Crime Laboratory System New York State Police Crime Laboratory System NYCLAC Report Standardization Project Ray Wickenheiser

Outline Guidance and Oversight Structure for New York Crime Labs Report Structure Standardized Definitions Standardized Report Wording Spectrum of Conclusions Inconclusive – clarifying statements http://criminaljustice.ny.gov/forensic/labreportstandards.htm

NY State Crime Lab Guidance and Oversight Commission on Forensic Science DNA Subcommittee DCJS (Department of Criminal Justice Services) NYCLAC (NY Crime Lab Advisory Committee) – Directors of each of 19 crime labs in New York State TWGs – Technical Working Groups for each of 10 scientific disciplines, plus a QA and a Backlog TWG

NY Uniform Reporting Initiative Start - NAS “Strengthening Forensic Science” Report released February 18th, 2009 recommended establishing terminology to be used in reporting on and testifying about results of forensic science investigations Also recommended establishing model lab reports for different disciplines and specify the minimum information that should be included Minimum report requirements: Methods and materials, Procedures, Results, Conclusions (with a scale to indicate level of confidence), Uncertainty of Measurement (where appropriate)

NY Uniform Reporting Initiative Start - Report should have enough guidance to allow the non-scientists reader to understand what has been done and permits informed, unbiased scrutiny of the conclusion At a meeting of the New York State Justice Task Force in early 2010 it was requested that labs look at making reports more understandable in response, NYCLAC initiated a “voluntary” Uniform Reporting Initiative Consider “do this on your own terms rather than be forced to do it under someone else’s” as a proactive measure

The Request - Reports did not contain enough information on methodologies and technologies used Reports on the same type of evidence vary across the state Technical terminology was difficult to understand Conclusions and terms used varied and were inconsistent NYCLAC met and tasked TWGs with standardization project At various TWG meetings, individual protocols were collected, compared and discussed Project structure was established

The Goal - Come up with a standardized reporting system with defined terms and report conclusions that make reports more readable and understandable to our customers

The Challenges Labs vary from 3 to 350 employees Wide customer bases (some multiple Das, others 1 DA, urban, rural, state, local) Separately evolved systems of nomenclature and reporting If it works why should I change? Avoid making reports so unwieldy that the main purpose of the report is lost

We need an Easy Read Report!

Tasks – Project Structure - Area I – Standardized Report Components Area II - Standardized Reporting Language and Statements (qualifiers and disclaimers when necessary) Area III – Standardized Terms and Definitions

Project Area 1: Standardized Report Components - Unique case identifier on each page (such as lab number) Title of report (such as “report of laboratory analysis”) Identification of the laboratory Submitting agency List or explanations of items examined Indication of methodology utilized Results/conclusions Date issued, pagination Signature and title of examiner

Statements - Statement that report does not constitute the entire case file or equivalent Statement that definitions of terms used in the report can be accessed on the following DCJS website: http://criminaljustice.ny.gov/forensic/labreportstandards.htm Additional discipline specific components: Locus or amplification system Disposition of evidence Quantitative or qualitative interpretive statements

Project Area 2: Standardized Report Language/ Statements

Project Area 3: Standardized Terms and Definitions

Process - TWGs met numerous times in person and by phone to hammer out differences and produce a set of recommendations NYCLAC reviewed, consolidated and sent recommendations back to TWGs Modifications made to document Document resubmitted for approval to NYCLAC Accepted for implementation October 01, 2015, with labs to track issues and reconvene in 2015 to review and improve

If we wait for consensus…

My experience as facilitator - TWG Trace – former trace evidence examiner As a member of NYCLAC, I was given the mandate to reduce wording options by working directly with the TWG Once defined that several words mean the same thing, “pick one or we will pick for you” Known as a “burning platform” Consensus at gunpoint

Spectrum of Conclusions - Positive identification or association Included with some amount of weight Inconclusive Negative

Examples of refining terms - Inconclusive (will frequently have a qualifying statement to elaborate) Not detected/not identified/not present/negative present/positive/identified/contains/confirms/detected indistinguishable/consistent/similar/alike/correspond could have come from/could have originated from/could share a common source/origin with the source K is not the source of Q / Q could not have been made by K / K is excluded/eliminated as a possible source of Q

Definitions Determined the practicality of offering a link versus including on individual lab websites or with each report http://criminaljustice.ny.gov/forensic/labreportstandards.htm

The Product: A work In Progress

Acknowledgements - Bob Adamo, Director of Westchester County Forensic Science Laboratory NYCLAC DCJS

Thank-you for your kind attention! Questions?

Ray Wickenheiser NY State Police Crime Lab System 1220 Washington Ave., Building 30 Albany, NY 12226 Ray.Wickenheiser@Troopers.NY.gov 518-457-1208