August 17 VIRGINIA: Replace honor system in DNA labs Today, the nation's DNA crime labs police themselves largely through an honor system. Robert Shaler, director of forensic biology in the New York City medical examiner's office, describes how that works in the best of circumstances. If significant questions arise about a test result in his lab, Shaler said, he turns the case over to a quality assurance manager, who reviews it. If the manager agrees that the questions have merit, the lab retests any remaining sample and then writes an amended report which is sent to both the prosecution and the defense. Next, the lab's procedures are reviewed and corrected. And finally, all other cases handled by the analyst who conducted the faulty test are reviewed for similar problems. At the lab's next audit, the auditor is shown the case so that the corrective action can be reviewed. Later, that audit report goes to the FBI lab, where another set of eyes assess the performance. The shortcoming with this system is that it is self-starting. If a lab concludes at the beginning that it did nothing wrong the matter ends there. That's what the Virginia Division of Forensic Science did recently when its results in a high-profile murder case were criticized by three DNA experts, including Shaler. Unless a higher authority, such as a governor, orders an independent audit, the lab's word stands. So far, Gov. Mark Warner has refused to intervene in the case of Culpeper housewife Rebecca Williams. On paper, there is an elaborate system of audits for labs that participate in the FBI's DNA data bank or for those that seek industry accreditation. But those reviews also depend to a substantial degree on the lab's willingness to point out its own errors. That's not good enough in an era when the criminal justice system invests enormous faith in DNA testing as a forensic tool. Growing awareness of the potential for human error in interpreting DNA results demands a better system, both in Virginia and nationally. Here are 5 ways to make the oversight of forensics labs more reliable: - An independent entity needs to be created with the authority to address serious disputes involving the handling and analysis of biological material. Suggestions range from creation of a "science court" to a scientific inspector general. Short of that, greater independence needs to be injected into the auditing process. Today, it is too easy for a mistake to be overlooked. - Forensic scientists need to analyze DNA test results independent of a prosecutor's theory of the crime. In some cases where mistakes have been made, scientists appeared to tailor their interpretations to favor the prosecution. Particularly when mixtures of DNA are tested, as often occurs in sex crimes, there is more leeway in analyzing DNA results than lawyers and judges realize. - Lawyers and judges need more training in the ins-and-outs of DNA testing. They need to be less accepting and more skeptical of analyses coming out of state labs. - Judges should approve the hiring of expert defense witnesses to scrutinize DNA test results. The case of Karl Michael Roush, who was wrongly arrested in the 1996 murder of Spotsylvania teenager Sofia Silva, highlights the need. A complicated DNA test was part of the evidence against him. The test said he could not be ruled out if there was more than one murderer. But Roush was shown to be innocent when the FBI determined that the same person who killed Silva killed sisters Kristin and Kati Lisk, also of Spotsylvania County. Roush could not have murdered the Lisk sister because he was in jail on the Silva murder charges when the sisters were killed. A South Carolina man was later identified as the killer of all 3 girls. While he was under arrest for the Silva murder, Roush asked a circuit court judge for a DNA expert to clarify the results and to independently test the material. Chillingly, the judge said no. Had the sisters never been killed, an innocent man would have gone to trial with a DNA test pointing to him as a possible murderer and without a DNA expert to testify on his behalf. Obvious as it may seem, forensic analysts need to explain their DNA findings in laymen's language. Too many reports are decipherable only by a fellow scientist. All of this points to the need for a more transparent oversight system. In that spirit, the Virginia Division of Forensic Science and the governor's office should reconsider their apparent decision not to undertake an independent audit of test results in the Williams case. The Virginia lab has enjoyed a strong national reputation. The best way to protect that standing is to welcome outside scrutiny, proving that the lab has nothing to hide. (source: Editorial, Virginian Pilot) IOWA: Jury Selection Under Way In Death Penalty Case----Britt Man Accused Of Killing 5 People In Drug Slaying At least 1 potential juror in Iowa's 1st death penalty case in more than 40 years has been excused. Dustin Honken, of Britt, is accused of killing 5 people, including 2 children, in a drug slaying in 1993. The bodies were found buried near Mason City in 2000. Jury selection began Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Sioux City. Judge Mark Bennett excused 1 potential juror after agreeing that serving would cause a severe financial hardship. Attorneys will question 15 potential jurors each day for the next three weeks. Bennett wants to build a pool of 75 potential jurors before lawyers whittle the panel down to 18 -- 12 jurors and 6 alternates. Jury selection is expected to last up to 3 weeks. Testimony is scheduled to start Sept. 7. Iowa has no death penalty, but the federal system allows the death sentence. (source: TheOmahaChannel) OHIO: Hearing on forced medication postponed A court hearing on psychiatrists' requests to force-medicate a Butler County homicide suspect has been postponed. Lawyers for Tom West, 51, a drifter accused of 6 charges in a shooting that killed 2 people and injured 3 others at a West Chester trucking company, asked Judge Keith Spaeth to delay the hearing. West is to undergo a neurological examination on Thursday, and results of that examination are expected to be relevant to the debate over whether psychiatrists can administer drugs to West against his will. Spaeth rescheduled the hearing for next Monday in Common Pleas Court. Authorities have said they believe this is Ohio's 1st death-penalty case in which forced medication has become an issue. In June, Spaeth had found Tom West, also known as Joseph John Eschenbrenner III, was mentally ill and incompetent to stand trial. If West cannot be restored to competency within a year, laws may prohibit him from ever facing trial in the Nov. 6 shooting that killed 2 people and injured three others at Watkins Motor Lines Inc. 2 counts of aggravated murder stem from the slayings of dispatcher Bob Lines, 65, of Springfield Township, and truck driver Donald E. Haury, 50, of Bellbrook, Ohio. West also is accused of trying to kill 1 man who avoided injury, Ed Wasinger, and 3 others who were wounded: Billy F. Claywell, 48, of Cave City, Ky.; Glenn Brierly, 48, of Hamilton; and Gary Fissel, 50, of Huntersville, N.C. West has lived in cities ranging from Las Vegas to the Chicago area, and authorities said they believe he was living out of his van at the time of the Watkins shooting. Officials have said they don't know why the shooting happened in West Chester rather than at any other Watkins location; West last worked for Watkins' Atlanta office in 2001 and held a general grudge against the company, his family members have said. (source: Cincinnati Inquirer) ******************* Man faces death penalty counts in 3 arson deaths A man pleaded innocent Tuesday to charges that he set a fire that killed 3 people in a southern Ohio motel. Roger Marshall, 56, could face the death penalty if convicted in the deaths of James Reed, John Meyer and Lolaetta Corbin, all of Ironton. Their bodies were found early Aug. 2 in a room at the Lyle Motel. Marshall, who was injured in the fire, was charged Monday with 3 counts of aggravated murder and 12 counts of aggravated arson. Bond was set at $3 million Tuesday, the Lawrence County prosecutor's office said. The occupants of 2 other fire-damaged units escaped with small cuts, and the entire motel had smoke damage, fire officials said. (source: Associated Press) USA: TV REVIEW | 'IN THE JURY ROOM' -- Watching Real Juries Deliberate and Decide "In the Jury Room" looks as if it might be one of those perfect documentaries, the kind in which trivia suggest epic struggles. In last week's episode, the 1st of ABC's seven-part series about the American jury system, a man named Mark Ducic was on trial in Ohio, accused of using Oxycontin to murder 2 associates. He had a motive, the means and everything else. He had even confessed to an amusing crack smoker who was wired. But Mr. Ducic's lawyer had an optimistic defense. Instead of making his client seem innocent, he made him seem more guilty - but of pathological lying, which led Mr. Ducic to exaggerate the extent of his homicidal powers. The long-shot defense captured the imagination of only one juror, a woman who had known liars in her time and who appeared to be tempted by the opportunity to hold up the proceedings. In a dramatic and distinctly bad-faith reversal, the woman came around, but not before the judge had issued directives in language that recalled Vietnam-era doublespeak. And not before the other jurors had by turns revealed their own humanity, intelligence and bloodthirstiness, all under cover of civic duty. In each case of this series the filming was permitted by state supreme courts, and tonight's episode visits an infanticide in Colorado. The drama is not as exact and hot as it was in the 1st episode; the death penalty is not an option this time, which appears to turn the temperature down. But "In the Jury Room," which has the washed-out ambience and muffled sound of a real courtroom, still showcases some of what is mind-blowing about the idea that a person's fate in the criminal-justice system is still decided by his or her peers. Laura Trujillo, 20, is charged with causing the death of her 2-year-old daughter, either by hitting the girl herself or by doing nothing to prevent abuse of the girl by her boyfriend, Randy Ramirez, a thug turned state's evidence. You never know what about a case will strike a nerve with a jury. In the Ducic case, the jury became preoccupied with the nature of snitches, liars and the death penalty and the place of feelings in jury deliberations. Tonight the jury is less philosophical. On the incendiary subject of a woman's culpability in her man's deadly violence, in fact, the group smoothly-almost dully-reaches unanimity. The question comes down to dickering over details. The show doesn't confine itself to the jury room, however, and that's good. Tonight the scenes of the defendant and her lawyers are most theatrical. Ms. Trujillo is made up in inky eyeliner and frosted pinks; a tattoo on her neck with her late daughter's name contributes to the war-paint effect. The complexity of her character comes across when she declines to take the stand in her own defense, telling her counsel that she refuses to be polite or reasonable on the witness stand. Her challenge reveals the glitches in a process that demands that its participants act as cold-blooded proceduralists, just when they are making the kind of life-or-death decisions most likely to get them worked up. This systemic tension emerges in almost every impaneling. "Can you disregard the fact that one of the key eyewitnesses has a criminal record and take his testimony seriously?" a prosecutor asks. If he's honest, a would-be juror says: "No. If he's a crook, I probably won't believe him." In this spirit Ms. Trujillo grills her lawyer about the wisdom of her testifying. "Why am I going to let someone throw an attitude at me and I ain't going to throw one back?" Her attorney, Scott Reich, proposes, "Because your life is on the line here?" But even he knows that passively absorbing a potentially humiliating cross-examination is counterintuitive; it makes sense only if you accept the law - on faith. "I wasn't raised like that," Ms. Trujillo says, taking logic off the table and neatly closing her case. (source: New York Times) ILLINOIS: Judge upholds jury's death sentence in Urdiales case An Illinois judge today upheld a jury's decision to sentence a man to death for murdering an Indiana woman whose body was found in a river. 39-year-old Andrew Urdiales (ur-dee-AHL'-ihs) was convicted in May for the 1996 shooting and stabbing death of Cassie Corum near Pontiac, Illinois. Urdiales claims jurors were biased because they were all white and mostly women. Urdiales is Hispanic. Livingston County Judge Harold Frobish -- however -- says he can't find fault with the jury's decision. He says Urdiales deserves to die. The sentence will be automatically appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. Urdiales was on death row for killing 2 Chicago-area women when former Illinois Governor George Ryan commuted his sentence to life in prison. (source: Associated Press)
