Forensic Science Commission diverting resources from investigating negligence, misconduct

This morning I attended the first public meeting of the Forensic Science Commission's Complaint Screening Committee, but arguably the most significant event of the day occurred in the meeting of the full commission where they voted 5-1 to hire a full-time General Counsel.

I've opposed this move since Chairman John Bradley first suggested it back in January. The commission just meets quarterly and really has little need for a full-time General Counsel, plus the Attorney General was already providing those services at no cost. My personal opinion is that the desire to bring on a General Counsel stems largely from two of the chair's goals: To more tightly control the process through a staffmember reporting directly to him, and to divert resources that would otherwise go into investigating misconduct to an unnecessary staff person, soaking up money in a way that limits the amount of actual investigation the commission can do.

No sooner had the FSC voted to create a General Counsel slot, the meeting of the full group ended and the Complaint Screening Committee meeting began. I thought it took a great deal of chutzpah for Mr. Bradley to then immediately turn around and argue (unsuccessfully) that complaint screening should be delayed until the General Counsel could create summary documents on each case to frame the issues for the committee. The other committee members were somewhat taken aback by the suggestion, which if implemented would mean they'd have traveled to Austin for no reason. They went ahead and evaluated the 9 pending complaints, choosing to send only one of them through the process Bradley suggested regarding the General Counsel.

And speaking of the complaint screening, it's ironic that the only complaint the committee approved for investigation today was one where the two scientists on the committee believed there wasn't a significant issue to address. The complaint regarded the Austin police crime lab and allegations earlier this year that were investigated and dismissed by a national accrediting association and other investigators. The scientists on the panel pointed out that the complaints did not implicate any specific case and enough investigation had already been done. But Bradley said the Commission needn't only be the bearer of "bad news," and that it would be worthwhile to "deliver a positive message" to accredited labs that affirmed the value of their work. On that basis, the others agreed to recommend the case to the full commission for investigation.

To me, this stratagem by Bradley smacked of the same motive as the creation of a General Counsel position that siphons resources for investigations. Clearly the FSC has limited resources and if most of them are wasted on cases where there's no suspicion of negligence or misconduct - the only areas they actually have purview to investigate - they won't be able to devote significant time or resources to investigating new complaints.

Seven of the nine complaints were rejected either because they were outside the commission's jurisdiction or because the information provided was insufficient to identify any alleged wrongdoing to investigate. The one interesting exception was a request for reconsideration (by Dr. Peerwani, who is the Tarrant County medical examiner) of a case involving fallacious testimony by a crime lab testimony in a date rape case. Peerwani said the testimony given was "clearly wrong," and also critical to the jury verdict. Previously the case had been rejected because the FSC had considered fallacious testimony by crime lab workers outside their purview, but over time the commission's stance has evolved and now, Peerwani said, most commissioners and their adviser from the Attorney General think they should be willing to examine faulty testimony. Because FSC rules don't envision reconsideration of such cases, Bradley and the other committee member rejected the case. But I wouldn't expect this will be the last time the issue comes up.

The one case the committee neither rejected nor recommended - instead asking the new General Counsel to do a write-up on it - was one submitted by the Innocence Project of Texas related to an arson case on behalf of a woman named Sonia Cacy (see extensive background here). The merits of the case are strong and it seems highly likely Ms. Cacy is indeed actually innocent. The only sticking point: the case involves a lab which was not accredited at the time of the incident (since accreditation was only required by state law a few years ago). Though their governing statute says they should only investigate accredited labs, since accreditation was only recently required, the commission has in the past accepted other cases where labs weren't required to be accredited at the time of the incident but are now. Based on that precedent, I doubt the commission will cave in to Bradley's argument on that score.

UPDATE: Chuck Lindell, the only MSM reporter in the room at this event, has a brief story on the meeting in the Austin Statesman.