× Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø

The entry of substandard laboratories into the forensic DNA analysis field has compromised the quality of the results in some cases. In general, forensic DNA testing is of high quality as a result of the extensive validation studies, unprecedented courtroom scrutiny, and widespread training of forensic scientists in DNA methods. Quality assurance and quality control programs assembled from organizations such as ASCLD-LAB, DAB, ABC, CAP, NIST and AABB, though voluntary, are widely subscribed to by laboratories engaged in forensic DNA analysis.

Currently, there are start-up laboratories that appear not to meet accepted forensic standards. This trend may continue because of the recommendation from the second NRC report that retesting be performed whenever possible, and court rulings suggesting that the effectiveness of counsel may be compromised if retesting is not performed, or at least offered to the defendant. The widespread use of manufactured DNA PCR test kits, coupled with the relatively low cost of equipment required to do this testing (<$15,000), encourages unqualified, opportunistic or naive individuals to begin performing casework.

Actual case anecdotes illustrate the variety of ways in which substandard laboratory work could lead to a miscarriage of justice. One such case involves a capital homicide in which law enforcement officials, including forensic scientists, retained an apparently qualified individual in a start-up company to do STR testing. Prior to review of discovered data by defense-retained experts, the quality of the data was not known to the law enforcement officials. Data wil1 be presented that illustrate incomplete reporting of results, the absence of controls, failure to report indications of mixtures suggesting laboratory contamination, and inadequate documentation.

High quality work is especially important in retesting where the first laboratory has consumed some portion of the evidence. In a second case a saliva stain on a shirt alleged to have resulted from an assault was detected by the first laboratory, but not typed. Based on eye witness testimony an individual was charged with the assault. Testing in the second laboratory showed that the saliva stain could not have come from the accused and charges were dropped.

Cases such as these illustrate the importance of thorough evaluation of evidence and the facilities and people that test it. They also illustrate the importance of the ad hoc quality assurance that is accomplished by casework review and retesting, observation of testing by qualified individuals, and peer review of poor casework when it is uncovered. The foundation to our system of justice is fairness and to the extent that forensic scientists do not perform their job properly that fairness is eroded.

Abbreviations: ASCLD LAB (American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board), DAB (DNA Advisory Board), ABC (American Board of Criminalistics), CAP (College of American Pathologists), NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), AABB (American Association of Blood Banks Parentage Testing Committee), NRC (National Research Council).