Annual Meeting program focused on recent advances in DNA forensic evidence

"Principles of Forensic DNA for Officers of the Courts: A New Tool for Attorneys and Judges" brought to attendees at the recent Annual Meeting information and tools created by the National Institute of Justice of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A Bush Administration initiative, the National Forensic Science Technology Center has five goals: to clear the backlog of DNA samples; to enhance the capacity of state and local DNA labs; to use DNA analysis to solve missing persons cases; to increase the use of DNA in post-conviction cases; and to provide that training be instituted across the spectrum of parties involved.

Panelists at the ABA Section of Science and Technology's continuing legal education program included Glenn Schmitt, National Institute of Justice; Debra Figarelli, National Forensic Science Technology, Phoenix; Christopher Asplen, of Smith Alling Lane, Chalfont, Pa.; and Superior Court Judge Ronald Reinstein of Phoenix.

Figarelli opened the program with a biological description of DNA, including describing the differences between testing of mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA. Asplen continued with a description of possible sources for DNA collection, and the training that needs to be done to ensure that all parties involved receive that training, noting, for example, that "police are not where they should be with respect to looking for DNA." Further, lawyers need to be able to ask appropriate questions as to where DNA was found, and – as importantly – why DNA may not have been found at a specific location.

Contamination of DNA evidence is a major problem, said Figarelli. Both prosecutors and lawyers for the defense need to understand what quality assurance procedures labs have in place to ward off the likelihood of contamination.

The program also provided a tutorial on components of a DNA report, including a listing of evidence reviewed, interpretation of that evidence, date and signature of the reviewer and report writer, and an explanation of what happened to the evidence. The interpretation of the report could include findings of "no result," "inconclusive" and "uninterpretable," and it is necessary to be able to ask the appropriate questions concerning those results.

Materials from this program and others sponsored by the Science and Technology Section at the Annual Meeting are available online.

Back to top