PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "If, for some reason, the preservation of the evidence is impractical, SB 263 directs law enforcement agencies to “remove portions of the material evidence likely to contain biological evidence related to the offense in a quantity sufficient to permit future DNA testing.” This is an especially crucial part of the bill given the explosion of DNA testing advancements the forensic industry has seen in the past decade. From collecting trace amounts of DNA, to analyzing mixtures to genetic genealogy, DNA analysis innovations have made it possible to solve more cases than ever before, especially cold ones."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Indiana Passes Bill Requiring Biological Evidence Preservation," by Editor-In-Chief Michelle Taylor, published by Forensic Magazine, on March 23, 2022.
GIST: "Before last week, Indiana was one of only 15 states in the U.S. without an evidence preservation law, leaving the decision on how long to preserve biological evidence completely up to law enforcement agencies, court clerks, hospitals and more—an inconsistent approach at best, one that could have a major effect on court cases and people’s lives at worst.
As of March 15, however, all stakeholders now have clear guidance on evidence preservation rules thanks to Senate Bill 263.
Among other guidance regarding property seizure and disposal after arrest, Section G of the bill specifically deals with all evidence for a violent offense that could be subjected to DNA testing and analysis.
The bill mandates the preservation of evidence that can be DNA tested for 20 years from the date the defendant’s conviction becomes final or the period of the defendant’s incarceration.
In cases where an investigation does not result in a conviction, the bill states biological evidence should be preserved until the expiration of the statute of limitations for the alleged offense.
If, for some reason, the preservation of the evidence is impractical, SB 263 directs law enforcement agencies to “remove portions of the material evidence likely to contain biological evidence related to the offense in a quantity sufficient to permit future DNA testing.”
This is an especially crucial part of the bill given the explosion of DNA testing advancements the forensic industry has seen in the past decade. From collecting trace amounts of DNA, to analyzing mixtures to genetic genealogy, DNA analysis innovations have made it possible to solve more cases than ever before, especially cold ones.
Beyond cold cases, DNA testing advancements have also made a huge impact on the wrongfully convicted. According to the Innocence Project, in the U.S to date, there have been 375 exonerations based on DNA evidence.
“If [biological] evidence had been destroyed, tainted, contaminated, mislabeled, or otherwise corrupted, we never would have discovered the innocence of these wrongfully convicted people,” the non-profit said in a statement regarding the new Indiana bill.
Additionally, in some cases, the preserved evidence not only helped exonerate the innocent but also convict the actually guilty. In 165 of the 375 cases, the true perpetrators of the crimes were ultimately identified.
“[These] 165 people who committed the crimes for which the innocent languished remained free and subsequently committed an additional 154 violent crimes: 36 murders; 83 rapes; and 35 other violent crimes,” said the Innocence Project.
The new Indiana law puts the state on par with neighboring states, including Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Illinois—all of which already have a statutory automatic duty of preservation."
The entire story can be read at:
http://www.forensicmag.com/584496-Indiana-Passes-Bill-Requiring-Biological-Evidence-Preservation/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read related Innocence Project statement at the link below: "Yesterday, Governor Holcomb signed SB 263, a bill designed to ensure biological crime scene evidence is properly retained. The new law, which was authored by Rep. Steuerwald (R-District 40) in the House and led by Senators Doriot (R-District 12) and Koch (R-District 44) in the Senate, is a key step in revealing wrongful convictions and solving cold cases in the Hoosier state.
The proper collection, preservation, and storage of physical evidence from a crime scene is imperative when it comes to prosecuting and defending criminal cases. The major advances in technology over the past decades — including the collection of trace amounts of DNA and forensic genealogy — have revolutionized the use of biological evidence in a way that allows investigators to solve cold cases, detect the guilty, and exonerate the innocent.
“I am grateful to the Governor and my colleagues for helping to pass this critical legislation,” said Rep. Steuerwald. “By requiring the proper preservation of evidence, this bill will ensure that justice is served to victims of crimes and the wrongfully convicted, while preserving due process and maintaining the public’s trust in the integrity of the criminal justice system.”
In the U.S, there have been 375 exonerations based on DNA evidence to date, none of which would have been possible if biological evidence was not available to test. If this evidence had been destroyed, tainted, contaminated, mislabeled, or otherwise corrupted, we never would have discovered the innocence of these wrongfully convicted people. Indeed, out of these 375 exonerations, the true perpetrators of the crimes were subsequently detected in 50 percent of the cases. While innocent individuals spent years behind bars for crimes they did not commit, 165 people who committed the crimes for which the innocent languished remained free and subsequently committed an additional 154 violent crimes: 36 murders; 83 rapes; and 35 other violent crimes that could have been prevented if the actual perpetrator had been detected in the first place.
Take for example, the case of Roosevelt Glenn and Darryl Pinkins, who were wrongfully convicted of a 1989 rape and robbery in Hammond, Indiana. Pinkins was imprisoned for 25 years and Glenn for 17, before finally being exonerated. At their original trial, a police lab analyst testified that blood found at the crime scene tied both men to the crime. Additionally, a state crime lab analyst testified that a hair found on the victim’s sweater was similar to Glenn’s. In 2000, the Wrongful Conviction Clinic at Indiana University’s Robert McKinney School of Law began reinvestigating the case and was able to conduct a DNA test on the hair from the victim’s sweater which definitively excluded Glenn as its source. Then, in 2015, a DNA mixture expert further determined that both Pinkins and Glenn could be excluded as contributors. If not for the proper preservation of evidence, neither of them would have been exonerated.
“The Indiana criminal justice system is now positioned to take advantage of progress in forensic technology to exonerate the innocent and bring to justice the guilty. Prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, and wrongful conviction advocates agreed on the need for this essential step forward. So thankful for legislative leadership recognizing the void in our law and responding. Awesome,” said Fran Watson, Director of the
Indiana University McKinney School of Law Wrongful Conviction Clinic.
The Innocence Project worked with the Department of Justice-funded and National Institute of Standards & Technology-administered Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation, which issued a set of recommendations to policymakers for the proper retention of biological evidence. “It is so gratifying that the federal-to-state guidance issued by the Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation is taking hold across the nation. As a member of that working group, I am thrilled to see state after state continue to embrace these common-sense recommendations, which promise to settle innocence claims,” said Rebecca Brown, Director of Policy for the Innocence Project.
Until now, Indiana was one of only 15 states without an evidence preservation law, and state evidence custodians — including law enforcement agencies, court clerks, and hospitals — have faced a lack of guidance on how long to properly preserve biological evidence from collection through post-conviction. This new law will put the Hoosier state on a par with neighboring states, such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Illinois, that already have a statutory automatic duty of preservation.
governor-holcomb-signs-bill-to-require-preservation-of-evidence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
