i-;,-ni,iit I ,,ilii.iti,'ii ;.ii'/ AnuTK.in NnK-t\ lor Ou.iliH Ciintrol,
\lilu,uikiv, Ul. hiS"-).
\.iti.'ii,il IniriMii ol si.iiui.irds Tlu' pl.Ki' ol lonlrol di.irl- m I'xpiTinu-nt.il work. In: / \i'niiiinitsil •^liiti-tu -
\ i!.<"i.il niiu.iii ol ^t.iiiiliii,!- Ihiihllwk '»; LSCoM'rnnu-nl rrnilinj; OIIki', VV.i-hini;ton, IX', I'^hd
\,iti..n,il 1 ire I'rolivlion .\»oi.i.itioiv ^hiiuliiiil on I no Pii'lOi tion loi I ohoniloii,^ (/-/i/y Llioniii,il- N.ition.il Fire
ri.ilivlion \s.-oii.ition, B.)lli'r\ iiLinli I'.irk. Quincv. \1.\. h'Sd
42 CRIME LABORATORY I l( .1 ^ I
100
X.UuMial Kosoarcli Council. Pnulciil Pracdcrs fur Dis/nisii/ <>( C/icimVii/< frim; LilKiratoria. National Research
(. luincil's Committee on Hazardous Substanci-s in the Latnirator)', National Academy Press, Washington,
iX'. I'iS.t
X.iluui.il Kiscanh Couiuil. Viiutciil PmcMiis lor lliiiitlliii^ / /iiriin/iuis Cluiiiiciih in hilttrnloric^. National
Kr^r.irih (.Ouncils Coniniiltee on 1 la/ardou-. Sub>lancev in the Lalniralorv, National Academy Press,
V\.i-liin,i;(on, DC, 14KI
I'cuii.i \t. Qu.ilitv asKuranco in forensic science. f.'nn-.ii .Siiiini- liilcrimlioiml (1483) 28:1-6.
/\\ 7^ '!/ I'l i( >i/;i//^k;^i)i 111; //ic /';iii7icc<>f Fi'fi-i;.--ic Scr<i/iivN/, AIi//ii"i/ /.'.■ii/i(ii//i'i/ ( Ti'/'ii ■/ J. SpK)nsiired by the California
IVp.irtnu'iit ot Justice Bureau of Forensic Services. California AsMKialion of Criminalists, and the L NIS^ S
(i.rpiiralion. 1^87
Ku/uk.iK K Docunn'nt.ilioiv Conli';uration man.is;emenl In: Qiiiililu Coiilnil I linullvok ?tii eii., ed. J. M.
lur.in. Siilion U> McC.rau-l lill. New ^ork. I'C^
'-.iv \ I and I luiv. K | I l,iznr.ioii> Clhiim.il- Hi-k K.t.inu, \ an \ostrand Reinhold, New York, \^fi~.
''.ulr A I \l,()ii,o"/>i'' \"i'i'-: Tlii' A-^-<>nii-iil ,>i Qii.ililu \Uiiii';,iiiiiil <u>Uiii> 2d ed. .American SiKietv for
Qu.ihlv <. ontrol. Milwaukee, \VI, 1988
^inip--iin I \,itiim,il Bureau ol Standards approach to ijualilv Ir^l diiil \}oi-iii,nhiil W'ltild (December 1^83)
suiir \ \ id CKC ll:iii<lh,>i'k,>i l,il;<i,iti'ni>,ililii 2d id riu- ChemualKubber Companv, Cle\ eland. OH.
l.wliT I K i^hhililu \^~iii(iiur I'l Clhiiiiuil Moi^iiiriiuiil- I ewis rubli>.hi-rv. t lieKea, .Ml. I"J87
l.HJi'r I k riu' i]uist lor i|ualit\ a-.-.urance. .lii;in..m /./('I'r.ifi'M/ ilViolvr \'->S^) h7-7^
W.uii; (. II W illi- D I . and 1 oveland. W O K,i,lu>l>,hti \Ul!i,>,U<l,\u lit llu- Hii>li>\;iuil l u:-m<nmcii'.al . .nui
/■:i.„../ s, „ ;.-.,~ rieiilKellall. In^lexv.MKi Clill-. \|. I«i7-
\\i -m.ud I O liarrv . I' I . I lunl. \l. K aiuiCrotli. F \ imilli-ruleSluA\ art chart lorqualitv contri>l iii clinical
. in !ni-.|r\ i /,';(,.;/ i hiiiii-Sni ll'i.sii 27, ^M--.-:;!)!
Whililu-.ul 1 r ,uid Woodlord I I" iNti-rnal qiialilv a-.-,v-.,vnu-nt i-l cliiiKal labiiralorie- m the Liutid
kmmli.Mi 1,'nnuil ,<n'liru,ii /',i(;;.'/,'.,-iM l>i,sn ->^ 'M7 ^i-7
\..|.nM. :: \Mn.l>r; APRIL 1995
101
Notes from the Technical Working Group
on DNA Analysis Methods
The TivlinK.ll Workini; Group on DNA Analysis Methods (TWGDAM) w.is tormed to .uldrcss the
development ,ind iinplenientation ot forensic DNA analysis methods in public crime laboratories throu,i;hoiit
North America Thi> >;roup has met with considerable success in the coordination, conduct, and reportinj; ot
experimental --tudies --upportinj; restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analvsis hi addition
TWGDAM member-. ha\ e publislied guidelines for conducting the RFLP and polvmerase chain reaction il'CKi-
based tests for u'-e in the crime laboratory community.
As new methods and techniques arise from the fields of molecular biology and population genetics, it
has been considered a responsibility of TWGDAM to examine these advances for their potential to i-iihance
existing procedures i.r open new routes to the genetic typing of biological evidence. During the Februar\ I'W!
meeting of T\\(.F)\\I representatives of participating laboratories were organized into several workiiii;
groups. Each working group was tasked with examining emerging issues and developments pertinent to a
specific area ol n\,\ l\ ping. Groups were designated to studv the following areas: (1 ) additional giiidi'hnes
for quality assuranciMO.A I and quality control (QC)of DNA analyses, (2) enhancements to RFL P ana K sis. i.'^l iie\\
approaches to using PC K, and (4) methods for the typing of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA),
The lolKu\ ing is a summary of the activities of the various TWGDAM working groups which resulted
troni the lulv l'''-'4 nuetiiv.;:
QA/QC WORKING GROUP
The (J \ Oc Working Croup did not meet.
RFLP WORKING GROUP
I Members in .Attendance and Laboratory .Affiliations
1 l.iroid IVadman - FBI Laboratory (Group Chair)
1 IK liiiel - \ ermont Department ol Public Safety
josipli (. .iriiso - Indianapolis-Marion County Forensic Services Agency
Thomas (,i.int - Missouri State Highway Patrol
Kenneth koii/ak - California Department ot lustice
Donald MacLaren - Washington State Patrol
D.uid Met lure - South Carolina Law Enforcement Division
James Pollock - Florida Department of Law Enforcement
Renee Romero - Washoe County Sheriff's Office
Clement Smetana - US Armv Criminal Identification Laboratory
Christine Tomsev - PennsvK ania State Police
Gary \ erret - Roval Canadian .Mounted Police
Linda Watson - Maryland State Police
CRIME LABORATORY Pk .KST
102
II ^iinini.irv ci Mivtiiii;
A I v.iUi.itmn ot ,i Tompcr.itiiri' st.Uili' lliic III Kt--trKtii>n l:ii/\'nH' lurnislu'd bv Ccllmark
Pui;!!!!--!!!.'., liK'. Uipd.iti') - l.uiu's r.illink
I riu' South f.irolin.i l.uv lliitoivoiuont Dimmoii ohsorwil .1 ri'l.iril.ituin ot Kiiuis with tlio
tinipor.itiirc-.t.ihlo//ii.///ainip.irod\\ilhniirni.ilb.iiKlmj;p.)ttiTii-uithri'giiKir/y<((///. This
n-t.ud.ition .ippoiiri-ti tube Ji'pi-nJi'nl upun thi'usi-ul I'thiJiuni broiiiiJo (FtBr). It EtBr was
iiM'J. lui liittLTi-nco u.is obscrwd in b.mdiiii; pallorns with the two Hie III cn/vnu-s Boiui
ivt.ird.ition w.i-- i)b>.iT\ cd onlv u hi-n I tHr was not used A possible e\pl,iiiation is that some
tvpe oi proteni-n\A ei«mple\, whicli would have Iiss inobiht\ , is beiiii; maintained 111 the
abseiue ol litBr. II I'tBr was mterealated into the n\A. it mii;lit pre\ent the protein-D\A
bindini; \o other work was reported on this issue.
I! I'opulalion Studies ot New Probes - Thomas Crant
L Population data on OsSllH \MTe distributed to IWCDAM nu-inbers Tne thousand
indi\ iduals were probed. The data have vet to 1h' anaK/ed.
: Additional probes beiin; considered tor evaluation are l')rS4(i7and D17S2(v 07S4h7 is tairlv
sensitive, but it is not as polvmorphie as most probi^ presentiv used
I Probe L s.ii;e Svirvev
1 A survi'v was miuUkted to determine the number ol probes used routmelv m ti'rensie
laboratories The results areas lollows;
7 probes Nuith Carolina I av\ Inli-riement Hivision
,. probes federal Bureau ol Investi'^atioii
riorida IVpartnunt 01 law I nlonemeiit
Pi'iiiisv Iv ania State Poliee
Washoe t ountv sluritt s Oltiee
^ probes I alilornia IVpartnient ol liistue
Indianapolis-Marion (. ountv I oreiisu 'sfrvues .\i;eiuv
\Iarvland State Polue
Missouri Stale llii;huav Patrol
\ ermont Department ol Publu Saletv
1 i^robes Koval Canadian Miumted Polue
I he probes used bv the laboratories Mirv ev ed were I'>|s7, li:St4. PJsl^i. |1^S1 10, D7s4iC,
!'lli'-:s. and ni7's7'i
|i Ui-poitmc ol C I'uuidental MaUh Probal^ihlies
1 \ -iirvev vvas^ondiKted liulelermine 11 a minimum probabihlv was used 111 reporliiii; risults
ol a l")\.\ tomparison While mosi |,iK>ralories used a minimum proiMbihtv. it varied
anionu the dillereiu laboratories and raiii;evl Irom I in lltHnullion ti> I m 10 billion ,\ tew
laboratories reported the laKiilated probabihlv . while one laboratorv reported the lari;est
probabihlv m the databases usevi bv thai laboraloiv
,! A survev waseondueled to determine the slatistual appro.uh used bv ditlereiil laboratories
w hen a three-baiul prolile is inv olv I'd m a mati h Most laboral.'ries would report the match
but w.Hild not attempt to in>.orpoiaie the resuiN mio the liiial multiloais probabihlv
103
n. Mi'.isurenicnt Error Study (update) - Eric liui'l
1. Dried bloodstnins wore prepared and distributed lo ID to 12 laboratories. These stains are
trom individuals who have large fraj;ments (greater than 10,1)1)0 base pairs) present in some
ot their proliles. Only tour laboratories have returned si/ini; data at this unie Results trom
all ol the laboratories are needed so thai appropriate st.itistkal anahses ot the data can be
conducted-
(■ Cheniikimineseent Detection (update) - Clement Smetana
1 The US Amu Criminal Identitication 1 aboralor\ is attempting to develop an cnernight
incubation procedure that is less time-consumiiij; It is presentK using Cibco HKLs ACES
2.0 and Lumiphos-I'lus tor detection The question ol » hen a laborator\ should switch ti>
chemiluminescence was discussed. Most l.iboratones agreed Ihat the time to sxvitch is when
all probes presentlv used are accessible m the clu'iniluminescence tormat and when it had
been demonstrated that the probes Ivue adequate sensiln il\.
(., Statistical Approaches lor Criminal Paternitv - ( .ar\ W'rret
1 ,\ suggested statistical approach tor use m criminal patiTiiilv cases was de\ eloped b\C.eorge
Carmodv trom t arlton L ni\ersit\ This .ippii.aJi is curreiitK used b\ the Ko\al Canadian
Mounted Tolice.
II Discussion ol Troblems, Solutions ,\-.si>oaled with KIT 1' ,\nal\sis
1 It was reported that precut ksc>2 Irom rromeiia wa^ produung estra bands Laboratories
ha\ ing this problem began purchasing uncut K=^ii2 Mi.i cutting it m the laborator\
2. Main laboratories ha\e-uccess|ull\e\tractcd D\. A Irom samples without u^ingdithiothreitol
I DTD l:\traction butler without DIT -eem- lo provide belter re^o\er\. especiaiU \Mth
degraded s.unples
"! SvnthetK oligo probes i/.c . D2S44 m:.i DI7S7^I trom 1 ilecodes) are generalK more sensitive
than punlied insert counterparts .\n e\ception has been noted with probe D2S44 and a \ er\
-mall allele Thesvntheticoligoprobeprodu-.ed a om-band prolile w hereasa puritied m-ert
D2S44 probe produced a two-band prolile The mis-mg band v\a- -mall Mppro\imatei\ T'O
base pairsi lor \erv small Iragments, the tlankmg D\ A Ihat is pre-i-nt in the punlied insert
probe but alisi'iit m the svnthetic oligi> probe ma\ be necessarv to generate suIIk lent binding
lor deUilioii ll \\as mentioiU'd thai I ilecode- currenlK' cannot sell D2S44
I \ papir receiilK published m \ii,/.;. \>i.f- K,s,,.-i, /; .laim- thai a sin-^U— trand .ultiiV-
en/\ me i- uuolved m apoptosis ipro-;rammed cell dealhi Di-graded n\A lould a-ntam
main sin-;le-strand nicks vv hicli could allect their tle\ibilit\ and perhap- their mobilit\ Tlu-
loukl be >vln degr.ided D\ A ha- -hgluK greater mobiliU th.in higher qualit\ D\ \
s SiAiTal laboratorie- reported D\,\ band- deleted bv laddiT probes but not human pn>bes
i> 1 \lra band- lu-ualK weaki haw been ol>>er\ed In a number ol laboratories with prol-'e-
n2S44 and D1I)'^2S These bands are ob-er\ed in known blood s.uiiple- and -eelli to tollow
the primar\ bands around The\ ha\ e been called ' buddv" or -bloodx " bands because their
positions -ii-m to be altected b\ the po-ilion- ol the primar\ band- The-e extra band- ma\
re-ult Irom luulea-e aclivitv ilippiivj oil ,i -mall portion ol iMch allele \\hile the D\A i- .
organized m the niu leo-ome- m liquid blood ll Ihi- were happening, the llanking D\.\ that
surrounds the\ariablenumberol tandem repeat-iWrU) I ou Id bere-ponsiblelororgani/mg
the D\ \ around the nucleosunu' -o thai In per-en-itn e -ili'- open to nuclea-e cuttmu w ould
bi> m the -ame or -imilar po-ition- lor each ^ hronio-ome
r, s,,nu' -meariiig ol the -i/e marker kulder- vxa- ob-er\ ed w hen t .ibco liKI agaro-e \\a- used
Other lot- ol the -ami' l\ pe ol agaro-i- wi're line
CRIIVIE LABORATORY I
104
PCR WORKING GROUP
I \!inilvr~ in AtteiiJance dnd L.ibor.itory Affiliations
liriKc l5udin\lo - FBI LaLx>ratiiry (Group Chair)
t-. >.iimKM B.uvhtei - FBI Laborator\'
lollriA Ban - \ irginia Division of Forensic Sciences
t liarloN Barna - Michigan State PoHce
i;ii/ahith licn/ingLT - llHnois State PoHce
\Xi\ id liiiii; - CBR LaLxiratories, Inc.
C athcrini.' t oniev - FBI Laboratory
( .< orm' niincan - Broward County Sheriff's EX-partment
Mari I,! li-cMibcri; - Roche Biomedical Laboratories
r.inicla I i--h -Chicago Police Department
(.eorgi' I krrin - Georgia Bureau of Investigation
Ko'^er kahn - VIetro-Dade Police Department
KobiTt Kii--ter - Orange Countv Sheriffs-Coroner Department
TvTr\ I abor - Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension
lenitiT 1 indsey - FBI Laboratory
■^UNaii \ar\cson - Arizona Department of Public Safety
Mark \cKon - North Carolina Bureau of Investigation
r.mH-la \e\\all - Centre of Forensic Sciences
l,ai\ Tiiice Prosley - FBI Laboratory
IXnni- Kivder - National Institute of Standards and Technologv
KiKwa l\i'\nolds - Roche Molecular Systems
( .v.ii-'Ai'i '^uo Rogers - Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences
1. i\iii.i \iin IJeroldingen -Oregon State Police
s|,u\ Wanuvke - Kentucky State Police
II "^iiniiu.irx ot Meeting
\ --uh-lralL' Controls - Jenifer Lindsey
1 In a \ alidation studv for envelopes, the FBI Laboratory detected tanit t\ pnv^ dot- \n io:iirv'l-
i-terllc -wabs) tor both DQa and Polymarker systems using an organic i.\tr.Ktuni nuil-.vd
It did not ha\e anv problem when the controls were extracted u-m.; L hilc\ li'i' V-':-
plu-nonu'iia could cause problems in interpretation. It xvas--uggcsted Ih.u .i thrr-iioki -•.:,.u
Ih' conducted to determine the amount ot DNA that needs to be pre-eiit lo pre\eiM ;':H-
aiiiplitication ot the contaminant encountered on the control swab--,
a Threshold Studv
1 1 Cut clean swabs in half.
2) Fxtract one-half ot swab using an organic extraction method (. aplure thi- |1N \ i:-inc
a Centricon 1(10 concentrator. Q.S. the sample to 200 ul.
11 Mot blot 20 ul ot the sampled MO ot total).
4) .\mplitv and tvpe the sample.
";) It any swabs show typing results, add DNA to the other hall ol tho^e -uab- i h' nc.
^ ng, 1 .2.=; ng, 0.(i23 ng, 0.^00 ng).
h) Report results to Bruce Budowie within 3 months
Iv ropulation Estimates/ PCR-Based Systems - Ceiling
1 Da\id Bing reported a case in which the court reiiuested that he -elect the mo-1 trequenl
frei|uencies from databases for his calculations.
2. it was suggested that local population studies be conducted and that the populali. >n data be
collected. '
W.liiim:: XiMiiivr: aprilisss
105
1 Hif^li Kinds, 41 + should be binned.
2. p- siniuld be used tor lionio/vgolos.
I) IVoduct Kovaltios iind Patents
I The issue ot royalties and patents and how thev \\i\l alfeet the cost of products remains
unresolved. It is hoped that nei;otiatuins with the I kiman Identitication Trade AsscKiation
and individual companies will sol\e the problem. TWCDAM hopes to negotiate a solution
to this pri'blem.
K Colvmarker - Rebecca Revnolds
1 Koche Molecular Svstenis has updated its I'oK marker popiilalion data.
2 I'oK marker v alidation studies indicate that coampliticatioii does not compromise results at
each locus. The studv compared results generated bv amplilving at a single locus to those
obtained from the I'olvmarker multiplex
■>. I'olvmarker loci are organized according losi/e .\s the sample degrades, the intensities from
locus to locus will show difterences I low e\ or. lheo\erall balance ot the dots generallv will
remain constant. It hvbridi/ation temperatures are too high, one mav observe intensity
ditlereiices at the C'lC and LDLK loci .At these loo. as the temperature increases, the intensity
w ill decrease, thus creating an imbalance
I-. I'oK marker \alidation/ KBI - Bruce Budo\\ le
1 The TBI \ alidation of the I'oKmarker s\stem included the lollowing parameters:
a. t ross-reaction with other species
b Stabilit\, lime/ sunlight
c Substrates
d t'hemical coiitanunalion
e \li\tures
I Sensitn il\
g. Tissues
h. I Ivbndi/ation temperature
1 I'opulation studies
2 The iros--reaclion ^lud\ -.hnwed In brkli/atinn with
a I ligher prima It's
b l.ovv-lexel h\bndi/ation with goat at high n\.\ input k-\els (20 to "■■{) ngl
' Ihe ti-sue -lud\ indicated n^-: problem--
4 I he h\ brkli/ation studv demonstrali'd a more I'tlicient biiulim; at ^4 t I lowexer, at ^^ C
imaiuitacturiTs nxoninu-nd.itioni. Iheri' i^ le^- i ro-s reaiti\il\ Ihe f Bl l.aboratorx will
lontinue to use ?5 C
^ I'opuKilion -ludie- di'inon-lrate that there are more dilleri'iue- between ma|or groups than
v\ ilhm m,i|or groups
C \ev\ I'roduct IX'\ elopmeiil/ Roche Molecular S\ stems - Rebecca Re\nolds
1 riu' next generation ot strips ma\ be a bar i.i.\\c lormat I his w ill .illow lor more loci and/
or s\s|ems In be put on a --trip
2 'strips are being developed tor mlDX.A l\ ping b.ised on Mark Slonekmg s sei|uence-
■! M rips are now available lor-e\ markers I hese markers will be incorporated into other -trips
in the lulure.
CRIME LABORATORY I li 1
106
MITOCHONDRIAL DNA WORKING GROUP
I \1i.'mlxr> 111 Alk'iKiiiHi' .Hul I .ibor.itorv AHili.ilioMs
liweph ni/iiino - I'm I .ibor.Uon (Cinuip t h,\irl
t li.irk"- ( antluT - L nu iTsilv ot t'.iljtiirni.i ,il HiTki'U-\
MiklK'll lloU.UKi - Aniii'd l-uRfs lnsii(iili-,>l I',itlu>loi;v
I trr\ Molloii - IVnnsvK ,1111.1 St.iti' Liii\ir-.il\ iinniiiuiiibir)
\l.irk SliMiokiiii; - ri'iiiis\l\. 1111.1 St.ili' L iincrvitv
\I.irk Wilson - 1 IM l.iKir.Uorv
II '^iiiiiiii.iiA 111 Mi'i'tiiii;
\ Ihr t;riiup disiiisM'!.! v.iriiHi- i--siifs ri'i;,iriliiii; the Ji'M-kipiiU'iit nl iiitilNA toiliiiulo^v lur
luri-nsK cisvvwirk.
I! ( li.irk's CiiilluT IV iun\ ucirkiiii; 111 C.ior;^!.- W'n--.ib.uii;li'-- l.ibor.itorv at tlic L iii\cr--il\ ol
I. .ill lorn 1.1 ,11 iHrki-li-v . .iiui lu' riM'iilK >rqiifimJ DVA Ironi'-i-l iiutn iJu.iK troni siLTr,i Iamihv
I !<■ 1- in tlu' prim'ss ol lonip.iriiii; llu' p,illii 11 1\ pes .inj ili-lril>iilioii- ol llu--i, si\|ihmvi.s w ith ,i
J.it.ib.isi- ol Alrii.,in AnuTiiMii vinipk-- Ironi \i'\\ ^ork, \^ So l,ir. lu' i-- obstri 111,4 sinnl.ir
niin\A si\|iu-iui' p,ilt<.rii t\pi-- ,ukI iii-lribiilii>ii- m both popiil.itioiis
I. MilJu'll IIoII.hkI iscoiiipli'tin^,! nuil.iluMi r.it.-liiJ\ ot IClUo I =^11 iiiotluT child ainip,iri-oii-.
\o i.t,it,i Iroiii this s(ui.l\ iM-n- proM'iiti'J .il llu- iiu\-tiiii; I U' .iNo i^ oplinii/in^ priiiuT p.iir^ tor
niti)\A ,iniplilii.,ition,iiui iiioviitv iiv.; llu- \iiiu-J I .Tii-^ InstiiuUol r,itlu,|o,4\ - boiu-o\lr,Ktioii
protocol
|1 ri-ir\ Mi-lton prc-i-iiK-J mtPX \il.it.i utili/nv4.i -i >|ihiki.- ~pi.-iitu oIii;oiuk k-otidcin bruli/.ilioii
Irjinunu- lo-diiK --iibpopukition lu-ti-ro/\ >4c>-ii\ .iiul iNfiici t i>ii Ji'tiTniiiiin>; llir prob,ibilitii.--
oi i.iiuloiii 111, 111 111". Ill lonii-K .ipplu,itioii- \1,ii k siom-kin-^ ,il-.o 1- K-i;iniiiiiu ,1 iiitDXA -tmU
ot ,ippri>\i 111.1 ti-l\ M-\oii .^i-iu-Mtion-. 111,1 Jo-i-il piipukitii'ii troni Iri-li.t.ui d,i Cunli.L.in isobtt'd
i~l.\iul 111 llu- nitj- Ml.intk CVi-.iii
I \I.uk V\iNon dis^u-~i-J ihi- pro.^ri-sot llu- I HI I .ibor.ilorv - iiitDNA n-si-.ircli fltort Thi- FBI
I .iboi.ilor\ i~ ri-s,-,iri liiii'^ iiiiillipli-Miv.; ot 1 1\ I .uul 1 1\ 2 .implilK.ilion .uul tlu- ii--i'o; ri,-stru.tioii
.luk'nik k-.i-i-s lo 11111111111/1- ,oiil,iiiiin,itii,n llu- I HI I .ibor,itor\ li.i- >-vt.ibli-.lu-il pri.-liniui.ir\
pi.'looiU lor li.urs. boiu-. .iiiJ U-i-tli .iiul li.i~ > u-.ili-J popul.ilioii J.il.ib.iM- loiisivtnm ol ^'l
\irk.iii Xiiu-rk.iii-, mU ,uk.i-i,ui-. .hkI ,ippro\iiii.iii-K lii I 'rk-iit,iU
I I hi--.;roiipioii-KK-ri-di-st.ilMisliiii,4iJ \ ( H. .;iikkliiu-v lor l.il'or,ilork-. u-iiv^ iiitOX \ 111 lon-iisk
,.i-i-\\ork llu- >;ri>iip u.iiit- to .-vLilMisJi iIum- -.;iikli-liiu-s bill il w.iv ik-i kk-d th.it nion-
mloriii.ili.Mii--iu-i-Ji-Jbt-tor>-i;iiki>-lini-i.iiil-'i-i~l.iblislu-J I Ik'^roiip;^ ill rocoii-uli ri-s|.ibl;s|iiii>;
ij \ O*- >;iikKliiH-v .It tlu- iu-\t r\\( ,n \\1 iiu-i-liii'4
I. \liulull I loll.iiul JisiributcJ ^..pii- ,•! llu- pi.ipos.d Ls I \p.irinu-iit ol IX-u-n-c iju.ilitx
.issiu.iiKi- proi;r.iiii tiM iiilCfX A kKiitiik.ilioii ,>i .iiuuiit ri-111.1111-. I k- .i>;ri'i-it lo ili-^tributi- the
( > \ (.K mikk-liiu-- nvoninifiidi-J b\ llu- (. olli-^r ot Anu-ru.in r.itholoi;iNts .iiut tlii- Vnifncin
Soiu-l\ ot ( riiiu- I .ibor.ilor\ Hiri-iliT- lo .ill l\\(.|1\\l nilONA nunilx-rs priiir to Iho no\t
IWC.nWI iiu-,-tin.4 llu- ri!l I .ibor.il..r\ will >,.lk-^l ,inj Ji-fibuti- otiu-r iX\< C> \ QC
-ukk-hiu-- lo.ill iiitl)\ \ nu-niK-r--
APRIL 1995
107
H. The group provided some bnsic QA/QC guidelines lli.it might be considered for the application
of mtDNA typing to forensic casework. These guidelines are as follows:
1 I'hvsicallv separate extraction space should be available lor anticipated low-level DNA
extraction procedures.
2. Use of a laminar tlow hood for extraction and amplification setup.
3. Use ot dedicated reagent /supplies lor low-level DNA extraction and amplification.
4. Anv validated typing or sequencing methodology is acceptable (automated or manual
sei]uencing, reverse dot blot, I'CR oligonucleotide ligase assay, etc).
3. Extraction and amplification blanks should be run with all PCR amplifications in casework,
h. Extraction and amplification of questioned samples should be performed before extraction
and amplification of known samples. U pertormed in the same area Questioned samples also
should be sequenced belore known samples
7 Strive for typing of H\'I and H\'2 \vith a minimum number of ambiguities
H. Reference samples should be typed tor all laboratory personnel in\ olved in the prinress.
I. The group brietlv discussed the possibilitx ot de\ eloping a regional laborator\' structure for the
ti>rensic application of mtDNA technology This will be discussed further at the next TWGDAM
meeting
CRIIHE LABORATORY i
108
The folUnvinR 19 p-igcs nre a reprint of the Executive Summary of a report by the Counterdrug Tcchnolopy
Assessment Center ol the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The report provides the results of the teclmicil
evaluation ol the BULLBTPROOF' and DRUCFIRE" ballistic imaging systems.
Please note that the original page numbers of this report have been maintained. Although the report begins on page 5\
of the Ciiiiw Lilhiriilon/ Dij;csl, it then follows the page sequence of the original report's Executive Summary (page^
i through xviii). The main text of the report and the appendices are not included in this reprint.
Normal pagination >equence for the Crime Labaralory Digest resumes on page 7(1.
Copies of the ctmiplete report are available from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Counterdrug Technol;igv
Assessment Center, E.xecutive Office of the President, Washington, DC 20500.
BENCHMARK EVALUATION STUDIES
of the BULLETPROOF and DRUGFIRE
BALLISTIC IMAGING SYSTEMS
A Technical Evaluation with
Recommendations for Action
Executive Office of the President
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Counterdrug Technology .Assessment Center
November 1994
Volume 22 Number 2 APRIL 1995
109
'"""v EXECLTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRL(; CONTROL POLICY
NV^shineton. DC. :U500
•,*/;
Recencly, Che Office of Management and Budget requested chat niy
office conduct a technical performance assessment of two ballistic
■maging systems, BULLETPROOF AND DRUGFIRE. The report provides
rhe results of the assessment of the technical performance of the
cwo ballistic imaging and examination systems and recommendations
on ways to integrate the systems into a single quite versatile
system. The Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC)
within my office organized and carried out the study.
-or Che past seventy years, forensic experts have used the
comparison microscope to examine the ballistics of weapons used m
violent crimes. One by one, a Firearms Examiner would compare
recovered specimens against a test specimen fired from a suspect
weapon. We now have an opportunity to introduce advanced imaging
cystem technology to assist the firearms examiner. The new
approach, called ballistic imaging, provides an examiner with
state-of-the-art data acquisition, image matching, image
manipulation, and networked communications capabilities. With a
ballistic imaging system, the examiner uses data searching and
image correlation algorithms to interpret the class and individual
characteristics of the ammunition under examination.
Based on my thirty years experience in police work, I am firmly
-.-cnvinced chat che deploymenc of regional necworks of mutually
compatible ballistic imaging systems would result in a dramatic
increase in linking and solving more criminal cases. The
recommendations from che reporc should be considered as Federal
tiuidelmes for che introduction of ballistic imaging technology.
To ensure compatibility with the regional networks serving their
area in the future, I would encourage che direccors of che more
Chan 160 laboracories around che councry Co consider che
-ecommendacions contained within the report.
^ -
Lee P. Brown
Director
no
BENCHMARK EVALUATION STUDIES of the
BULLETPROOF® and DRUGFIRE™ BALLISTIC IMAGING SYSTEMS
Executive Summary
At the request of the Office of Management and Budget (0MB), the OfTlce of National
Drug Control Policy - Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (ONDCP/CTAC) organized
an independent evaluation of two computer based ballistic imaging systems named
BULLETPROOF* (BP) and DRUGFIRE™ (DP) These ballistic imaging systems use the
powerful searching capabilities of the computer to match the images of recovered crime scene
evidence agamst digitized images stored in a computer database.
The BP system, used to analyze bullets, has been sponsored, in part, by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) of the United States Treasury Department The DF
system, used to analyze cartridge cases, has been sponsored by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) of the United States Department of Justice
The three objectives of this independent evaluation project were to 1) perform an
independent evaluation of the BP and DF systems consisting of system performance and life cycle
cost analyses, 2) perlbrm a "redundancy analysis", and 3) perform an "integration analysis" To
conduct this evaluation project, CTAC assembled an independent team of expens consisting of a
project leader from the Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC), a systems engineer and cost
analyst, a computer and image analyst, an optics engineer, and two Firearms Examiners The
names, affiliations, and concise resumes of the experts on the Independent Evaluation Team are
listed in Appendix A
The performance of the sophisticated image acquisition, correlation algorithms, network
communications, and design of the BP and DF systems was evaluated using a standard series ot
computer image analysis and system evaluation criteria commonly referred to as measures of
elTectivcness (MOEs) These system performance MOEs included overall system accuracv.
overall processing capability, system processing speed, complexity, computer requirements,
database size, restrictions, interface compatibility, network compatibility, human factors, reliability.
environmental liniiintions, facilities requirements, and expandability These MOEs arc standarJ
performance measures that would be used to evaluate any computer based image matching
system .Additionally, a Life Cycle Cost analysis was performed on each system based on a
national scale sy.sh'm.s Jcploymcnl plan over a five year time frame The entire set of .MOEs
were agreed to and approved by BATF, FBI, and 0MB Because the functionality of the two
ballistic imaging systems continues to evolve, their pertbrmance measured by the MOEs should be
considered as indications of the current performance a Firearms Examiner could expect from the
BP and DF systems
Firearms Examiners have traditionally classified and identified ballistic evidence on bullets
and cartridge cases from class and inJiviJnal characteristics CAj.v.v characteristics identify a
family of firearms and, in some cases, distinguish difierent manufacturers. The bullet class
Ill
charactenst.es include the number of land and groove impressions, direction ot twist, and the land
impression width Cartndge case class characteristics include the location of the extractor and
ejector marks, the shape of the firing pin and the finng pin drag Thus, class charactenst.es by
themselves are useful in that they can reduce a large database to a more manageable level With a
computer based ballistic imaging system, the Firearms Examiner now uses sophisticated data
searching and image correlation algorithms to interpret the class and ind.v.duai charactenst.es ot
the ammunition under examination.
The traditional method of ballistic evidence examination as perfonned by a Fireanns
Examiner manually compares, one by one. the recovered specimens against a test specimen fired
from a suspect weapon This current procedure for determining if a recovered firearm was used
to fire one of the cartndge cases or bullets in the open case files is extremclv time consuming
The procedure requires the examiner to physically remove the evidence from a vault, mount the
test evidence specimens on a microscope, and perform an optical companson This comparison
can be as shon as ih.rtv (30) minutes or as long as twenty (20) hours (or more) depend.ng on the
difficulty of the marks and degree of documentation required. At first glance, this does not seem
significant However, after considering the number of open case files and their broad
geographic-il distribution, it is evident that there are considerable problems with the current
examination methods The chain of custody requirements often make .t .mpracticil to routine.v
analyze such evidence Cun-ently. unsolved open case files are only consulted \vhon the Firearms
Examiner has definitive information from the investigator that two or more cases m.iv h.i%e
involved a common fireami Obviously, this is an infrequent occurrence By using a b.illisiic
imaging svstem, the computer retains the images of the evidence and can transmit that ima^e to
other computer svstcms These computer based ballistic imaging systems allow the Firearms
Examiner to quickly review and possibly link large amounts of evidence to a cnme uhile
minimizing the evidence chain of custody requirements
For each of the ballistic imaging systems, the Independent Evaluation Team sper.;
approximaielv .nic week (five working d^s) on-site These on-site evaluations conMs:cd ci
demonstrations. leal-time stress tests, hands-on operational expenence, ana question and answer
sessions The s%stcm stress tests were utilized by the Independcm Evaluation Team to uain a
better understanding of how each system worked and to determine possible oper.itor bias in data
input and sample matching
The tuil-up FiP svstem was evaluated at the BATF Forensic Science Laboraton, ;:-.
Rockvillc, \tarxhind The' full-up DF system was cvalu.ated at the FBI Laboratory in Washington.
DC During each week of on-site evaluations, the Independent Evaluation Team was
accompanied bv forensic experts and contractor support from the oiiisule ir^'cncx T!:e
accompanvmu team helped bring important information to the attention of the Independent
Evaluation Team During each week of systems evaluation, closed door sessions ucre tield to
discuss propnctary information. The outside agencies and contractors were excluded during
these proprietary- meetings
A I oniroUcd baseline database was developed consisting of fiNC calibers of v^eapons 25
Auto. 3S0 .-\uto. t^ mm. 38 Spccial/357 Magnum, and 45 Auto Each caliber of weapon consisted
of thirty (30) distinct guns, two fired bullets and tw- fired cartridge cases were supplied from
each gun The baseline database consisted of a total of one hundred fifty pairs of specimens (>
112
calibers X 30 guns X 2 specimens each = 300 specimens or 150 pairs) AJI of these database
specimens (mciuding the double blind test specimens, discussed below) were judged by the
Firearms Examiners on the Independent Evaluation Team as minimally damaged or pristine The
bullets were forwarded directly to BATF and the cartridge cases directly to FBI This entire set
of specimens, mcludmg the test specimens, are referred to as the ONDCP database throughout
this report. A self correlation and a double blind test was conducted on both systems These
tests, based on five calibers of handguns, were designed and overseen by the two Firearms
Examiners on the Independent Evaluation Team For these tests, the databases were delineated
by caliber only Furthermore, the five separate caliber databases were artificially enlarged by
adding previously existing images representing individual weapons That is, the OXDCP
database of biillcis was enlarged by adding images already on file at BATF Similarly, the
ONDCP database of cartridge cases was enlarged by adding images already on file at FBI These
additional bullet and cartridge case images were selected at random by BATF and FBI,
respectively These enlarged databases were created to better simulate real-world field
operations Specifically, the following table summarizes the test series database sizes used in
these tests Also note that BATF had a large image database of 38 Special/357 Magnum
weapons, therefore, an additional test database was constructed only for BP by adding 350
images representing 38 SpeciaL/357 Magnum handguns (denoted by an asterisk in the table)
BATF, FBI, and 0MB agreed to the design of the individual databases
Database Sizes for BP and DP Test Series
Caliber
Scries
Designation
ONDCP Supplied
Weapons
FBI/BATF Add-
on Weapons
Total Weapons
in Database
25 Auto A
30
100
130
3 SO Auto B
30
250
ISO
9 mm Luyer C
30
500
530
38Sp/35^Ma.- i D
30
30(350*)
60(3S0")
45 .-\uto ! E
30
100 1 130 1
The self torrclation lest was performed only on the 9 mm Luger samples (scries C. 530
samples total) This test simply asked the ballistic imaging systems to find the respective mate to
each of the thiny (30) pairs of ONDCP samples in the expanded 9 mm caliber database Ti;e
second test was a double blind test series for each of the five calibers This double blind test
series requested the BP and DF systems to determine new matches in the ONDCP database tor an
additional set of controlled test samples Specifically, an additional ten (10) test samples per
caliber (i e . 50 bullets and 50 cartridge cases, some of which were control samples) were supplied
to BATF and FBI The BP and DF personnel were asked to conduct their standard computer
correlation, selection, \idco image comparison, and identification process The result of each o\
the fifty (50) blind tests was a final list of high confidence candidates, if any Under normal
circumstances, the Firearms Examiner would requisition these high confidence candidates for
physical examination under comparison microscope to make a conclusive identification The
results of the double blind tests were based on this list of high confidence candid.ites The double
blind test results were examined using three (3) statistical techniques to establish the validity of
the results In all three statistical analyses, the test results were found to be s. ;nificant at the 95° o
confidence level
113
To perfonn the Life Cycle Cost analysis, the national scale systems deployment model
was as follows beginning in FY95. four (4) operational clusters are deployed annually for a total
of twenty active clusters by the end of FY99 All clusters are deployed as five site networked
systems (for a total of 1 00 individual computer systems by the end of FY99) Each cluster of five
networked svstems would consist of one central imaging and analysis station {i.e., the server) and
four regional imaging and analysis stations The central imaging and analysis station acts as the
cluster control umt and master database hub. it would also pass data among all units in the cluster.
Siuie cm J Local Work-Years are not include J in this Life Cycle Cost model for either the BP or
DF .nstem.
The findings from this evaluation study show a number of interesting and candid results
The most notable of these results are
1 Both ballistic imaging systems arc extremclv useful to the Firearms Examiner in their
current configuration
2 There are approximately 160 Federal. State, and Local Forensic Laboratories in the
United States that could benefit from the deployment of one or both of these ballistic
imaging systems The deployment of the BP and DF systems should result in an
increase in linking and solving more cnminal cases
■! The deployment of the BP and DF ballistic imaging systems will not reduce manpower
requirements
4 rhe BP and DF systems are not redundant However, they perform similar functions
on dilTercnt types of ballistic evidence
5, The procedure of matching bullets is inherenilv more complex compared to matching
cartridue cases This result is simply due to the nciiiirc of ihc evidence and the amount
of data that must be analyzed to perform the image matching task by the computer
aluorithms The BP system is addressing the more dilTicult problem of matching
bullets The DF system is addressing the problem of matching cartridge cases The
Independent Evaluation Team does not know of any other ballistic imaging systems
capable of performing these tasks Also, there is a lack of historical information for
computer based ballistic image correlation tests to judge the respective performances of
these systems
o BP and DF represent major improvements in ballistic identification technologies To
realize the full potential of the systems would require continued engineering
development Both systems have enormous potential to become an extremely elTective
tool to the Firearms Examiner
114
7 A Firearms Examiner requires state-of-the-art data acquisition, image matching, image
manipulation, and networked communications capabilities available in modem
computer based technologies. Clearly, a Firearms Examiner (or other end user) would
be much more efficient and knowledgeable on a single, versatile, state-of-the-an
ballistics imaging system.
8 From a systems engineering point of view, the Firearms Examiners' ballistic imaging
system requirements can be met by available technology Based on the current
technological status of the BP and DP systems (the only two ballistic imaging systems
on the market today), the Firearms Examiners' ballistic imaging system requirements
would be met by integrating BP and DF into one common versatile platform .AJso
quite interesting is that, generally, weak points in one system are strong points in the
other Spccillcally, the from e«c/ (microscope, lighting system, and data acquisition
system) of the DP system should be combined with the back tv/J (computer system and
networkmg capability) of the DF system. Both the BP and DF systems have
proprietary operational computer image correlation algorithms which should be used in
the common platform
9 The results of the auto correlation tests showed that BP ranked the test match in the
first place position 25 6% of the time, DF ranked the test match in \.ht first place
position 13 y/o of the time. For rankings \n positions one (1) through ten (10), BP
found the test match 42.6% of the time compared to 56 6% for DF.
10. In the double blind tests, BP operators identified 20 of 30 possible correct matches
{i.e.. hits), DF operators identified 28 of 30 possible correct matches Also, from the
20 control samples {i.e., test specimens without mates in the database), BP had four (4)
false positives, DF had three (3) false positives
11. The results of the double blind tests indicate BP would have difficulty identifying
smaller caliber bullets.
12 The results of the double blind tests allowed a comparison of the image matchmg
comparison speed From scanning the test specimen into the database to generation oC
the final high confidence candidate match list, the DF system established a match at
least three (3) times faster than the BP system If specimen images are already present
in the database, the DF system establishes a match least seven (7) times faster than the
BP system This noticeable diflerence in times to establish a match can be explained by
two main considerations First, BP requires the recording and analysis of megabues of
bullet image data while DF requires only kilobytes of cartridge case image data
Second, a Firearms Examiner simply requires more time to conduct a visual
examination on a pair of bullets compared to a pair of cartridge cases
115
1 3 Using the Jive year national scale systems deployment model, the BP system would be
approximately three (3) times more expensive than DF to deploy on a national scale,
with current pricing under Federal contracts, including volume discounts Specifically,
the results from the model indicate that the BP deployment would require
approximately $41,221,000 and 82 BATF Work- Years; the DF deployment would
require approximately $13,568,000 and 33.5 FBI Work- Years Stale and Local Work-
Years are not included in this Life Cycle Cost model for either system.
14 For single system purchases, the price difierenlial BP and DF expands to range from
approximately 6:1 to 10:1, depending on system configurations Specifically, the
current single unit purchase price for a stand-alone SAS/DAS BP system is
approximately 5540,000. The single unit purchase price for a baseline stand-alone DF
system ranges from approximately $51,000 (client and server operations on one
SPARCstation™) to $95,000 (client and server operations on two separate
SPARCstation™s) These figures, based on current contracts and pricing, mcludc
hardware and software procurement, installation, checkout, and initial training BP
svsteins are offered at discount pricing for quantity purchases
15 The United States Government should consider performing a ShuiilJ (\)si Analysis ot
an integrated system with the capabilities of both the BP and DF systems before
acquiring any ballistic imaging system(s) Through a first order approximation, the
Independent Evaluation Team estimates the Should Cost of such an integrated system
to be in the range of $150,000 to $250,000
16 The United States Government should consider performing a Cost Benefit Analysis en
such an integrated ballistic imaging system before acquiring any ballistic imaging
systcin(s)
17 Several specific recommendations have been conveyed to the developers of the BP and
DF ballistic imaging systems. These recommendations are listed on pages 37 and 38 ot
this report
The following pages describe the performance of the BP and DF systems based on t.'.e
MOEs These results, and others, are documented and discussed in detail throughout the
remainder of this report
This report represents the opinions of the entire Independent Evaluation Team, no
Independent |-vakiation Team Member otTered any dissenting opinion Both BATF and FBI have
supplied addendums to this report which are contained in Appendices F and G, respectively
116
BULLETPROOF® and DRUGFIRE™
Performance Chart
Measure of Effectiveness (MOE)
BULLETPROOF®
DRUGFIRETM
Type of Evidence Analyzed
Bullets
Cartridge Cases
Overall Svstem Accuracy was measured
solely on the self correlation
and double blind tests !
a Self Correlation Results:
First Place Position
25.9%
13 3%
Positions 1 to 10
42.6%
56 6%
b Double Blind Test Results:
True Negatives
16 of 20
17 of 20 I
False Positives
4 of 20
3 of 20 :
Hits
20 of 30
28 of 30 '
Misses
10 of 30
2 of 30
System Processing Speed was measured
by the time required for data acquisition and the time |
for automated search and correlation.
i
a. Data acquisition:
! Time to calibrate the system for
scanning an initial test sample:
No Procedures
No Procedures
2 Time to set up a sample for scanning:
Approx. 2 minutes
Approx 1 minute
3 Time required to acquire the test
sample data, display the data, and verify
Approximately
Approximately |
the data's completeness and accuracy:
14 minutes
1 1 minutes i
4. Data transfer time
Approx 1 minute for 1
bullet image from DAS to
SAS on the LAN
Automatic ;
i
b Search and Correlation:
1 Time required to search the database
Approximately 2 to 7
Approximately 7 to 10 '
to obtain primary candidate matches:
seconds/'image
images/second j
2 Time required for the Firearms
1
Examiner to view the primary
candidate(s) and the reference specimen
on the high resolution computer
Approximately 5 minutes
Approximately 6 minutes '
monitor:
per bullet
per cartridge case
117
Measure of Effectiveness (MOE) I BULLETPROOF® | DRUGFIREtm
Overall Processing Capability was based on the time required to correlate 1000 unknown
specimens against an established database consisting of 1000 images In this hypothetical
measure, the 1000 unknown samples are not added to the database For both BP and DF. these
times scale linearly with database size and number of correlation search requests
20 8 days
1 25 days
Complexity was a qualitative measure to gauge system operational qualities such as calibration,
sample preparation, data acquisition, display, processing, data storage, image correlation, and
image standards and quality assurance techniques
a. Ease of system calibration;
b Ease of sample preparation:
c Ease of data acquisition,
processing, and storage:
display.
d Ease of test sample image correlation
to the database
e Image standards requirements
quality assurance techniques:
No calibration
Easy, C clamp jig,
mounting stub
Operator sets video
image boundaries, focus,
illumination level; user
must view 2 video
screens; users can input
detailed case file
information, users must
initiate transfer from DAS
and receive on SAS for
data storage; system is
easy to learn and use.
User can select multiple
filters based on GRCs and
other characteristics for
an imiiviJual correlation.
selection is menu driven
and easy to use; batch
runs only incorporate
system default GRC filter
settings
Performed by user; highly
user subjective
No calibration j
Easy, Sticky wax.
needs mechanical jie II
Operator must adjust j
specimen centering. \
focus, illumination, and ,]
orientation (rotation), ■!
users can input detailed ',|
case file information, ii
image storage is ||
automatic and transparent I|
to the user, system is easy ij
to learn and use l!
User can select multiple
filters based on GRC
filters Selection is menu
driven and casv to use
Performed by user, highly
user subjective
118
Measure of Effectiveness (MOE)
BULLETPROOF®
DRUGFIRET^'
Computer Requirements were measured by a description of system computer(s) capabilities
(operating speed. RAM, etc.), demographic data used in the image search and correlation
process, the ease of modification and editing of the main database file, and supporting peripheral
equipment
a. System computer(s) capabilities:
b. Demographic data used and their
effect in the image search and
correlation process
c Ease of modification and editing of
the main database file
d Supporting peripheral equipment:
DAS consists of a
486DX2, 66MHz. EISA
Bus, 20 MB of RAM,
1 70 MB hard drive, and
12 GB erasable optical
disk SAS is the same,
but has an additional 1
GB hard drive and 525
MB cartridge tape
Standard GRC filters and
other user specified
characteristics to
effectively narrow the
search space, additional
built-in filter based on
LEA widths to quickly
accept or reject candidate
images for correlation.
User can only perform
modifications from the
DAS; modifications
require an additional
transfer session to efTect
changes in the database
Video and image printer
strongly suggested
Client system consists of
a Sun SPARCstation 10
with32MBofR.-VM, 1
GB hard drive, and 19"
high resolution monitor
Server system is same,
with 4 GB hard drive,
250 MB cartridge tape
drive
Standard GRC filters and
other user specified
characteristics to
effectively narrow the
search space
Individual case mods can
be made from any client:
only the database
administrator can delete
files from the database
Video and image printer
strongly suggested
119
Measure of Effectiveness (MOE)
BULLETPROOF®
DRUGFIRETM
Database Size/Restrictions was measured by storage requirements.
totai number of data sets
that can be held in the system data storage component, level of detail captured in the ongmal
,mn..,ni. nrncess and data comoression capability and its afTect on imaue resolution and quality
a Storage required for each sample data
Approximately 350 kB
Each standard image size
set:
per LEA (ie, 2.1 \tB for
is approximately 30 kB,
a 6 LEA bullet).
the user has option of
uncompressed images are
storing multiple standard
stored on the DAS
images and other
optical drive, a 2 1 MB
auxiliary images; single
original image is re-
cartridge case data file
sampled and compressed
with 2 standard images
to approximately 200 kB,
and 3 additional images
text and signature data
auxiliary images are
are approximately 20 kB
approximately 150 kB on
per bullet, compressed
the server.
image data arc stored on
the SAS optical drive.
text, and signature data
are stored on the SAS
hard dri\e
1
b Total number ot data sets that can be
600 uncompressed
.Approximately 27,000
held in the system data storage
images on the DAS
cartridge cases on the
component(s)
optical disk drive
Approximately 3,000
compressed images on
the SAS optical disk
drive, approximately
50,000 text and signature
data flics on the SAS
hard drive
server
i
' c Data compression capability and its
Data compression is a 5 1
Data compression is a
atlcct on image resolution and quality
JPnG(/.c'., S0%) FTI
10 1 JPEG(ie, 90%)
was unable to
FEs sighted minor
demonstrate side-by-side
difTerences in the
viewing of the
compressed and
compressed and original
uncompressed images, ,
images
but believed the losses to
be insignificant
d Level of detail captured in the original
Adequate
Adequate |
j imaging process
1
1
120
Measure of Effectiveness (MOE) BULLETPROOF®
DRUGFIRETM
Interface Compatibility was measured by noting bullet or cartridge size limits, interface
between the CCD camera and the microscope, hardware requirements adherence to industry
standards, and calibration and quality assurance procedures.
a. Bullet or cartndge size limits:
b. Interface between the CCD camera
and the microscope:
c. Hardware conformance to industry
standards
d. Software conformance to industry
standards:
e CCD camera calibration and quality
assurance procedures
f Minimum evidence requirements:
Only calibers between
25 Autos and 45 Autos
were tested
Excellent
Conforms to standards
Conforms to current
industry standards, but
the software design and
implementation are poor,
software includes a
closed custom database
with no data exchange
capabilities; non-
multitasking system
software.
No calibration, no
established QA/QC
Must be able to define 1
land impression
Same
Excellent
Conforms to standards
Conforms to current
industry standards The
software design and
implementation are well
done
No calibration, no
established QA/QC
Not adequately tested
121
Measure of Effectiveness (MOE)
BULLETPROOF®
DRUGFIRETM
Network Compatibility was measured by network robustness, networking hardware
requirements, and software and database security requirements
a. Network functionality:
b Networking hardware requirements
c Software and database security
requirements
J System and network administration
priKcdurcs and backup
Poor
Software requires
operator intervention at
sending and receiving
ends to effect all network
transfers, only one
network operation is
possible at a time
Requires standard 14 4
kB dial-up modem for
WAN operations.
optional DES
Requires Novell
NetWare-Light software
for L.\N and WAN
operation, poor security
arrangements due to the
single user password for
all users
Ail backups are manually
initiated No other
system administration
was specified
Excellent.
State-of-the-art, real-time
video comparison and
text dialogs between
multiple clients, and e-
mail.
LAN is built-in WAN
requires an external
terminal server, dedicated
telephone line, 56 kB
modem, optional DES
Excellent network
security, separate ID and
password for each user,
system administrator, and
database administrator,
users are not allowed
access to the UNIX™
operating system
Daily backups are
automatic Full system
backup requires operator
to change tapes System
administrator must add
and delete all users
Non-catastrophic failures
can be handled over the
network
122
Measure of Effectiveness (MOE)
BULLETPROOF®
DRUGFIRETM 1
Human Factors was a quality measurement of man-machine interface limitations, technician
qualifications requirements, technician training requirements, ease of sample processing.
specimen handling procedures, operator bias in data acquisition and sample matching, and
customer support access
a. Man-machine mterface limitations:
Operator must re-focus
Operation on single
attention between two
screen/single station.
video screens; GUI is
system is easy to learn
easy and fast to learn and
and operate, visual and
operate, several functions
audio prompts, specimen
are mouse driven; mouse
mounting and adjustment
cau not be used during
procedures are contoned;
high resolution video
algorithm score numbers
image comparison.
are confusing, small video
ergonomics are very
image size could mask
good.
potential matches, video
image comparison is \
excellent, ergonomics are 1
very good
b. Technician qualifications requirements
Suggested: AA degree.
Same j
(expertise, education, manual dexterity,
approximately 120 hours
etc):
of varied classes,
computer familiarity,
visual acuity, and form
perception.
1
c Technician training requirements to
Suggested: DAS
Same level of training !
include formal classes and on-the-job
operator: approx. 32 hrs
1
training
of a firearms safety class,
40 hrs of basic firearms
identification training, 40
hrs of system training,
SAS operator: 20 day
training session on the
DAS/SAS.
123
Measure of Effectiveness (MOE)
BULLETPROOF®
DRLGFIRETM
Human Factors (connnued)
d. Operator bias in data acquisition:
With the exception of
With the exception of
defining LEA widths, the
centering the image, the
system was reasonably
system was reasonably
tolerant to operator bias
tolerant to operator bias
e Operator bias in sample matching:
Operator can define
Operator may be subject
selection criteria based on
to fatigue and eye strain, ;
image correlation scoring
misaligned or rotated '■■
values; scoring data is
images may cause
displayed in tabular form
problems, operator is not
which may lead to
adversely afiected by the :
operator fatigue & errors
ranking system, images
presented in rank order
f Customer support access:
Currently adequate; user
Currently good, user
groups established to help
groups established to heip
identify future system
identify future system
hardware and software
hardware and software
upgrades, user must pay
upgrades, free software
for all hardware and
upgrades insuring
software upgrades, no
uniformity throughout the
mechanism exists to
user base, user must pay
insure that all BP cites are
for commerci.il sottuare
running identical
upgr.idos
versions.
=^
124
Measure of Effectiveness (MOE)
BULLETPROOF®
DRUGFIRETN'
Environmental Limitations was a qualitative measure that tooic note of special environmental
requirements, ha2ardous materials handling requirements, and hazardous matenals disposal
requirements
a. Special environmental requirements;
b Hazardous matenals handling and
disposal requirements
May require air
conditioning for operator
comfort
None
Same
None
Facilities was qualitative measure that noted space requirements, special facilities features ;
requirements, and hardware/svstem security requirements. '
a Space requirements
b Special tacilities features
requirements
c Hardware and system security
requirements
DAS/SAS require
approximately 10' X 15'
(150 square feet)
Two (2) separate 1 1 5
Volt, 15 Ampere, 3 wire
dedicated circuits
To prevent unauthorized
hardware and software
access, the system must
be located in a physically
secure room.
Server and client can t'lt ;
on a large desktop table ;
approximately 4' X 5' (20
square feet) ,
One(l) 115 Volt, 15 1
Ampere, 3 wire dedicated i
circuit
To prevent unauthonzed •
hardware access, the '
system must be located in ;
a physically secure room. ■
no special requirements ■;
are needed to protect the '
DF software '
1
125
Measure of Effectiveness (MOE)
BULLETPROOF®
DRUGFIRETM
Expandability was a qualitative MOE which was measured by type of computer(s) and its abihty
to accept additional software, automatic image correlation as pan of the data acquisition process.
ability of system to process other firearms evidence, pre-planned product improvement programs.
ability of the system to exchange data and imagery with other sources, ability to accept future
hardware updates, and ability to interface with other computer systems
a Ability to accept other software:
Abundance of software is
Abundance of software is
available for PCs, but not
available for Sun
compatible the with
Workstations, all this
current configuration of
software should be j
BP software.
compatible with current
incorporating new
DP system
algorithms is feasible, but
must be custom
integrated with the
software.
b Automatic image correlation as part
Not feasible under the
Currently not available, j
of the data acquisition process:
current software
but could be easily ■
implemented
c Ability of system to process other
Hardware is capable of
Hardware and software is ,
firearms evidence
processing other firearms
capable of processing and '
evidence, FTI is
storing other types of
developing a cartridge
forensic data Sybase is ■
case imaging system
SQL compatible allowing ij
named BrassCatcher^^'
the database to be easily :
which is scheduled for
modified i
release in October, 1994
i
d Pre-planned product improvement
Re-evaluation of the
■1
Continued development ,
programs
computer system
of the matching '■
architecture, including
algorithm, targeted !
hardware and software, is
software upgrade release '
currently ongoing at FTI,
each quaner, product ;
continued development of
improvement agenda
fully automated data
dri\cn by steering !
acquisition system, and
committee, user groups, !
matching algorithm.
and available funding.
planned release of
BrassCatcher™, a
cartridge case matching
system, scheduled for
release in late 1994
I
23-253 96-5
126
Measure of Effectiveness (MOE)
BULLETPROOF®
DRUGFIRETM
Expandnbilitv (coruinueJ) 1
e. Ability of the system to exchange data
Can not directly exchange
Can exchange data with
and imagery with- other sources:
data and imagery with
other systems through
other sources.
Sybase ASCII flat files
and other UNIX^ based
commercial software
packages.
f Ability to "accept future hardware
Can accept PC hardware
Can accept future
updates:
and peripheral equipment
hardware and peripheral
upgrades; architecture is
equipment upgrades; Sun
modular making such
SPARCstation™ 10s can
hardware upgrades
readily incorporate
relatively simple;
multiple processors;
numerous lines of
system architecture
assembly code may
incorporates standard
require modification for
SCSI devices and ports. |
certain upgrades.
!
g. Ability to interface with other
Additional hardware and
Standard communication
computer systems
software is required to
is possible with all other
access non-DOS systems
system architectures
127
JoumalReview
Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine
Churchill Livingston Journals. Edinburgh. UK
ISSN 1353-1131
Subscription Rate: Variable
(telephone: 027-962-3760 for information)
Tlu' limniiil I'l Cliiiunl fiirivisii Mi'iliiiiic is ii pcor-
ri'Mi'Wi'd journal intended to dissominato information ot
inliTi-l to tiirin>.ic scientists, forensic pathologists, phv-
nk I. ins. medical examiners, and other individuals associ-
ated with lorensic medicine. Its approach is
nniltidi-.ciplinar\, ^^lth emphasis on case reports and
artK le- 1, oncerninstheexamination and handlini; of crimi-
nal matters with a torensic medical perspective.
t 'riginal articles are presented in a format consistent
w ith traditional p<.rr-re\ iewed journals ReMcw articles
.ire coniniissioned bv subject area experts to discuss
[MrtKular aspects ot specitic disciplines and offer con-
tr.isimi; \ lewpoints itn ctmtroversial issuers The articles
ire vsell-relerenced and provideclear illustrations
t ase riAiews and case reports address pertinent
medu aland lecalqiiestions am) offer usetul mtormation
relevant to siiuatioiis that are likelv to be encountered b\
IitrensK nu'tlual prolessionals LiteraturecitatKins. K>ok
re\ lew s. meeliiii; rej'^uts. <M\>.[ a calendar ot lorthiomini;
proiessional nuvlinj;sand conlerences are aKo featured
I ileralurevitationssummari/earticlesrecenth published
m.'ilu r inrensii |oiirnals and are \aluable tor individuals
uhi'iii.n not haveaicess lo these journals
I he U'liiiiiil i'( Lliniiiil l\>iiii-ii Alii(ii//ic provides a
lorttni lor torensic specialists to share original ideas
lesiarih pro|eits and results, and mtereslini; case re-
v u-ws .ind case reports m .i iimeK manner It seeks to
be> onu' an intern.ilion.il v ehii le tor the discussion ol new
Muihods .iiid .ippro.khes lo de.ilini; with the lompliv
.:ul evp.iiwhn'.; lulds,,! lorensu mi'duine
./ /•!/ /,■;,.,/ \Ici(,'/
• lii.Y'h'^.ilit'ii
\\.i~li,ii^:l,;i.nC
Editor'sNote
I .1111 ver\ pleased tobe |oinini; thestatt ol Ihec i;»ii
/.,■.■•.(.',■. 1/ ;iiv-,-t as the new editor .uh\ I would like lo
th.iiikC olleeiiW.uli lor her valuablecoiilribulioiis while
serv iiii; as il\e manaj;in>; editor IViuse k lieniiett has
II. n\ .is^umed the role ol managini; editor
flri/cc fli,i/,>ii/c
CFfSEandMPFSLReports
Copies ot the lollowing Central Research and Sup-
port Hstablishment (CRSE) Reports and Metropolitan
I'olice lorensic Science Laboratory <MI'FSL) Reports are
,n ailable tor all duly authorized cnme laboratones. To
obtain copies of the reports. forAvard a written riHiuest to
the tollou ing address Supplies are limited, and all re-
t]uists must be received bv julv 11. IW?.
Federal Bureau ot lnvesti);ation
ISIRS librarian. Room .174(1
Ulth Strcvt and I'ennsvlvania Avenue. .\U'
\Vashinj;ton. IX' 20?.13
(telefax: 2(12-.124-4123) (internet: oc.idistTcapcon net)
Pit.vfierietfidiii;,/ /•<■(■)// Pi.isfiiv/iiiii//Mf;.S;iivi'icHi(mil"
sm,ii.\liiiktr^ iiillhrrL-<ohri<tiiRiiiis;i-t'iri''<il'li-Cii<i'ivrk
Coiltiliillihlnl<. hi l.iizuillt- l.illkcil IlllllllllhKi'rIvnt .\><ilu
illl\\l Wiit,irii,il Kr^iill^
■button. I c;
(. RSi: Report «rMl
Uk (.'./iiwisiwi; l\ilM:i-c 'ei 7^0^ 'Plil^lSi L\u^ DcriiwI
■iviii hliwl .Sim;'/.-s s///'m/i//c,/ Wi I'.iU-niilu AiuihifK
\lcnonald..\ 1
CR^r Rep..r( 'Tul
l\l,,lii':i,"lii:oiiMini'muinS \ll•lll■;,lHll,'^,■'ii■lltPu.■
)0)0 I iu.\oi/es, t;,7H,(/r,.,./i,TCs;s
l.iulkner. Is I
L Rs|; Report 'TiC
I uiUhi ( i!-s,r;-.i/ii'ii- ,i/i i:/,/-> l.ihlt-ihc liiU-ri-i,!.:li,'ii
I veil I U
t R'sl Report »7f.''-
K, .,■.., ,■• \l, .";,•,;- .111,1 /'m, /I,,- ;•• ti:,' I ':i:.f:.,>r.o:l ."
/.■.■,M,.i'/../iv,s,„.Ms
\lleii, 1 1
l RM Report "re>-l
ll.ir.nit MililiHii.ln A C;ii.'ma(.v;,;;>;it, ;'>.>'i/,- .\I.i/c':/iK-
/''.'■,-M"i I'Jil 11 Ihc \ i-ii.il (.emcaiiseii .'• C.'"JI'/.i
V '■.•j,.i».il,\T.iiiis ,iij,/ (/(,- (/m- e' MiUliiiiiM-r (,> /5.s, •■iviiii.ifi
/i, /,(■,. H C;,-c/i/ K.hl.J C;in.»Mr,.yr,ims
\\ills,,M n
Ml'lM Report "Wl
/ rcv >.'.ir;.//ylv (. ,l/'mc.' h>r Cl/illliVli ri//,lfc flimilt^;
Sokes \1
Ml'l^l Report »<-M
\ihu.il /'.■ii'i;' \ l\.i,i-h'r Simiihiliii-; Ait,-ri.il W.v./ii;v
Mokes. \1
Xiri^l Keporl «^is
CRIIME LABORATORY I lil-l
128
Employment Opportunities
ForBnsicExaininer(LatentPrints)
SjUrv RariRr: '>2.s.'i7i - sW^l'. per ve.ir
OujIificJtionsand Experience: Applic.ints
imi^l h.uc.i l<,KlK-U>r^i.l<.->;riv in i.riminol-
. .;\. .ijmmislr.ilii'ii nl ju-lici'. or a rcLitod
fuM (. irlilu.\lu>ii hv tlu- lnti'rn.ilu>n,il
\--.,..Miu'ii lor Ui-nlilu.ilion HAD is n--
,|iiir.J ,iiul,ilili.m.ik-J ImijirprmliJontiti-
..ilion ~i-U'm lAIISi ir.iinmn ,ind i'\-
(••■riiM.i- I- pru-krri-il \t\ i\|iii\ alflil mm-
l-iii.ili.M\ oi iJm.ilion .ukI (■\pi-rii-tKc m.iv
I-, »,.i.M,l,r.-J.
COM VC T:
I lU ,.| U„ 1,11,1
;'<■' \,.rl!i M.Mii sirvil
i\ 1, liii I K» "'Zip
l,l,pli..n,- .l...:„N-4^'.ll
lyLM OI'I'ORrLMT^ LMPLOYER
QuestionedDcxumentsExarmKr
s.il.ir\ Kjni;i-; -40".-^ Mi..4:^ pir MMr
(Ju.ililit.lliiinsjnd I xperii-nce: \pplu,im»
Mu-i :,n. .1 l-,uh,lor •..U-iir.vin.inv lu-Ul
: ■.. : . ,,-..1 .,ppr,:U,>.-.h.puiKK-r llu-
; ;r. ;.u. .1 Mi Xliuru.in IliMrd ol I nri-ll-u
;',.,i.:-.:-: I vur.Mur-' Mil PH. .r AnuTi-
u. -.■, ;,n ,•! i.>iu-ii,.iuJ |loiiinu-ni 1 \-
■- \-..>ii| ,,>:,;ii,J,-v.imiiu-r.lrKi:
■ .., :,., uMi.-iii ;.il<..i,il,.r\ Icrtilk.i-
.-iir. -r \i;il>l ,-,il-,.r.>HMrrJ
,>....,! ■|-..||,.- IVp.irlnu-nli
.., i iin.,,...-. K.l.iii.Hw
igi \l OI'I'OKILNin LMPLO>hR
LatentPrintExaminera
Salary Range: bH.Kll.l - 44x21" per w.ir
Qualifications and Experience: Applic.ints
must h.ive An .isstKi.ito's dL*>;rLV or at liMst
60 .Kcri-ditod somostor hours in irinii
n,ilistics or .i ri'l.ili\l lickl plus 3 vc.ir. ol
L'vpcrifnco in\-oK mi; both inkt\l .ind l.itcnt
tinj;i'rprint cLissituMtion work in .i l.n\ i-n-
lorccmcnt onMronnunt, supplinicnlid In
lorm.il tr.iiniil); in l.iU'nl linmrprinl, plio-
loi;r.iplu. .ind olhor (soluf idintilK.ilion
li^hnuiui". ApplK.inls.ilsonuislK-iourl
.lu-iiiluxl .Is ,in i-\pvrl vviiiuss
LatentPrintExaminerlH
Salary Range: >'<'<.s'^) - 447^70 jx-r xi-.ir
Qualificalionsand Experience: Add1l10n.1l
rc\iinrt'monts iiuludi- .1 Kulu-liir's di'\;riv
.ind nrlilK.ilion h\ llv Int1rn.1l1011.1l A-s,.-
u.ition lor Idt'ntilK.ili.in il M)
COVTACT:
l-r.ink 1 KinlmTs
rliiH'niv ToliiO IXp.irlmiiit
lOU V\ost t\.ishini;lon s.|ri-vi
I'liivniv. A/ sslir.-2isr
ili-liplioni' rMl2-2r>2-rvl«ri
it.-Ul.iv; Mi2-s'U-4ii2"i
tQLALOPPORTLMr\ EMPLOMR
CrinvnaBstHCrtaceEvidence}
Salary Range: S.'!7,37'i - S52.892 per year
Qualifications and Experience: Applicants
must havf a Kicholors degree in chemistPi'
plus 3 vt'ars ol forensic chemistry work
i'\pc'ncnce which includes the examination
ol glass, paint, tibers,s<nls. flammables, and
ollu'r trace cMdcnce Applicants must be
court i|ualilud as an expert witness in trace
eiidence analysis. Know ledge ol the rules
ol evidence is i-.sential
CONTACT:
Broward Countv Shenffs Office
IVrsonnel Division
211(11 Wi'sl liroward Boule\ard
Fort Lauderdale, H. 11312
(telephone Kl^'(21-44(»ll
EQUAL OPPORTLMTY EMPLOYER
Ciiminalist(TraoeEvidence}
SeniorCriminalists(LatentPrints)
Salarx Range: s1I.22f> - ■MI.ISI per vear
phis benelits
Qualificationsand Experience: ,Apphcants
iiuisi ha* e a bachelor s degrtv in chemistrx,
.riminalisius, ..lu-niKjl engineering, met-
alliirgx. I.trensic science, a bioU'gical sv-i-
eiice, or a relale.1 Held plus 1 vears ot
exjvrience as a laborat.trv criminalist ,-\n
ei|uivalinl .ombinalion .'I is.lucation and
e\perienv*'nia\ bec.'nsKiertxi.ands^.nieot
Ihe six a\ail.ible posiiuuis mav be under-
lilUxl as a t riminalisl I or (. riminalist II
Salarv- Range: s^s.iHis s4
:ii
2 p.r
v.ar
Qualificationsand Experience:
\pph
ants
Muisi have ,1 baJiek.rs d.
"4ri
X' Ir.'i
1 .111
,mrediled vollegeor univiT
sin
ill.h.
nils- 1
ir\ I rimmahstks or i..r.iisi
s»
>•">«■ 1
his 2
\ears ,.| e\|vrielKe in Ihe .
xai
.11 ..1
ir.iceevlden.e, llKludinC:;
1SS
p.iilll
liK-rs
CONTACT:
1 rank -shiller
Police IVpartment I rime 1
ll^
ralorv
l^i \\ i-sl llelknap Slnxl
1-ort Uorlh, T\ 7nlll2
(telephone SI7-S77-.XIVMI
ilelelax sl7-.>i77-S2(l2i
tQLALOPPORTLNIFi
EMPLOY LR
CONTACT:
I 01s Kax
t>klahonias|.,te Hur
,.t In
I roltox II4W7
I l)klahomat.il\,tlK 7'1>>
I ileleph..m' 4iis..s4,s.f.724i
i Ilelelax 4ils-S42-llf.7sl
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
APRIL 1995
129
I f there are changes in your name, agency, or address, please affix the current mailing label or print
the entire name, agency, and address exactli/ as it appears now in the space providcHJ below. Then print
the corrected name, agency, and address beside it. Returning this completed form will ensure that you
continue to receive the Criwc Lilwraton/ Di\;c>t.
If there are no changes in vour current name, agencv, or address, it is not necessarv to return this form.
CHANGE FROM
Name/Agency/Address as if appears now:
CHANGE TO
Name/ Agency/Address correction:
.Add to mailing list: Name:
Agency:
Address:
Korward this completed form to:
Denise K. Bennett
Managing Hdilor
Cniiic LihoidUvii P(\;rs(
FSRTC, FBI Academy
Quantico. VA 22 1.^?
CRIME LABORATORY I K I -- T
130
Meeting Announcements
1995
May S-12 Joint Meeting or the Northwest Association of Forensic Scientists (NWAFS) and the Alaska
Peace Officers Association al iho Hillun Hold in Anthoraui:. AK. For lunhcr intormalion. contact
George Talt. Director. Scienlilic Crime Detection Laboramry. 5.MK) East Tudor Road. Anchorage. AK
99.S()7 (telephone: <H)1-2W-51M) or telefax: 9()7 .V«-66I4).
\ta\ 10-12 Annual Meeting of the .Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic .Scientists (.MA.^FSl at the
Fair ()ak\ Holiday Inn in Fairlav. VA. For lurihcr inlonnaiion. contact Eileen Davis. Virginia
DiviMon ol Forensic Science. Northern Laboratory. y7'>7 BraddiKk Road. #2(KI. Fairfax. VA 220.^2
(telephone: 7().V764-46(K) or telefax; 7(M-7M-46,V').
\la> l()-l.^ 85th .Semi-Annual Seminar of the California .\ssociation of Criminalists (CAC( at the Walnut
Creek Marriott Hotel in Walnut Creek. CA. For lurther inlormaiion. contact Karen Sheldon. Contra
Costa County Sheriff-Coroners Departiiieni. 1 122 Escobar Street. Manine/. CA 94.'^.^.' (telephone:
.'i|(l-M()-24.S.S or telefax: .^ 1 0-646-24 1. 1|.
June !>-'■) 26th Annual Training Seminar of the AssiK'iation of Firearm and Tool Mark Fxaminers
t.XFTKl .11 the Bahia Hotel in San Diesio. CA. For lurther inlonnaiion. contact James Roberts.
Los .Anjteles Sherilfs Department. Fireanns UlentiFication linit. 2020 West Beverly Boulevard.
Los Aniieles. CA mK(.^7 i telephone: 2l.'-'*74-462S or telefax: 2I.V4l,^76.^7i
September 26- .'0 42nd .Vnnual Meeting of the Canadian SiHiely <»f Forensic .Science (CSFSl at the Delta
Chelsea Inn in Toronto. Ontario. Canada. For lurther inlonnaiion. contact Dr. Joel Maver. Centre of
Forensic Sciences. 2.^ tirosveiior Street. Toronto. Ontario. Canada M7.\ 2GS (telephone:
4l6-.tl4..M.-v4or lelel.ix: 416-514. MSI i
Oclob'T >~1 .loint Training Conference of the International .Assmiatiim of Blwidstain Pattern Analysis
(lABP M and the Association of Crime Scene Keconstruction ( \CSRl at the Meridian Pla/a
Hotel 111 Oklahiinia Cil>. OK For lunhcr inlonnaiion. loni.icl C.ipiain Thomas Bevel. Oklahoma
Cilv I'ohce Department. 701 Colcord Drive. Oklahoma Citv. OK 7--l(l2 (telephone: 4ll.-v-2')7- 122.> or
iclclax 405-:>)7 1 ■'Nil or Michael Dixon. Oklahoma State Bureau ol Invesiisiation. K) Box 1727.
Fjiid. Ok 7 >7(l2 iielephoiie 4(i.s 242 2(<IKI m telelax 4(1.^ 2 M-,s7(l7i
October 15 21 .Joint Meeting of the Midwestern .Association of Forensic Scientists t.MW.AFSl and the
Southern AsstKialion of Forensic Scientists iS AFSl .ii JR s Executive Inn in Paducah. K>' For
lurther inloniialioii. coiiLicI Clleiin SchutxM or Cir.ice Johanson l.ivelv. Southern Illinois Forensic
Science Centre. 606 East C'olleee Street. Carbondale. IL 62'»01 iielephonc: 6l,S-4<i7 67 14 or telelax:
61.S-4.^7-4676i
October 16 20 Fall 1995 Meelii.g of the Northx»est Association of Forensic Scientists (N\\ AFSl at the
\-lilaiul Hills Inn in Ashland. OR For lunhcr inloniiatioii. contact Wavne Fersuson. National Fish
and Wildlile Foreiisics Laboralorv. Seroloev Section. 14<)0 East Main Street. Ashland. OR '17520
Itelephoiie: .^0.«-482-4l9l or telefax: .s05-4S2-49X<)i
October lS-21 Sftth Semi-Annual Seminar of the i'alifornia .Association of Criminalists (C.AC I at the
Sheraton Harbor Hotel in Los Aneeles. C..\. For lurther inlormation. contact Joe Houniian or
Larrv Hlaiilon. Los .Anjteles Police Department Crinimalistics Laboratorv. .555 Reniire/ Street. Spa^c
»270. Los Aniieles. CA 'MKII 2 Itelephoiie: 21.'-2.^7(KI5X or 2l.5-2.'7-(HI6l or telelax:
21 '-257-0(1401
October 26-2S 21st Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Asscaiation of Forensic .Scientists (NF.AFSi at ih.
Mvsiic Hilton 111 Mvstic. CT For lurther mloniialion. contact Donald Doller. Sulfolk County Criii
Laboratorv. Sullolk Ci>lintv Ollice Buildiii;.; K4.S7. Hauppau;.;e. \> I 17S7 (telephone:
5I6-.S55 55.X5 or telelax: 5l6-S5»-5759i
131
Mr. Watt. Let me go on to the next very pointed question that
I want to ask. One of the concerns I had, and continue to have, is
that there is a potential for the creation for what I would call a
DNA profile of a criminal. I want to be assured that our Federal
Grovemment is not in the business of creating that profile. We've
created profiles for folks that we stop in airports to search and
finsk and make fiirther inquiry of, for drug offenses, a little incur-
sion ftirther into our individual rights and privacv and liberty. I
want you to ensure me, if you will — or if you can t, tell me what
we are doing — ^is the Federal Grovemment in the process of creating
a criminal profile firom this DNA information that we are collect-
ing?
Mr. Ahlerich. Absolutely not. I can give you that assurance, and
I'm pleased to do that, and certainly that's a valid concern. What
we are collecting are simply identifying features that are contained
in the DNA information
Mr. Watt. Can I ask one more question?
Mr. McCoLLUM. One more brief question, Mr. Watt.
Mr. Watt. Brief question. Are you requiring in these grants that
we make to the States that they not use anv of this money to ex-
periment with or create such a criminal profile?
Mr. Ahlerich. I cannot answer that specifically, but I do not see
how the data or the technology would allow for the development of
that. This is simply identifying
Mr. Watt. Not yet.
Mr. Ahlerich. In my experience, in my knowledge, I do not im-
derstand how that could even be developed.
Mr. Watt. Thankyou. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Watt.
Mr. ChaJbot, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try not to take all
that time. I just have one question basically, or actually two, for
Mr. Di Gregory.
I appreciate your testimony on H.R. 1552 and your support for
at least the first part of the bill and your suggestion regarding the
U.S. mail provisions. As Mr. Wynn and I indicated, we favor nar-
rowing that second part of the bill by adding a commercial purpose
requirement. I also think that Mr. Scott had some good suggestions
in tfie hearing, and particularly that area about whether the ID's —
or in that person's name or other people's names, I think that is
something we need to investigate further.
Let me ask you a question. Apparently, one group is suggesting
that H.R. 1552 somehow runs afoul of the Lopez decision, but the
change of the number five to the number three does not have any
commerce clause significance here, I wouldn't think, does it?
Mr. Di Gregory. Well, with — I wouldn't think it would either. I
couldn't give you a definitive answer on that, but my gut sure is
that reduction in number would not make a difference.
Mr. Chabot. OK. And then, finally, there is no doubt, is there,
that Congress cannot regulate the use of the U.S. mails without
violating the commerce clause?
Mr. Di Gregory. Again, without going back into Lopez and look-
ing at what possible implication it could have for this, my reaction
is, no, I don't think there's — no, I don't think there's any aoubt that
132
Congress can regfulate the use of the United States mails, but I'd
want to hold on an absolutely definitive answer.
Mr. Chabot. ok. Thank you very much.
And then, finally, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent
to insert into the committee record written testimony submitted by
the Honorable John Long, who is the chairman of the Century
Council and he is a former Director of the DEA, the Drug Enforce-
ment Administration. And I also ask that the record be held open
for 10 days so that other interested parties might submit written
testimony.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Long follows:]
Prepared Statement of John C. Lawn, CEO, the Century Council
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Jack Lawn, chairman and
chief executive officer of The Century Council. The Century Council appreciates this
opportunity to address the Subcommittee and to give the Council's full support to
H.K. 1552, the False Identification Act of 1995, introduced by Representative Steve
Chabot of Ohio. Representative Chabot should be commended for introducing this
bill and taking a leadership role in the effort to prevent illegal underage drinking.
The Century Council is a national, not-for-profit organization dedicated to reduc-
ing alcohol abuse — specifically underage drinking problems and drunken driving. It
is supported by more than 900 concerned distillers, vintners, brewers and whole-
salers. A listing of the Council's members, including the founding members and the
board of directors, is included in supplemental materials submitted for the record.
Since 1991, we have been carrying out many anti-abuse educational, enforcement
and legislative programs in the public and private sectors nationwide. We do so al-
ways in partnership with other organizations and individuals who share our mis-
sion. We are honored to count among our programs' allies Members of Congress,
gjvemors, state legislators, mayors, police chieis, the National Commission Against
runk Driving, state and local chapters of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, rep-
resentatives 01 the insurance and health care industry, and state and local alcohol
beverage wholesalers and retailers.
To fig^t the use of false IDs by teens to try to buy alcohol, the Council has created
and operates two major programs nationwide and a special program in Eugene, Or-
egon. Our point-of-sale educational campaign, "Front Lines," is in place in every
state and in Washington, D.C. Our innovative "Cops in Shops" program has been
implemented in the Washington, D.C. area and in many cities across the country.
In both programs, we have had the full participation and cooperation of state and
local alcohol wholesalers and retailers and law enforcement. In Eugene, Oregon, a
Century Council Coalition and the Lane County District Attorney's office have
teamed up to put an end to the production of counterfeit IDs by offering awards of
up to $500 to anyone providing information leading to the arrest and conviction of
false ID makers. In conjunction with the reward program. Project Eugene has en-
tered its third year of implementing the "Cops in Shops" program.
These eflbrts — plus our teen and parent educational programs to combat underage
drinking problems in general — are summarized in greater detail in the attached ma-
terials suDmitted for the record.
The Council's initiatives are successful at preventing alcohol use by minors be-
cause they are aimed at many levels: at the front lines, the retail counter where
alcohol is sold, the home, the church, the school, and the community, where teens
learn and form attitudes about alcohol. We support Representative Chabot's pro-
posed legislation because it goes beyond such eflbrts and strikes pre-emptively and
powerfully against the criminals who make false IDs available to young people in
the first place.
H.R. 1552 would set criminal penalties for knowingly sending false identification
documents through the mails and would lower the threshold for establishing a viola-
tion of federal laws prohibiting fraud in connection with identification documents.
This legislation would be a major step forward in combating illegal underage drink-
ing problems.
Whether they are document mills advertising in the back pages of obscure maga-
zines or misguided entrepreneurs operating on a college campus, these criminals are
responsible lor the flood of false IDs—primarily drivers licenses — encountered by re-
tailers and police officers every day. One study reported that 40 percent of college
133
students said they had used a false ID to purchase alcohol. A Surgeon General's
study reported that 45 percent of all students knew someone who used a false ED
to buy a]xx)hol.
The most stringent efforts by retailers to detect and refuse these false IDs are
frustrated by the skill of many manufacturers. In woricing with retailers and law
enforcement in many cities, Council staff members have seen false drivers licenses
that are indistinguishable from real ones — even to the most expert eye. As a career
FBI official and former administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, I
can speak first hand about how diabolically talented these false ID crooks can be.
Americans can be proud of the progress we've made against underage drinking
problems. The number of high school seniors reporting daily alcohol use has de-
clined more than 50 percent from 1979 to 1994. The number reporting binge drink-
ing in the previous two weeks has dropped 13 percent since 1980 and the number
reporting alcohol use in the last month has aeclined 22 percent. Alcohol-related
crash fatalities among drivers under 21 has dropped 53 percent from 1982 to 1994.
But serious problems remain. By supporting our work, the alcohol industry sub-
scribers to The Century Council demonstrate their opposition to any illegal pur-
chase, attempt to buy, possession or use of their products by those under 21.
Enactment of Representative Chabot's false ID legislation would be a landmark
advance in the fight against underage drinking problems. Thank you for considering
our views.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Barr, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have enjoyed the testimony. I am sorry that I've missed the tes-
timony of my distinguished colleagues on the subcommittee earlier
today. We had markup of legislation in the Veterans' Committee
that required my attendance, and I apologize for running late and
not hearing the entire testimony today, but I have benefited from
the questions and answers here in reviewing this material. And I
do look forward to working with Mr. Chabot on 1552.
As I understand from the just concluded comments, there will be
some revisiting of some of the language in section 3 of the bill, and
I look forward to that process. But I appreciate the panelists today.
I found it very valuable and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Barr.
I believe that concludes the questioning for this panel for today.
I want to thank you for coming. You've certainly given us base for
doing it
[Mr. McCollum confers with staff.]
Mr. McCollum. Counsel is advising me to ask you a question,
which I'm certainly willing to do. Mr, Kane, if you could respond
to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the
concerns they are goin^ to be expressing today in their testimony.
There's a whole lot of it in here about things related to the death
penalty question. It would be helpful to us if you could submit a
response to that as a part of giving us the thoughts that Mr. Schu-
mer was asking for a response for, too.
Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I also ask for some responses from the
FBI, and wondered in what time frame
Mr. McCollum. Well, we want to try to do this pretty quickly;
that's why I made this point. The intent of the committee is to
mark up these bills somewhere shortly after we return from the re-
cess. So, if these responses can be collected, and if there are prob-
lems with anv of the requests being complied with in a reallv short
time, let us know. I know you may not have it with you, but we
will give you a copy of it.
134
[See appendix.]
Mr. McCOLLUM. I want to thank again the panehsts.
Mr. Di Gregory, did you have something else you want to add?
Mr. Di Gregory. Yes, one thing that I forgot to mention, Mr.
Chairman. We have a suggested cnange to the language in 3596
which would ensure that it was retroactively applied to all Federal
death sentences imposed but not yet implemented, which would
also, if it refers to U.S. district court, insure against the
misapplication of the provision of death sentences imposed by the
military courts. And I can share that language with
Mr. McCoLLUM. Please do because I think that is important. Mr.
Bryant and I have both been military JAG's, so we appreciate that
fact. I believe that — Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Will the gentleman be here through the testimony of
other witnesses?
Mr. McCoLLUM. I do not know if he can stay for that or not. We
have not requested that.
Mr. Di Gregory. I am unable to.
Mr. Kane. I'm also unable to.
Mr. McCOLLUM. We're going to provide the written testimony.
There is a copy of it available; that's why I asked for the response
to it.
Thank you very much for coming. We appreciate it.
Our last panel today does consist of two witnesses who will com-
ment to us from entirely different perspectives. I do not have their
biographical material, but I'm going to introduce them today. If you
would come forward, gentlemen.
W. Mark Dale is president of the American Society of Crime Lab-
oratory Directors, and William Mofifett is a member of the board of
directors of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. If
you would come forward, we would certainly appreciate it.
Oh Mr. MoflFett's not here; it's Marvin Miller, director of the Na-
tional Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. And he has prac-
ticed criminal defense law for over 25 years and has a national
practice based in Alexandria, VA.
I've got to get my editorial changes down right here.
Mr. Miller. If people didn't make mistakes, there would be no
need for lawyers.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McCOLLUM. Thank you very much for coming.
We've got complete substitutes nere, I'll tell you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McCoLLUM. Mr. Richard Tan ton is actually here today with
us, director of the Palm Springs Sheriffs Department Crime Lab
and past president of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Di-
rectors.
I see three different pieces of paper, gentlemen. Staff is going to
really get it from me for this — relatively minor offenses, but, none-
theless— ^zero to what should they get?
[Laughter.]
Mr. McCoLLUM. All right, if we could, I believe I did introduce
the Society of Crime Laboratories first; I'm going to ask Mr. Tanton
if you would proceed to give us your testimony.
Mr. Watt. Can we know
135
Mr. McCoLLUM. Just the two of them. Mr. Miller represents the
criminal defense lawyers; Mr. Tanton represents the crime labora-
tories directors. I got that part right, I think.
Mr. Tanton, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD L. TANTON, DIRECTOR, PALM
BEACH SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT CRIME LAB, AND PAST
PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIME LABORA-
TORY DIRECTORS
Mr. Tanton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here. Mr. Mark Dale who is the current president
of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, or what we
call ASCLD, asked me to appear today in his stead.
When I was president back in 1S90, I was involved in providing
information for the original legislation for the DNA Identification
Act.
One small correction, Mr. Chairman, which I think you'll appre-
ciate: I'm not from Palm Springs; I'm from Palm Beach in Florida.
Mr. McCoLLUM. I definitely appreciate that. If you're from Palm
Beach, you've got an entire part of the world from my end.
[Lai^hter.]
Mr. Tanton. Also, today I'm here representing the American So-
ciety of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation
Board, and this is a separate entity that is concerned with the
quality of analysis produced by a crime laboratory. They have an
accreditation program specifically designed for that.
The issue, as I understand it, here today is not an amount of
money, but when it will become available. What I would like to do
in representing those organizations is to talk to you about the ur-
gency of financial support that we face right now.
Five or six years ago when the FBI was taking the lead in DNA
identification and trying to get a viable analysis, we as crime lab-
oratory directors at a meeting similar to this one we are at now,
were asked to get together and draft a letter of support for the ef-
forts that the FBI was engaged in. We gathered together 15 people
of good intent and good character, but who approached this from
different directions. And I'm assuming that you gentlemen have
been in that situation before. After about 2 hours, we decided to
write down what it is that we could all agree upon about DNA, and
we came up with DNA is good.
And, gentlemen, DNA is much better than it was those 5 years
ago. The problem is, I think, almost an embarrassment of nches.
Its become too good. And now, accelerated by this national expo-
sure and posited by the results in this nationally televised trial, we
project will have to, and are in fact under the gun to, provide this
analysis and make it much, much more available and rapidly. This
is the problem that we have. The FBI is certainly strained by the
requirements of their laboratory to provide the amount of DNA
analyses that are required.
What we need is to move this technology out to the State and
local laboratories imder the highly supervised, quality assurance
mechanism which is included in the bill. The DNA Advisory Board
is currently working on providing standards for the eligibility for
this money. So, through that mechanism, we need to get this nind-
136
ing out to the State and local laboratories so they can provide these
analyses locally.
A second issue and Mr, Watt, I understand has taken issue with
this, but that is the concept of a data base. And 40 States have con-
victed offender data bases in which their blood standards are put
in the data base. But, at this point, the only time that the appro-
priate cases would be analyzed, and we could apply those results
to the data base, is if we work the cases which have no suspect.
However, cases without suspects are typically not prioritized. And
currently within the process, most of the laboratories that are
doing DNA don't have the capacity to analyze every case that
comes in. We need to do those cases to take advantage of the data
bases.
Those are the two issues that I think that argue for allocating
this money as soon as possible, so that we can fulfill these obliga-
tions and the demands that are certainly going to continue to be
placed on us.
Mr. McCOLLUM. I think you expressed that very well, Mr. Tan-
ton, and we thank you for coming today to put that on the record.
Mr. Miller, from the defense lawyers' perspective, now that I
have gotten around to the right introduction, I hope, please let us
hear from you.
STATEMENT OF MARVIN D. MELLER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commit-
tee. I'm Marvin Miller from the National Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers. We would like the materials that we submitted
to be included in the record. We need to make a couple of amend-
ments, and if that would be acceptable
Mr. McCoLLUM. Without objection.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to primarily focus on H.R. 1552 regarding identifica-
tion, and then H.R. 2359 regarding the death penalty issue on
where inmates are going to be afler conviction and pending sen-
tence implementation.
On 1552 regarding the ID issue, the purpose allegedly put for-
ward in the bill is to deal with underage drinking. And what I was
hearing a little bit from justice, and wnat I gleaned from the sub-
mission that they presented to you, that even they recognize that
there are some problems with tne current bill. And far be it from
me to admit in public that I agree with them on some things, but
once in a while we do.
[Laughter.]
Mr, Miller. U.S. v. Lopez was mentioned in the remarks from
my colleagues a moment ago, and I think it does have an impact.
This bill is not intended to protect the U.S. mails. It's not intended
to protect Federal Express, UPS, or any of the other services that
deal with that. What it does is it lowers a standard and makes it
less likely that you are dealing with something that affects inter-
state commerce. When you changed the speed nmit law, I think it
was last week and — which then I believe also made it possible for
the States to adopt their own drinking age limits, 18, 21, whatever
they want to do. Let's say you have a State that goes back to be-
137
fore, when there was a mandatory speed limit on a national level,
in order to get State funds, let's say you do that, and one State has
an 18, and another one has a 21, and a kid from 18 goes to college
at a school where the limit is 21, and he wants to create a fake
ID on a copy machine for himself and his girlfriend to go out on
a date. You don't have to have anything to do with interstate com-
merce to make fake ID's. All you need is a color photo copier. And
this is, you know, a time when Congress is talking about, "Let's let
the States deal with State issues, let's get our hands oflF the backs
of individuals, and let's lower it."
You're not lowering anything. You're making Federal crimes out
of a college kid with a fake ID to get some Deer, or bourbon, or
whatever. By lowering the numbers, you are creating the likelihood
that it's a less sophisticated operation. So a person has a Social Se-
curity card, a driver's license, and a university ID, three. Well, now
they're a Federal criminal, and if mamma mails the wallet that
junior left at home to him in college, she's a Federal criminal. So,
you're increasing Federal crimes on an issue that doesn't have any-
thing to do with what is or ought to be your focus.
If you wanted to deal with frauds that affect interstate com-
merce, then say so in plain English. If you wanted to deal with im-
migration issues, then say so in plain English. You gentlemen are
masters of our language. You can say that. But that's not what
you've written. And you ought to know that there are prosecutors
who will take this statute and apply it to a college kid, rightly or
wrongly. Not all prosecutors do everything correctly. And if they
did, then we wouldn't have to have the adversarial system. They're
people the same as I am. I make mistakes; they make mistakes.
They sometimes abuse their position. These kinds of things can
happen. You need to draft language that deals with interstate com-
merce issues.
Lopez expressed a concern of the Supreme Court and many Fed-
eral courts that what's happening is Congress is not really trying
to diminish the Federal Grovemment; it's trying to make Congress
pass all the rules that affect local State law enforcement issues. A
very conservative prosecutor in the Commonwealth of Virginia,
where I have been practicing for 25 years, can't believe the low
level kinds of cases that now show up in Federal courts where
they're taking and spending tens of millions of dollars on these
task forces to take State cases and put them in Federal court be-
cause they feel that they can get more money for the local police
department to have fancier cars and more pay for these guys, in
order to try and transfer things into the Federal system and junk
up the Federal courts with cases that don't belong there.
You have to look at what your purpose is. In practice, most of
these deal with either major fraud cases involving credit cards
across State lines, which is a legitimate Federal concern, or immi-
gration. And that would be a proper exercise of your authority. But
what I ask you to consider is putting in language that's what you
really intend to do. You're making a bad thing worse. And I'm not
sure that you intend to do that. I think it may be that you're not
fully appreciative of the way the language can be applied. And
what you do when you write, is you have an idea. Then it gets
down to some lawyer somewhere — from a Justice Department office
138
some place — and they're going to say, "Aha, this is a way I can
apply it and this is what I'm going to do, because this is what I
feel is important for me in this particular case," which may not be
what you wanted to happen at all.
So, if you can make yourselves more clear, if that's what you in-
tend, I think you're doing well. If you don't, then you might be run-
ning afoul of the Lopez decision.
Now, a more significant issue, perhaps, is 2359 on the death pen-
alty. And if you Took at 18 U.S.C. 3596, the language that would
be deleted by it that talks about being "in the Attorney General's
custody until exhaustion of procedures of appeal and judgment and
conviction and review of the sentence," now that's a major thing.
If you move somebody to Terre Haute, IN, it's not the same thing
as moving somebody to Jacksonville, FL, or in my State, down in
Mecklenburg, VA. You're not talking about a 7-hour drive. You're
talking about somebody from the Queens, or the Bronx, or barrio
in Los Angeles who has a court-appointed lawyer paid for by tax-
payers' dollars who got a death penalty who's now in Indiana. And
you get a situation where a Federal judge realizes that that lawyer
didn't call another eyewitness who said, "He didn't do it, he's not
guilty. The guy who did it had a moustache and a beard, and ev-
erybody knows that this kid is clean-shaven and bald-headed." And
the judge is concerned. So, he's going to appoint another lawyer be-
cause he can't appoint the same lawyer.
Let's say he appoints a white lawyer for an ethnic minority de-
fendant who then has to be flown to Terre Haute, with taxpayer
dollars, and put in a hotel for 2 or 3 days' worth of interviews, at
greater taxpayer expense, to then go back to the court where the
record is. Where is the record of the case? Where the trial occurred.
Where is the record of the people that were subpoenaed and maybe
not called? Or the record of exhibits that were filed and maybe not
used? Or a record having to do with a juror? Where is that? That's
in the trial court. Where is the appellate court? It's in the same
area.
So you're cutting these people off. You're making the lawyer have
to talk to the guy over a tape-recorded conversation. Or the guy
might not have any confidence in lawyers. His first lawyer screwed
up the case and didn't call somebody that was an eyewitness and
said somebody else did it. And maybe it was an eyewitness from
a better position.
That figure of 40 percent of State death penalty cases being over-
turned, they're not overturned on hypertechnicalities; they're a lot
of innocent people who do get convicted. And you don't want to con-
vict somebody who's innocent; I know you don't. And people make
mistakes. And sometimes on a court-appointed lawyer basis, you do
get somebody who is a little green. They're very bright, they're very
aggressive, they've a big heart, they really would like to do well,
but it may just be beyond their "can" because they haven't had the
time to learn things. And then mistakes are made all the way
around.
And there's a system to correct those mistakes, but if you move
somebody to Indiana, and if you delete this language, that's the im-
pact of it because then it's a Bureau of Prison decision. Then you're
139
saying, "We don't care whether you're innocent or not. That's not
our concern."
You can't do it in a vacuum. You're shortening the time for ha-
beas. How can you shorten the time for habeas and then make it
harder to get in touch with the cHent? You can't do this in a vacu-
um. You have to look at the habeas bills that are now pending, and
the time frames that are going to come out of those bills to deter-
mine what you are going to do. You have to look at the picture as
a whole. There are human lives at stake.
We have a 200-year history that we'd rather have a guilty man
^0 free then an innocent man suffer. We may be turning tnat on
its end and rather have a guilty man get executed — I mean an in-
nocent man get executed than a guilty man go free. I have prob-
lems with that. You ought to have problems with that. You've got
to look at the impact of this.
What about the family? How is the family going to get there?
From some place, some low income family in Boston to Terre
Haute, IN, who's going to pay? Or somebody from some rural area
in Arkansas or in Louisiana, how are they going to get to Terre
Haute to see their loved ones? They're not. And you're not going
to pay for it.
The issue of a uniform procedure isn't the problem. I remember
in the Army you had FM-22-sweeping a broom. When I was in, it
was the M-1; now it's the M-16 and tne M-60. But whatever it is,
you had FM-22-field manuals that told you how to do everything
and anything. And, if you could read, and you had a high school
degree or less, you could do it. So, procedures aren't the issue.
And if you turn it over to the Bureau of Prisons — not that they
are evil people — ^but they have their own institutional concerns.
They are a bureaucratic organization. Security is their first buga-
boo and their main thing. They're not — ^they will say, "Yes, we're
concerned about the access of the inmate to lawyers and courts,"
but that's their lower priority because they have a different mis-
sion. So you have to make sure that when you enact legislation,
that you don't deprive the individual the right in many cases to es-
tablish their factual innocence. And that takes time, and that takes
access.
If you have an appellate court that sends a case back because
they need a hearing, how are you going to have a hearing? Are you
going to fly the inmate or have him done by bus from Terre Haute
back to the Federal court where the trial occurred? And then you're
going to have your hearing? And that's going to be an expensive
and time-consuming matter.
And you're not going to have a special bar develop in Terre
Haute, IN; that's ridiculous. You're not going to have that because
there are few enough people that deal with these cases to begin
with, and you're not going to have the resources for them to do
that. You're cutting back on the resource centers on death penalty
issues. Why? Not because they are a waste of money. Because they
were uncovering — the reasons some prosecutors don't like them —
they were imcovering innocent people getting convicted because in
some occasions an overzealous police officer said something that
wasn't true, and sometimes they did it intentionally. Those things
happen in real life because the system isn't perfect. And here is a
140
ready-made advocate dealing with the issue on a tough level on a
very important issue, and you're cutting the funding on that and
isolating these people.
You have to understand, this is the United States, we are sup-
posed to be fair. We're supposed to appear. We're not supposed to
be afraid or ashamed of doing justice to the guilty. Maybe the guy
robbed the store, and maybe he should go to prison, but maybe he
shouldn't have gotten the death penalty. Those things happen, too.
You have to not be afraid to stand up for the beliefs that made
us different and make us different. And you need to look at this
in a totality, and I know that you will.
And I appreciate you giving me and my association an oppor-
tunity to address you on this issue because you have a very dif-
ficult job. You've got thousands of things tugging at you all the
time and then little issues from your constituents that are big to
them, and you've got to go in a thousand directions at once, and
I don't know how you do it. But on this issue, don't rush. Take your
time and look at it because the language that you're going to delete
is going to make a bigger change than you perhaps realize.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marvin D. Miller, Director, National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyer
re: H.R. 1552 ("false identification act of 1996")
1. 'X^racking down" on under age drinkers (the stated intent of the sponsors of this
bill) is a matter for the states
Congress is willing to trust the states with matters as important as welfare ad-
ministration. It should be at least as willing to allow states to handle these run of
the miU, traditionally state and local crimes.
2. Lopez
Specifically, the bill appears to flatly violate the United States Supreme Court's
recent Lopez decision. U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624(1995).
In sm age in which the federal courts are drowning in 3,000 "federal crimes," the
Lopez decision reestablished, in a court and State-protecting way, that: (a) the fed-
eral government is one of enumerated and delegated powers under our Constitution,
and that Congress cannot pass a statute unless there is authority in the Constitu-
tion for it; and (b) that there is no general police or welfare clause in the Constitu-
tion.
The Lopez decision makes it clear that even when Congress purports to be regu-
lating activities tifiecting interstate commerce, and has inserted a Commerce Clause
interstate jurisdictional component (e.g., use of the mails). Congress must prove
more than that the activity affects interstate commerce "minimally." Congress must
establish that the activity at which it aims has a substantial effect on interstate
commerce. The placement of false "over-age" i.d. in the mail does not meet this test.
This bill does not seek to protect or regulate the instrumentalities of interstate
commerce. This bill is fundamentally unlike laws aimed at prohibiting damage to
airplanes or interfering with the interstate transmissions of radio signals, for exam-
ple. Rather, this bill seeks to transgress the enumerated powers limitation of the
Constitution and intrude upon the police prerogatives of the States. It seeks to pro-
vide for the general welfare, by generally policing the production and passing of very
limited numbers of false age i.d.
Lopez made it plain that Congress may not enact "federal" criminal legislation in
a way:
Embrac[ing] effects upon interstate commerce so indirect and remote that
to embrace them, in view of our complex society, would effectively obliterate
the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a
completely centralized government.
141
Lopez. 115 S.Ct. at 1628-29 (quoting NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301
U.S. 1, 37 (1937))
Unfortunately, H.R. 1552 would effectuate just the sort of obliteration of distinc-
tion decried by the Court in Lopez. See e.g., U.S. v. Pappadqpoulos, 95 C.D.O.S.
6743 (9th Cir. (No. 93-10577) August 25, 1995) (Wallace, CX) (Following Lopez,
and holding in particular that the arson of a private home has only a remote and
indirect efiect on interstate commerce, and the receipt of interstate gas does not es-
tablish a sufficient nexus with interstate conunerce to satisfy Lopez). See also e.g.
id., at concurrence of Judge Farris ("This case . . . does not qualify as an economic
regulation. [The Act's prohibition] "is not an essential part of a larger regulation of
economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the
interstate activity were regulated.' ").
The underlying false identiflcation statute — 18 USC section 1028 — is essentially
focused on false identiflcation documents in facilitation of illegal immigration. This
is almost inevitably, if not exclusively, how the statute is invoked in practice. And
this is a matter well within theproper function of the federal government, specifi-
cally, the federsd criminal law. The quantity threshold requirement seeks to ensure
a substantial, as opposed to minimal, interstate commerce-affecting element.
Lowering this threshold, especiaUy in an attempt to "crack down" on an essen-
tially state and local crime proTblem of false c^e i.d., contravenes Lopez and the prop-
erly limited purposes of the federal criminal law affirmed in that decision.
3. New Offense Provision in Particular
It is difiicult to imagine a more flagrant violation of Lopez than the bill's proposed
creation of an entirely new class of "lederal" offense: the one-time mailing of a false
i.d. of age. See above.
"Knowingljr" what? It is also unclear to what act the term 'knowingly" is meant
to apply — to the simple mailing, or to the mailing of a known falsehood about age
on an i.d.
This appears to be an attempt create a "strict liabilitjr" offense — in which simply
mailing the i.d., whether or not one knew about its falsehood with respect to age,
is the crime.
This compounds the error of the bill — making this sort of innocent act a "federal
offense." It vastly increases the odds that one-time mailers of false age i.d. who have
acted with entirely innocent intent will be swept into the "federal" criminal net.
The one-time mailing of a false i.d. "harm" at which the bill is aimed is certainly
not of a degree or magnitude warranting creation of a federal strict liability offense.
4. Policy Arguments in Particular
This bill also implicates troubling policy issues.
First, the bill raises concern about arbitrary and capricious, selective enforcement.
Will the Harvard undergraduate be prosecuted for the false age i.d. offense —
plucked from the frat house and placed in the Ibig house'7 Or wul it only be the
non-college student?
Second, the federal courts are suffering with overwhelming caseloads as it is. It
is inefficient, unwise, and an abuse of the Third Branch to add this new offense to
the list of 3,000 "federal crimes" already on the books. Congress's failure to heed
Supreme Court law is an enormously costly, irresponsible, court-subverting enter-
prise. In a day of budgetary concerns, it certainly makes no economic sense. A cost
impact statement should maJce this unmistakably clear.
Third, this is simply not the type of Tiarm on which we should be expending
scarce and costly federal prison space, and precious national tax dollars.
RE: H.R. 2369 ("TO CLARIS THE METHOD OF FEDERAL EXECUTIONS")
NACDL stands strongly opposed to creating a Death Capital, USA for federal exe-
cutions as contemplated by this bill.
1. Isolation, Depersonalization, Due Process and the Eighth Amendment
The bill would place the entire federal death row population in one state (Indiana,
the place of the BOP-identified facility). This wUl isolate and depersonalize the
death row prisoner — who would routinely be taken far away from all those who care
about him or her and are most concerned about his or her case (including, it ap-
pears, his or her post conviction attorney).
The United States Supreme Court has consistently held that the death penalty
is "different in kind" from other punishments. Death cases are "different." The bill's
contemplated centralization of the federal death penalty population away from
friends, family and counsel offends basic due process and contravenes the Eighth
Amendment's ban against cruel and unusual punishment.
142
2. Jurisdictional Concerns
28 use section 2255 explicitly states that habeas petitions in these cases "may"
be filed in the court from which the conviction and sentence arose. The "may has
been settled through decision to equal "shall." Is it the bill's aim to have the 2255
jurisdictional matter continue to be interpreted in this way? If so, the placing of the
petitioner on Death Row, Indiana, seems certain to strain the attorney-client rela-
tionship in these cases beyond conscienable limits.
H.R. 2359 appears to envision that generally financially strapped habeas attor-
neys are supposed to talk with their clients about their cases long-distance (on pris-
on-monitored telephone lines); and/or travel perhaps thousands of miles in order to
talk with the death row client. By definition, this is not efiective representation. It
constitutes an effective deprivation of counsel at the critical post-conviction stage of
death penalty proceedings.
It is at least equally troubling if the bill's intent is to modify or trump the above
referenced provision of section 2255, and have the federal courts in the BOP-pre-
ferred Indiana (and the 7th Circuit) become the sole courts of "centralized" federal
death penalty review. Why are Indiana and 7th Circuit federal judges the only ones
equipped to rule on these petitions? Why are Indiana lawyers the only ones avail-
able to these prisoners/petitioners, and expected to take up the mantle of these dif-
ficult cases? Because the BOP wants it to be so? Even more basic: our federal sys-
tem is based on the fundamental notion that diversity ("percolation") of circuit law
is valuable, and a critical safeguard against injustice (i.e., checks and balances).
This is esp)ecially critical in cases of life and death.
Also troubling is the bill's attempt to delete language that helps ensure that a
death row prisoner/petitioner wiU not be sent to the executioner before having the
opportunity to exhaust federal court procedures for appeal of the judgment of convic-
tion and for review of the death sentence. We do not consider this language redun-
dant or mere surplus age. Rather, it is a critical safeguard of the death case peti-
tioner's rights.
This is especially important in light of certain provisions in the pending habeas
bills. The bills sees to impose strict timetables on the federal courts to consider and
render a decision in death penalty habeas cases (literally, days). And they appear
to try to dictate to the federal courts that the failure of the courts to meet the dead-
lines shall not be grounds for the petitioner to obtain a stay of execution ("grounds
for granting the petitioner relief from a judgment of conviction or sentence"). See
e.g. S. 735, section 607.
Especially under (a) the speeded up death penalty habeas procedures pending be-
fore Congress and (b) the contemplated elimination of the knowledgeable and expe-
rienced Post-Conviction Defender Organizations (fka Death Penalty Resource Cen-
ters): we must be especially vigilant not to execute innocent people. H.R. 2359 would
recklessly increase the chances of doing just this — (a) by separating the death case
petitioner from his or her lawyer by hundreds or thousands of miles, and (b) by de-
leting a key statutory provision aimed at ensuring that a death row habeas petition-
ers shall not be subject to the "implementation of the [death] sentence" before his
or her case app>eal procedures have been exhausted and sentence of death reviewed.
3. Why Do It?
Finally, lethal injection, especially, can be carried out anywhere — in any federal
prison facility with access to a doctor and a gumey. There is no need to centralize
these people in Indiana as contemplated by this bill, and thereby raise so many
grave risks and constitutional concerns.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. I'm going to
take a few questions myself at this point.
Mr. Tanton, the proposal by the Department of Justice which we
have indicated a willingness to change to in the bill dealing with
the DNA funding would jump the funding up to $15 million for fis-
cal year 1997 and $14 million for 1998, and then really phase dra-
matically back down to 6 and 4. Do you believe that the State lab-
oratories can spend that large amount of money in 1997 and 1998
and then not 1:^ in a shortfall position in 1999 and 2000? Are we
just moving money around in hopes that this is going to happen
or is this real that we can actually spend this much money effec-
tively in 1997?
143
Mr. Tanton. Yes, sir, I think that this is quite easy. As Assistant
Director Ahlerich alluded, there are 100 laboratories right now
doing DNA analysis. If you spread that money out evenly oyer
those 100 laboratories over a period of 5 years, it would be an im-
portant aid, but it doesn't totally make the program. And what we
envisioned when we looked at the bill in the first place was that
it would be a seed to establish DNA analysis at the local venues
so that it could be available and become part of the criminal justice
system. At that point then, the local agencies and local government
would take over to support this. That was always my vision of this,
that this would be a seed, a starter at a crucial point, which I think
we're at right now.
Mr. McCOLLUM. And so the 15 million and the 14 million in
those 2 years, pushed upfront like that, would let it be a seed for
a lot more laboratories. You get them off the ground, you get them
going, and you don't expect to have to come back here for a lot
more increased funding, because once they're going, their own re-
sources or State resources would provide the support necessary
then. Is that right?
Mr. Tanton. Yes, sir. That's my view of it.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Mr. Miller, a couple of questions for you. With
regard to the death penalty issue that's there right now, isn't it
true that in the Federal system today — Federal prison system —
somebody convicted of a very heinous crime in California is often
placed in a prison in Maine or Timbuktu, so to speak, so that the
fact that you are moved away from your attorney and your family
in the Federal system is not that uncommon today?
Mr. Miller. Generally, they are housed someplace close at hand
for purposes of appeal, and so on. In many areas there are regional
facilities that have contracts with the Bureau of Prisons or the
Marshals Service where they pay a per diem for inmates to be held
there, so that they have access to counsel while this process is on-
going. In some circumstances, inmates are shipped through special
security facilities, but generally the regional locator for the Bureau
of Prisons tries to locate them somewhere close to family and not
far afield from their natural geographic area. You may have a Flor-
ida individual convicted in New York in the Southern District in
Manhattan who may end up being incarcerated somewhere in the
Florida area.
It was mentioned earlier that there are death rows in many of
the States, and that may be a resolution that would accomplish the
localization of the inmate for purposes of their litigation and ac-
complish security concerns being answered as well.
Mr. McCoLLUM. It doesn't bother the defense attorneys or the
public policy from your perspective that Federal law would provide
an avenue for the electric chair as opposed to lethal injection?
Mr. Miller. That does bother me. I think that the method — I'm
opposed to the idea because I see that innocent people occasionally
get convicted and sometimes it takes 10 years before you find out
that they didn't do it. I just had a case like that. Fortunately, it
wasn't a death penalty. He wasn't there, he wasn't involved, but
that's beside the point.
The method of State execution. Federal or State, is a matter that
you ought to consider, and it ought to be more humane than such
144
matters as the gas chamber and the electric chair. And that is
something I think that you ought to consider. And I think that
Mr. McCOLLUM. But you think that it could be done State by
State rather than region by region. Your real complaint is just put-
ting everybody in Terre Haute?
Mr. Miller. If you put — one is if you put in Terre Haute. If you
want a uniform procedure, you could have a Federal team of spe-
cialists that could deal with it in a State facility.
Mr. McCoLLUM. I understand. With Mr. Scott's indulgence, I'm
going to ask you one last question here. And it has to do with Mr.
Chabot's bill. You indicated a concern that if you reduced from five
to three the number of documents that are required to prove the
crime or knowing possession with intent to use there would be a
problem. We are already contemplating limiting this change to sim-
ply the transfer part of this crime. But I wanted to point out to you
that under section 1028 of title 18 right now, while simple posses-
sion of five documents is indeed a crime of the type we've identi-
fied, the Government must prove more than that. You've got to
have an interstate nexus. You've got to prove that the document is
purported to have been issued under the authority of the United
States or it was made with a document-making implement that is
designed or suited for making a document issued by the United
States, or that the accused otherwise acted with the intent to de-
fi^aud the United States. In other words the criminal behavior must
involve production, transfer, or possession that affects interstate or
foreign commerce.
So, I think that the point I'm making with you is that while I
respect the rest of your criticism, I think we — well, we didn't do it
[laughter], but it passed Congress somewhere, and this particular
case at least tied to an interstate nexus a lot better that Lopez, so
it would appear.
Mr. Miller. I think they did. I think, however, though, as you
reduce the number of the nexus in interstate, which is a cir-
cumstantial factor often, as opposed to a direct factor, is reduced
and weakened that much the more. And that's really the focus of
my criticism.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, with all those conditions, I'm sur-
prised you can get a conviction by having to show that the driver's
license which was issued by State, presumably to buy alcohol and
not defraud the United States, you could ever get a conviction for
what we're aiming at.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Well, not necessarily that you can get the con-
viction. You've got a lot of "ors" in here, though, but it does have
to have— everyone on my list it does have to have some Federal
nexus.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Miller, along the Federal connection, if all you
have is simple possession in State of a product that has crossed
State line, how do you get — for example, crack cocaine — how do you
get past the Lopez defense?
Mr. Miller. Crack cocaine is less difficult because cocaine is not
a substance that's indigenous to this country. You just don't get the
coca plant here, so it has to have come in from foreign commerce.
145
Mr. Scott. So? If you can prove that a firearm was possessed in-
side a drug-free zone by a school, you haven't gotten a Federal con-
nection.
Mr. Miller. That's correct. The school zone issue in that case
was not a matter of Federal concern. The issue on the drugs, and
my actual view is that there is, or ought to be, a question about
that. Since there are whole series of State laws to deal with it, my
view is it ought to be a State law issue rather than a Federal issue.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Tanton, on the budget, as I understand it, if the
State or locality takes the money, it's for one-time expenses, and,
therefore, in response to the gentleman from Florida, you would
not be locking yourself into a budget that you would be responsible
for later on. Is that an accurate assessment?
Mr. Tanton. Yes, sir, that's my understanding of it, that to ac-
cess the money, each of the lalJoratories within a State, for in-
stance, would apply separately. In your case in Virginia, I think
that the system would apply for a grant and there would coordina-
tion, but
Mr. Scott. The grant would be for training or equipment or
something that you would spend the money and you would not
have an ongoing budget for somebody else to pick up.
Mr. Tanton. If I understand you, that
Mr. Scott. I think the question that the gentleman from Florida
said, if you take the money and get a budget going, after the money
stops you are stuck with a budget. And I think the point to be
made here is these are one-time expenses.
Mr. Tanton. In two out of the three instances. In the case of get-
ting new equipment, yes, that would be a one-time expense. In the
concept of training, pretty close to a one-time expense, although
you would have to train people. Although the reagent expenses,
which are an ongoing expense, that would be an ongoing expense
that would have to be picked up by the local government at some
time.
Mr. Scott. Let me follow up on another thing on the death pen-
alty cases that Mr. Miller mentioned. In following up on the gen-
tleman from Florida, there's a difference between sending someone
to serve a sentence and sending someone to death because a sen-
tence is final and you don't expect appeals. With the death penalty,
you assume that it will always be appealed up to the last minute.
Is that a difference to
Mr. Miller. That is one difference. The current statute talks of
in terms of a person being in the Attorney General's custody until
exhaustion of appeal and review of the sentence.
Mr. Scott. And for death penalty, that would never occur?
Mr. Miller. That does occur. There is, given the pending legisla-
tion that is going to shorten time and sort of cut off the never-end-
ing nature of death penalty litigation. And that's why I mentioned
that it has to be taken in conjunction with that litigation, because
f^ou have a shorter time frame, and that makes it more difficult to
itigate those kinds of issues, to prepare to litigate those kinds of
issues, particularly when in these cases, as so often is the case, the
attorney coming in to do the post conviction, after trial litigation
on this, is a different lawyer. They have to have access in the
courthouse to the record. Aiid they nave to have access to the in-
146
mate. Now that's generally available and doable in most all Federal
cases.
And the concern that we express to you is that this change would
have an effect of not making that access available and, therefore,
would be a diminishment of the opportunity to do fair litigation on
some of these issues. And, in particular, our concern is that those
who are actually innocent and could establish it wouldn't have the
opportimity to do it.
Mr. Scott. With all the problems that occur, one would have to
question whether the bureaucratic convenience would justify all of
the problems that are created with this centralized location.
Mr. Miller. I think that's right. Congressman. Thank you.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Heineman, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Heineman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just one small point, however, perhaps to allay Mr. Miller's con-
cern over 1552 dealing with instate reduction of identification. I
think the bill itself is clear on page 2, line 11, when it says "who-
ever knowingly sends through the mails or intending or knowing
that it will be deposited for mailing." I think that does give the
Federal Government standing as it relates to this issue. And I
didn't read the Code; I don't know what the Code has to say, but
I don't think that this 1552 even talks to the issue of the produc-
tion of false identification within a State.
Mr. Miller. Congressman, my concern is — and I apologize for
being less than clear — it's so easy to make a fake ID, and then with
this mailing issue in sections 1739, as you point out, subsection A,
"whoever knowingly sends through the mails or intending or know-
ing that it will be deposited for mailing procures any imverified
identification," and so on. Does "knowingly" mean that you know
you are doing something that will mail it? Or does "knowingly"
mean that it's a fake ID, and what is the burden on the individual
who may be transmitting it? And is it something that could result
in a minor case being a Federal case when the mailing provision,
which is new — ^which means that if you send Johnnie s wallet in
the mail to him at school after he comes home for Easter vacation,
then is the parent perhaps, because they knowing that they mailed
it, liable for a criminal violation?
Mr. Heineman. Well, I think that the parent probably would be
as liable as the mailman unless they knew that it was false identi-
fication.
Mr. Miller. The "knowingly" is less than clear, it seems to me,
in its first use in subsection A, And that is something that I wasn't
clear on, but I think that to what it refers — ^knowing that it is false
or knowing that you're going to mail — and I think that it's getting
into an area where mere fake ID's, where there's no intent other
than to bump one's age to get a reduced fair for an airline ticket
as a student or to get alcohol to which one might not be entitled
in the State where you are going to college which you might get
at home. It is possible under this, and I don't think it's your inten-
tion to do this. And that's the focus of my remarks.
Mr. Heineman. That's why we need lawyers. I'm not an attorney.
I just look at this as a layman. And as a juror, it would be clear
147
to me what the intent of the legislation is. And that's all I have
to say.
I yield back my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Heineman.
Mr. Barr, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller, two questions. The first one concerns 1552. You've
talked about section 2. and I'm wondering if you have had a
chance — I'm sure you have— but could you address any concerns
you might have with section 3, particularly the attempt to define
the term "unverified," continuing on the bottom of page 2 and into
page 3 of the bill, if you have any thoughts on the language?
Mr. Miller. Yes, that's in subsection (B)(1), and it says "The
term 'unverified' with respect to identification documents means
that the sender has not personally viewed a certificate or other
written communication confirming age of the individual to be iden-
tified." Where you have mail order ID's that you get laminated, not
official government documents that somebody sends, something
like that, that kind of thing presents a problem here where you
have individuals that are members of organizations where they
might have their date of birth and they send into the national of-
fice their dues, and so on, and the national office sends back an ID
card that is a laminated card that may have identifying informa-
tion on it. That's a problem.
What's not clear to me also, and it's a greater problem, is wheth-
er or not someone who is mailing Johnnie's wallet to him from
home, and Johnnie isn't tiie son, Johnnie is the son's roommate,
and they didn't check, look through the wallet to see whether or
not the ID is accurate. They know that their son is 18, the room-
mate is 18, and they didn't look through the roommate's wallet to
see whether or not it had a 22-year-ola age on the driver's license.
That language is less than clear taking it the way I could see it
interpreted by a judge telling a jury what to determine about it.
It could be used to make a crime which I don't think you would
intend to make criminal, or at least I hope you wouldn't. I hope you
wouldn't want to get down to that level. And I'm afraid that the
language accomplishes something that perhaps you didn't intend.
Mr. Barr. So you see some serious problems down the road if
this legislation were enacted with this language in it in section 3?
Mr. Miller. Yes, I do.
Mr. Barr. OK, thank you. With regard to our discussion concern-
ing the Federal facility at Terre Haute with regard to prison death
row inmates. Federal prisoners, with all due respect to my col-
league from Virginia, I think that there's really more at issue here
than just bureaucratic convenience. And I would hope that we
would all agree on that. We may not agree on how much should
be weighed against providing absolutely full and complete access by
defense attorneys and family members to the death row inmates,
but there are such things as the safety of the guards, and tremen-
dous possible savings to taxpayers. So there's more than just bu-
reaucratic convenience at stake here.
And I'm wondering if you've had any opportunity to look at the
only similar experience that we have on the record recently, and
that is the move from detaining the most dangerous Federal prison
148
inmates at Marion to the facility, the newer, more modern facility
in Florence, CO. And it's my impression that, even though that's
only been for about a year or so, there have not been serious prob-
lems with regard to defense attorneys and family members gaining
access to those inmates that used to be housed at Marion and other
facilities now being at Colorado. Are you aware of any serious prob-
lems that developed in that experience so far?
Mr. Miller. I can't address that because I don't have the knowl-
edge base on which to do it. But those individuals, as a general
proposition, are in a different circumstance than someone who has
a conviction where they're facing the ultimately penalty, and a
shorter time frame imposed upon them which I anticipate will be
the result of pending legislation. They don't have the same time
constraints, and they don't — the habeas bills that are pending now
are going to shorten the time frame, so they have luxury of more
time. And they are not — statistically, an inmate who gets a death
penalty sentence in this country is a minority from a lower social
economic background and is more likely appointed than not. And
so, if you are shortening the time frame in which that process is
allowed to proceed and then moving them to a further distance lo-
cation, you're compounding the problem.
The second factor is this: often those inmates aren't necessarily
moved right away, immediately after conviction, to that facility.
Sometimes those inmates are based there based on crimes and sen-
tences, sometimes it's based on institutional record long after their
sentence has been final and — "This guy's a bad actor, and we've got
to move him here because we can't deal with him in Morgantown,
WV, where we had him in the first place." So there's a whole array
of different factors that will apply to the inmates that are at that
facility as opposed to this particular bill.
Mr. Barr. ok, thank you.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Barr.
Well, I think both of you have done well answering our ques-
tions. I don't have any more to ask you today, but I thank you for
coming — Mr. Tanton, particularly from my home State, now that
you have identified it's Palm Beach you're from.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing.
U. S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative Affairs
: of the AjnAaoi Aoonwy Ccaar>I Wathinfot, D.C 20510
October 18. 1995
The Honorable Bill McCollum
Chairman
Subcommittee on Crime
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
De^r Mr. Chairman:
This letter is in response to several questions raised at
the September 28, 1995, hearing of the Subcommittee on Crime.
With regard to H.R. 2360, the community services projects
bill, you asked how we would enforce the restriction on the
resale of minimum-cost products made from scrap materials. The
statutory language states that "such products shall not be resold
by the recipient" and that these community services work programs
arc subject to "rules prescribed by the Attorney General." The
rules would describe the resale restriction in more forceful
terms . The ultimate enforcement would be at the level of the
institution that implemented such a work program. If we found
that a recipient entity was selling these products, we would
immediately terminate our relationship with that entity.
In connection with H.R. 2359, several questions were raised
at the hearing concerning the place of incarceration of Federal
offenders with death sentences. However, H.R. 2359 does not
tocus on this issue, but rather would allow for Federal
executions to be carried out in Federal facilities by clarifying
the law involving the method utilized in Federal executions.
With regard to the housing of inmates with Federal sentences,
including those inmates with death sentences, the Bureau of
Prisons already has the statutory authority to house inmates in
appropriate facilities designated by the Bureau. H.R. 2359 would
have no effect on the Bureau's authority in regard to making
housing decisions for these inmates.
The scope of the changes contemplated under H.R. 2359 is
very narrow. By amending 18 U.S.C. §3596, the bill would remove
the current death penalty procedures which provide that State
methods of execution are to be used in Federal executions. For
Federal death sentence convictions in States that do not have the
(149)
150
The Honorable Bill McCollun
Page 2
death penalty, the current wording of §3596 would mandate that
the sentencing court designate another State in which the
execution would have to be carried out. H.R. 2359 would
eliminate these confusing procedures and replace them with a
uniform system for implementing Federal death sentences in
Federal facilities pursuant to regulations promulgated by the
Attorney General.
It is our position that States should not be burdened with
the difficult duties of carrying out Federal executions. State
governments and correctional systems are currently busy enough
with their own cases. When this issue has come up during
informal discussions with State officials, the view of these
officials has been that they are not interested in having any
involvement with Federal executions. In as much as there is a
Bureau of Prisons facility which was specifically constructed to
carry out Federal executions, it makes little sense for the
Federal government to spend extra funds to reimburse States for
carrying out this duty, thereby unnecessarily shifting the
practical burdens of this Federal responsibility to the States.
Although H.R. 2 3 59 does not make any stipulations with
regard to the housing of inmates with Federal death sentences, as
a matter of correctional policy the Bureau of Prisons has planned
to incarcerate these offenders in one maximum security facility.
The United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana has been
chosen as this site. Choosing one site for the incarceration of
these inmates is not a unique correctional policy determination
by the Bureau. This situation is analogous to other special
categories of inmates that are currently incarcerated in specific
facilities by the Bureau, such as the highest-level maximum
security prisoners or inmates requiring mental health treatment.
Inmates under a sentence of death pose particular
correctional management and security concerns for the Bureau due
to the nature of their sentences. For this reason, the Bureau
has determined that having one housing unit specifically geared
towards the task of appropriately incarcerating these inmates is
the most effective and efficient policy. The Department is
certainly cognizant of the concerns raised at the hearing
involving adequate access to counsel. In incarcerating Federal
offenders with death sentences, the Bureau of Prisons will take
all appropriate steps to ensure that these inmates are afforded
access to their attorneys, as well as their families and other
visitors .
151
The Honorable Bill McCollum
Page 3
In response to the question- about the percent of Federal
capital punishment cases that have been overturned upon appeal,
since 1988, when the Federal death penalty was re-established,
there have been six Federal death penalty sentences, none of
which have been overturned as a result of an appellate review.
Regarding H.R. 1533 and the inquiry concerning the number of
crimes committed by individuals on escape status, unfortunately
this information is not retrievable through the use of any of our
existing automated data systems. Even without this information,
we believe that there are strong policy reasons for supporting
this legislation, which are to help ensure the safety of law
enforcement personnel and members of the public from the dangers
inherent in escapes and attempted escapes by providing for
appropriate penalties for this very serious offense.
We are pleased to assist the Subcommittee's consideration of
these bills. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have
additional questions on these matters.
ncerely, f^
Sincere]
Andrew Fois
Assistant Attorney General
The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
Ranking Minority Member
o
, jiiiiiifiiiii
3 9999 05984 001 5
ISBN 0-16-052452-0
9 780160"524523
90000
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11