Presentation on theme: "Forensic Biology And Court"— Presentation transcript:
1Forensic Biology And Court ICITAP Senior Forensic Advisor Ted Smith
2Ted Smith - CV ICITAP Senior Forensic Advisor EducationGraduate :Marshall University, School of Medicine, Huntington, WV 1999Forensic Science/DNA AnalysisUndergraduate:Marshall University College of Science, Huntington, WV, 1978Biological Sciences WV State Police Academy, Institute, WVICITAP Senior Forensic AdvisorMexico, Merida Initiative December 2009 – PresentIraq, Ministry of Interior Forensic Program September 2007 – July 2009Marshall University Forensic Science CenterSpecial Project Manager January 2010-PresentWest Virginia State PoliceDirector Forensic Laboratory March September 2007Quality Assurance Manager June March 2002Supervisor DNA Laboratory July June 2001Bench Scientist October July 1989Marshall University College of ScienceAdjunct Professor – 2007ISC 205 Intro Forensic ScienceIST 445 DNA ForensicsIST 482 DNA ApplicationsWorked technically as a forensic biologist for twenty-three years and have examined and analyzed evidence for thousands of biology cases. During my tenure as a forensic biologist implemented, developed, equipped, and supervised the WVSP DNA analysis laboratory; served as the first WVSP CODIS Databank Administrator and DNA Technical Leader; served as the WVSP Laboratory’s initial Quality Manager; and was its Director from3130 Genetic Analyzer, capillary based DNA analysis system (2006)PowerPlexY, fluorescent/capillary based-DNA analysis system (2006)YPlex6, fluorescent/gel based-DNA analysis system (2002)PowerPlex16, fluorescent/gel based-DNA analysis system (2001)AmpFlSTR Profiler Plus, fluorescent/gel based-DNA analysis system (1998)377 Gene Analyzer, gel based DNA analysis system (1998)Geneprint STR System FFV, silver staining/gel PCR-based DNA analysis system (1996)Geneprint STR System CTT, silver staining/gel PCR-based DNA analysis system (1996)AmpliFLP D1S80, silver staining/gel PCR-based DNA analysis system (1994)AmpliType HLA-DQα, dot blot PCR-based DNA analysis system (1993)Hae III RFLP DNA analysis system, probes D2S44, D13S14, D4S139, and D1S7; (1992)
3DNA IdentificationPerhaps the most significant advance in criminal investigation since the advent of fingerprint identification is the use of DNA technology to help convict criminals or eliminate persons as suspects.
4Use of DNA EvidenceSince 1987, DNA analysis has been used in tens of thousands of cases that resulted in conviction.El ADN se introdujo por primera vez como prueba en el sistema judicial de los Estados Unidos en La tecnología de ADN se ha convertido en una herramienta forense cada vez más poderosa para identificar o eliminar a las personas como autores de un delito cuando en el escenario del delito se dejan pruebas biológicas como saliva, tejidos, sangre, pelo o semen. Fuera del tribunal, el ADN puede dar importantes pistas de investigación para resolver problemas de identificación humana.
6Critical Factors….#1 Sensitivity of DNA Analysis IS EVIDENCE PROTECTED FROMLOSS,CROSS TRANSFER,CONTAMINATION,AND /ORDELETERIOUS CHANGE?ASCLD/LABSensitivity of DNA AnalysisAny cellular material can be used as a source of DNA.Age of evidence is not important!
7Critical Factors…. #2 Chain of Custody (E)DOES THE LABORATORY HAVE A WRITTEN OR SECURE ELECTRONIC CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD WITH ALL NECESSARY DATA WHICHPROVIDES FOR COMPLETE TRACKING OF ALL EVIDENCE?ASCLD/LABChain of CustodyDemonstrate the integrity of the evidence from scene to court.
8Critical Factors….#3 DNA Tool Ignored Crimes go unsolved. ARE CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS IN REPORTS SUPPORTED BY DATA AVAILABLE IN THE CASE RECORD, AND ARE THE EXAMINATION DOCUMENTS SUFFICIENTLY DETAILED SUCH THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE EXAMINER(S), ANOTHER COMPETENT EXAMINER OR SUPERVISOR COULD EVALUATE WHAT WAS DONE AND INTERPRET THE DATA?DNA Tool IgnoredCrimes go unsolved.Authorities not following up; they continue to believe that freed defendants are guilty.Exonerated?Time issue!!!
11Incidents at the Huntington Mall Year -1987Two women, in separate incidents, were abducted at knife point in the mall’s parking lot.Both times the assailant wore a ski mask and forced the victims to close their eyes throughout the attack.In the first instance, the attacker drove around in the woman's car, repeatedly raped her, and stole a gold watch and $5. The victim opened her eyes briefly to note that the assailant wore brown pants and was uncircumcised.In the second case, the man repeatedly raped the woman and stole a gold watch. This woman was able to note the man's boots, jacket, and hair color. She also noted that he was uncircumcised.While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.
12Evidence Presented at Trial Characteristics of body fluid secretions from semen recovered from the evidence were consistent with defendant.A comparison of beard hair from the defendant was reported to be consistent with hair recovered from a victim's car.Partial visual identification of the defendant was made by one of the victims.One victim identified clothing that matched clothing found in the defendant's house.Both victims testified that the assailant was not circumcised, in common with the defendant.A distinctive smell about the assailant was noted by both victims and also was found at the defendant's workplace.
13WV State v. WoodallOn July 8, 1987, a jury found Glen Woodall guilty of first-degree sexual assault of one woman, first-degree sexual abuse of a second woman, kidnapping both women, and aggravated robbery of both women.He was sentenced by the circuit court to two life terms without parole and to to 335 years in prison, to be served consecutively.
17WV State v. WoodallIn Woodall, the West Virginia Supreme Court was the first State high court to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence.The court accepted DNA testing by the defendant, but inconclusive results failed to exculpate Woodall.DNA rulings have affected all of forensics!!!!Theory and practice are generally accepted among the scientific community.Techniques are generally accepted by the scientific community.Pretrial hearings are required to determine whether the testing laboratory's methodology was substantially in accord with scientific standards and produced reliable results for jury consideration."...ideally, a defendant should be provided with the actual DNA sample(s) in order to reproduce the results. As a practical matter, this may not be possible because forensic samples are often so small that the entire sample is used in testing. Consequently, access to the data, methodology, and actual results is crucial...for an independent expert review.”
18WV State v. WoodallOn July 6, 1989, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed Woodall's conviction.(385 S.E.2d 253).Woodall continued to file motions to allow DNA testing of the evidence. He filed several appeal petitions and habeas corpus petitions with both the trial court and with the West Virginia Supreme Court. The Court finally allowed the evidence to be released to the defense for additional DNA testing.This evidence was forwarded to Forensic Science Associates (FSA).
20DQα Results Exonerate Woodall Sample DQαWoodall's reference 2, 3Underpants of victim 2 3, 4 (sperm)Underpants of victim , 3Denim skirt of victim 1 3, 4 (sperm)Denim skirt of victim , 4Victim 1- reference 1.2, 4Victim 2 - reference 1.2, 3Assailant in both cases had the same DQα type and the type did not match Woodall!
21100%, unequivocally, categorically WRONG Conventional body fluid identificationBody and beard hair from the victim's car.Partial visual identification by a victimIdentification of clothing by a victimUncircumcisedDistinctive smell identified by both victimsOther investigative circumstances
22Eyewitness EvidenceEyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.Innocence Project 2011Tests conducted in 1979 have shown an enormous 54% swing from a non-guilty verdict, to that of guilty within the same case simply through the introduction of an eyewitness. (Loftus, 1979)Eyewitness evidence – though technically reliable in its own right – tends to convict innocent individuals in a devastatingly high proportion, estimated at 45%.(Loftus & Ketcham,1991)While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.
23If you live long enough, you get accused of things you never did and praised for virtues you never had. — I.F. Stone, 20th-century American journalistAll bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. — Julius Caesar, Roman general, statesman and writer ( B.C.)
24Center for Blood Research (CBR) - MA CBR continued conducting RFLP analysis and eliminated three potential donors as sources of the sperm. This was to counter the prosecution's argument that the stains may have come from consensual partners. The RFLP analysis also excluded Woodall, and the State conducted its own DNA test. The State's results also excluded Woodall, as noted in a report of April 23, 1992.
25Center for Blood Research Center for Blood Research (CBR) - MACBR conductedRFLP &DQαanalyses and eliminated three potential donors as sources of the sperm.Dr. David Bing Harvard Research Center Woodall and the husband & boyfriend of the victims.RFLPDQα
26Broward County Sheriff’s Office - FL The State conducted its own DNA test. The State's results also excluded Woodall, as noted in a report of April 23, 1992.West Virginia moved to dismiss Woodall's indictment on May 4, 1992, and the trial court granted the motion. Woodall served 4 years of his sentence in prison and spent a year under electronic home confinement.
27WV State v. WoodallAs a result of the additional testing, West Virginia moved to dismiss Woodall's indictment on May 4, 1992, and the trial court granted the motion. Woodall served 4 years of his sentence in prison and spent a year under electronic home confinement.Glen Woodall was awarded $1 million USD from West Virginia for his wrongful conviction and false imprisonment.
291994 WV CODIS System Created Senate Bill 252 established the West Virginia Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) under the authority of the West Virginia State Police.Creation of the Marshall University Forensic Science Center to do data banking for WVSP
30Remember - Critical Factor….#3 ARE CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS IN REPORTS SUPPORTED BY DATA AVAILABLE IN THE CASE RECORD, AND ARE THE EXAMINATION DOCUMENTS SUFFICIENTLY DETAILED SUCH THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE EXAMINER(S), ANOTHER COMPETENT EXAMINER OR SUPERVISOR COULD EVALUATE WHAT WAS DONE AND INTERPRET THE DATA?DNA Tool IgnoredCrimes go unsolved.Authorities not following up; they continue to believe that freed defendants are guilty.Exonerated?
31Reluctance to Accept DNA Identifications “…law- enforcement authorities are still struggling-- and in some cases refusing--to fully exploit DNA technology.”The Chicago Tribune examined every case in the U.S. where DNA testing has freed a convicted inmate, focusing on 115 murders and rapes where the release left a crime unsolved. In 18 of those cases, DNA was quickly used to link known suspects to the crime. But in 44 of the remaining 97 cases, or just under half, authorities have not followed up by submitting the genetic profile of the suspected perpetrator to the FBI's national DNA database, NDIS.October 26, 2003
32Evidence Remains with Court Until 2007 The State conducted its own DNA test. The State's results also excluded Woodall, as noted in a report of April 23, 1992.
33Remember - Critical Factor….#1 IS EVIDENCE PROTECTED FROMLOSS,CROSS TRANSFER,CONTAMINATION,AND /ORDELETERIOUS CHANGE?ASCLD/LABSensitivity of DNA AnalysisAge of evidence is not important!BLOODSEMENSALIVAHAIR ROOTSBONETOOTH PULPSKINTISSUESWEATSwabsClothingPop cansChewing gumCigarette filtersDandruffSki masksCondomsHatbands, etc.Evidence was handled by seven laboratories and at least seven scientists and it was handled in court! And it was handled without contamination!
342008…..Childs said in prepared statement: Chris Chiles, Prosecuting Attorney for Cabell County.2008…..Childs said in prepared statement:"Early this summer we received notification that there was a [national DNA database] CODIS match between the unknown DNA profile from our case with an individual named Donald Good, who is from Kanawha County."
35Woodall’s Appeal Lawyer Charleston, WV attorney Lonnie Simmons fought for years to have Woodall's DNA tested at a time when the science surrounding DNA evidence was in its infancy.Reached on Friday, Lonnie Simmons credited police and prosecutors for continuing to work on the case, even decades after the crimes occurred."It shows the value of science," he said. "With this kind of evidence, you have actual objective facts. And those objective facts can be tested and reviewed by other scientists..” You eliminate some of the problems you have with eyewitness testimony and witnesses' memory.October 22, 2010, Charleston Gazette
36Remember - Critical Factor…. #2 DOES THE LABORATORY HAVE A WRITTEN OR SECURE ELECTRONIC CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD WITH ALL NECESSARY DATA WHICHPROVIDES FOR COMPLETE TRACKING OF ALL EVIDENCE?ASCLD/LABChain of CustodyDemonstrate the integrity of the evidence from scene to court.
38March 30, 2011Forensic expert testifies during the second day of the Huntington Mall rape case trial on Wednesday, March 30, , at the Cabell County Courthouse in Huntington.
39April 1, 2011 The jury found Donald Good guilty on 20 of 22 counts. Cabell County Circuit Judge Alfred Ferguson sentenced him to two life sentences for each of the kidnapping charges plus 150 to years for the remaining counts of sexual assault and sexual abuse.
40Use of DNA EvidenceAccording to the FBI, about a third of those named as the primary suspect in rape cases are excluded by DNA evidence.NRC 2, 1966In the past 25 years, DNA testing has emerged as a revolutionary forensic tool, providing an unprecedented exactitude in identifying and convicting criminals and freeing prisoners convicted of crimes they did not commit, 273 to date. Historically, DNA technology has been used primarily as a prosecutorial weapon rather than an investigative tool, but the REAL promise of DNA evidence lies in its ability to be an investigation tool!! Widespread availability, longevity and sensitivity.
41Critical Factors - Summary THE FBI QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARDSAUDIT FORFORENSIC DNA TESTING LABORATORIESIN ACCORDANCE WITHTHE QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARDSFOREFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2011An Audit of: ______________Dates of Audit: ____________Auditor(s): _______________Sensitivity of DNA AnalysisChain of CustodyAcceptance of the DNA ToolLaboratory PracticeTechniques used are generally accepted by the scientific community.Methods were done accord with scientific standards and produced reliable results for court considerationAccess to the data, methodology, and actual results for an independent expert review.Harrison County Case
42AccreditationPretrial hearings are required to determine whether the testing laboratory's methodology was substantially in accord with scientific standards and produced reliable results for jury consideration