Skip navigation

Forensic Evidence Report, CA Commission on Fair Administration of Justice, 2007

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
May 8, 2007
The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice was
established by California State Senate Resolution No. 44 “to study and
review the administration of criminal justice in California, determine the
extent to which that process has failed in the past,” examine safeguards and
improvements, and recommend proposals to further ensure that the
administration of criminal justice in California is just, fair and accurate.
This Report will address issues surrounding the preparation and use of
forensic science evidence in California criminal cases, and make
recommendations to minimize the risk of wrongful conviction in such cases.
The Commission previously addressed the California backlog in processing
DNA samples taken from suspects arrested for violent felonies, entering that
data into the national databank, and the delays in testing of rape kits and
other DNA samples collected during criminal investigations. There are
numerous other issues of justice, fairness and accuracy with regard to the
availability and use of forensic evidence in the California criminal justice
system, some of which will be addressed in this Report.
The Commission convened a public hearing in Sacramento, California
on January 10, 2007 to address these issues. Among the experts invited to
address the Commission were Peter Neufeld, Co-Director of the Innocence
Project at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, and a member
of the New York State Commission on Forensic Science; Barry Fisher,
Director of the Crime Laboratory for the Los Angeles County Sheriff
Department; and Lance Gima, the Chief of the Bureau of Forensic Services
for the California Department of Justice. The Commission also heard
testimony from William C. Thompson, Professor and Chair of the
Department of Criminology, Law & Society at the University of California,
Irvine; Frederic A. Tulleners, Director of the Forensic Science Graduate
Program at the University of California, Davis; Susan Rutberg, Professor of
Law, Golden Gate University School of Law; Bicka Barlow, Deputy Public
Defender, San Francisco; Gail Abarbanel, Director, Rape Treatment Center,

Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center; Michael Chamberlain, Deputy
Attorney General, State of California; Rockne Harmon, Deputy District
Attorney, Alameda County; Herman Atkins, Chair of the California Council
of Wrongfully Convicted; and Thomas J. Nasser, President, California
Association of Crime Laboratory Directors.
The presentation of forensic science evidence is often the turning
point in a criminal trial. Today, the news carries reports of erroneous
forensic identifications of hair, bullets, handwriting, footprints, bite marks,
and even venerated fingerprints. 1 The Innocence Project at Cardozo Law
School identified forensic science testing errors in 63% of 86 DNA
exoneration cases analyzed, the second most common factor contributing to
wrongful convictions. 2 Saks & Koehler, The Coming Paradigm Shift in
Forensic Identification Science, 309 Science 892 (Aug. 5, 2005).
As recently noted in the Report of the Ad Hoc Innocence Committee
of the American Bar Association, three developments in the 1990’s
dramatically altered the judicial approach to scientific evidence. Achieving
Justice: Freeing the Innocent, Convicting the Guilty (ABA 2006). First,
unlike any other forensic discipline that preceded it, DNA profiling entered
the courts only after it had been extensively validated through broad research
and elaborate quality assurance programs which included rigorous
proficiency testing, standards for declaring a match, and the appropriate
content of a report. This set a “gold standard” against which other forensic

A recent analysis identifies 22 reported cases of fingerprint misattributions, including the case of Brandon
Mayfield, an Oregon attorney and Muslim convert wrongfully accused of participation in the Madrid
terrorist train bombing, and Stephan Cowans, convicted of shooting a police officer based on fingerprint
identification and eyewitness testimony, released after serving six and a half years after he was exonerated
by DNA testing. The Boston Police Department acknowledged that the fingerprint identification was
erroneous. Cole, More Than Zero: Accounting for Error in Latent Fingerprint Identification, 95 J. of
Crim. Law & Criminology 985 (2005).
Some confusion has arisen regarding research as to which causes of wrongful conviction are most
prevalent. In this Commission’s first report, we cited studies that report mistaken eyewitness
identifications was the leading cause of wrongful convictions. Report and Recommendations Regarding
Mistaken Eyewitness Identification, April 13, 2006. In our third report, regarding the use of informant
testimony, we cited a study which reports that false informant testimony was the leading cause of wrongful
conviction in U.S. capital cases. Report and Recommendations Regarding Informant Testimony,
November, 2006. The Innocence Project data includes both capital and non-capital cases in which
subsequent DNA testing exonerated the defendant. It consistently concludes that eyewitness error is the
leading cause of wrongful conviction, appearing in 71% of the cases, while forensic science testing errors
ranks second, appearing in 63% of the cases. More than one factor was found in many cases. See The forensic testing errors
identified include statistical exaggeration or misinterpretation, suppression of exculpatory evidence, lying
about credentials, falsified results, contamination, and experts testifying to results of tests that were never


sciences are now measured and often found wanting. Raising the standards
of the other forensic disciplines is all the more critical since it is the nonDNA disciplines that comprise the bulk of the crime lab’s output.
According to Barry Fisher, DNA testing constitutes approximately five
percent of the work of crime labs.
Second, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Daubert
v. Merrill Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), established a more
rigorous standard of admissibility for expert testimony, requiring it to be
based upon sufficient facts or data, the product of reliable principles and
methods, and reliably applied to the facts of the case. The California
Supreme Court rejected the application of the Daubert standard in California
cases, People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587, 882 P.2d 321 (1994), retaining the
more traditional “general acceptance” standard of Frye v. United States, 293
Fed. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). The reinvigorated Frye standard has led to
much closer scrutiny of scientific proof. 3
The third development was the exposure of serious abuse in a number
of crime labs throughout the United States. Serious misconduct of forensic
experts led to the reexamination of many cases in West Virginia, Oklahoma
and Montana. See, e.g., In re Investigation of the W. Va. State Police Crime
Lab, Serology Div., 438 S.E.2d 501 (W. Va. 1993). The Houston Police
Department shut down the DNA and Serology section of its crime laboratory
in early 2003 after a television exposé revealed serious deficiencies in the
lab’s procedures. Two men who were falsely incriminated by botched lab
work were released after subsequent DNA testing proved their innocence.
In Virginia, an independent lab confirmed that DNA tests conducted by the
state lab were botched and misinterpreted in the case of a man who came
within days of being executed. The governor ordered a broader
investigation of the state lab to determine whether these problems were
endemic. See Thompson, Tarnish on the ‘Gold Standard’: Understanding
Recent Problems in Forensic DNA Testing, The Champion, Jan.-Feb. 2006,
p. 10. California has occasionally endured laboratory scandals. In 1994,
more than 1,000 felony convictions were jeopardized by the revelation that a
San Francisco police lab technician had been certifying that samples
contained illicit narcotics without performing laboratory tests. Zamora,

Many of the most populous states followed California’s lead in rejecting the Daubert standard, including
Florida, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. Some of these courts believe Frye offers greater
protection for criminal defendants than Daubert. See, e.g., Ramirez v. State, 810 So.2d 836, 843 (Fla.


“Lab Scandal Jeopardizes Integrity of San Francisco Justice; Sting
Uncovered Bogus Certification,” San Francisco Examiner, Sept. 16, 1994, p.
All three of these developments come into sharp focus particularly
when DNA testing exonerates persons who had been convicted in reliance
upon other forensic sciences that were either negligently or intentionally
misapplied. The Commission learned of California cases in which wrongful
convictions were at least partly attributable to erroneous non-DNA forensic
evidence. Herman Atkins was convicted of rape in Riverside County in
1988, and sentenced to forty-five years in prison. After serving eleven years
in prison for a crime he did not commit, he was exonerated by DNA testing
conducted in 1999, which showed he was not the source of semen found on
the victim’s sweater. His defense at trial was based on mistaken eyewitness
identification. In testifying at his trial, a criminalist from the California State
Laboratory at Riverside improperly testified that Atkins was included in a
population of only 4.4% of the population that could have contributed the
semen. In truth, because nothing foreign to the victim was seen, no male in
the world could ever be excluded as a potential semen donor. Hence, 100%
of the male population could be contributors. The serology data, in fact, was
not probative of guilt or innocence but the jury was nonetheless misled by
the state’s expert. See Atkins v. County of Riverside, No. 03-55844, 2005
U.S.App. LEXIS 19928 (Feb. 9, 2005); Testimony of Peter Neufeld,
California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice Sacramento
Hearing, January 10, 2007.
Jeffrey Rodriguez, 28, was freed in San Jose on Monday, February 5,
2007. He had served 5 years of a 25 years to life sentence for a robbery
under California’s “three strikes” law. In his case, a shaky eyewitness
identification was corroborated by the testimony of a criminalist who
claimed his pants contained a stain with a combination of motor oil and
cooking oil. Such a combination would have connected him to the crime
scene. Subsequent tests by a state crime lab concluded that the stain was not
as described. Although at his first trial, jurors voted 11-1 to acquit, by the
time of his retrial his family ran out of money, and his lawyer failed even to
call the defense witnesses who had testified at the first trial. After his
conviction was set aside on appeal because of ineffective assistance of
counsel, the prosecution elected to drop the charges. See Tulsky, “DA’s
Office Drops Charges Amid Signs of a Wrongful Conviction,” San Jose
Mercury News, Feb. 6, 2007.

1. Accreditation of Laboratories and Certification of Forensic Experts.
In December, 1998, the California State Auditor reviewed nineteen
local crime laboratories operated by police, sheriffs or district attorneys in
California to assess their readiness to obtain accreditation under the
standards developed by the American Society of Crime Lab Directors
Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB).4 To obtain accreditation, a
laboratory must demonstrate that its management, operations, personnel,
procedures, equipment, facility, security, and health and safety procedures
meet established standards. They are also required to implement proficiency
testing, continuing education, and other programs that improve the overall
skills and services of laboratory personnel. The Auditor concluded that 13
of the 19 laboratories had not developed or implemented one or more of the
components of a quality control system. In addition, many of the
laboratories did not have proficiency testing or court monitoring programs.
Through voluntary efforts, most of these shortcomings have been corrected.
Seventeen of the nineteen laboratories audited in 1998 are now fully
accredited by ASCLD/LAB. 5 The Commission has concluded that further
action to achieve accreditation of California publicly funded crime labs is
not necessary. Private laboratories also exist, two of which are
ASCLD/LAB accredited. 6 The accreditation of private laboratories should
also remain voluntary. California laboratories should be commended for
their vigorous and sustained efforts to achieve accreditation voluntarily. The
Commission does believe, however, that rigorous certification standards
should be established and encouraged for individual forensic experts
employed by the crime labs. While each laboratory sets its own hiring and
promotion standards, there are no generally recognized standards to define
who is qualified to perform analysis of evidence in any particular scientific
discipline. We believe such standards should be formulated and applied on a
statewide basis. Rigorous written examinations, proficiency testing,


The Auditor noted that the 19 laboratories examined served approximately 77% of the State’s population
in 13 counties. The State Department of Justice operated full-service laboratories at 11 sites to provide
services to the remaining counties in the State. The audit only addressed the readiness of the 19 local labs.
California State Auditor, Forensic Laboratories: Many Face Challenges Beyond Accreditation to Assure
the Highest Quality Services, p. 1 (Dec. 1998). Today, the State Department of Justice operates thirteen
laboratories, all of which are fully accredited by ASCLD.
Only the laboratories operated by the Fresno County Sheriff and the Huntington Beach Police Department
have not achieved accreditation. One additional laboratory, operated by the Los Angeles County Coroner,
which was not audited in 1998, has achieved accreditation.
Crime Scene Technologies, San Diego and Serological Research Institute, Richmond are accredited by


continuing education, recertification procedures, an ethical code, and
effective disciplinary procedures should be part of such a program.
A program for Certification of Criminalists is currently available through the
American Board of Criminalistics [ABC]. The ABC offers a certificate in
criminalistics, as well as in the specialty disciplines of forensic biology, drug
chemistry, fire debris analysis and trace evidence. Proficiency testing is an
essential component of the ABC certification program. The Board has also
adopted Rules of Ethics, and established a disciplinary procedure to deal
with ethical infractions. See Whether through the
ABC program or some other equivalent, California Crime Lab Directors
should take the lead in encouraging certification by using it as a factor in
promotion and salary decisions. Laboratories should provide the funds
necessary for their criminalists and other forensic experts to achieve
certification. Where appropriate, both prosecutors and criminal defense
lawyers can provide additional motivation by presenting certification in the
qualification of expert witnesses in court, and cross examining uncertified
experts as to why they have not pursued certification. Many lawyers are not
even aware of the existence of certification standards.
2. The Need for Independent Investigation of Laboratory Errors.
While accreditation of laboratories assures compliance with accepted
standards in procedures, management and equipment, the occasional errors
and even rarer instances of misconduct that occur need to be closely
scrutinized to identify the cause so that corrective measures can be taken.
That scrutiny should come from an independent source, not connected with
the management of the laboratory itself, which may be motivated to
minimize or conceal an ongoing problem. For this very reason, the
recipients of federal grants under the federal Paul Coverdell Forensic
Science Improvement Grant Program are required to certify that:
… a government entity exists and an appropriate process is in place to
conduct independent external investigations into allegations of serious
negligence or misconduct substantially affecting the integrity of
forensic results committed by employees or contractors of any
forensic laboratory system, medical examiner’s office, coroner’s
office, law enforcement storage facility, or medical facility in the
State that will receive a portion of the grant amount.


42 U.S.C.A. § 3797k(4) (2004). California receives Coverdell grant funds
each year, which are disbursed by the Governor’s Office of Emergency
Services, Law Enforcement and Victim Services Division (OES). In 2005,
$1.1 million was received, and in 2006, $1.2 million was received. The OES
requires each subgrantee to certify to the presence of an oversight process
and describe that process. The Commission examined the oversight entity
described by each of the California recipients, which included the State
Department of Justice Bureau of Forensic Services, the Sheriff’s
Departments of eleven counties, and six municipal police departments and
three District Attorney’s offices which operate their own laboratories. In
nearly every instance, the independent auditing entity described was the
Internal Affairs Division of the County Sheriff’s Office or Police
Department involved. 7
The Commission believes that public confidence in the independence
of investigations of negligence or misconduct in the preparation or
presentation of forensic evidence in criminal cases requires the involvement
of a government entity that is truly independent of the police and sheriff
agencies that operate the laboratories. Not all forensic laboratories,
coroner’s offices or medical examiner’s offices in California are recipients
of Coverdell grants, and may not have any oversight entity in place. The
application of uniform standards requires consistency in the operation of the
investigative function. Moreover, some of the forensic functions that
prosecutors rely upon occur outside of government laboratories. Often there
are small forensic operations embedded in police departments, and
sometimes the expert is an independent contractor hired directly by the
prosecutor (e.g., a forensic dentist opining on bite marks). The transparency
of the investigative process will be hampered by a myriad of entities with
varying regulations regarding disclosure of the results.
The State of Texas recently responded to a similar need with the
creation of the Texas Forensic Science Commission. The Commission was
charged with developing and implementing a reporting system through
which accredited laboratories, facilities, or entities report professional
negligence or misconduct, and:
. . . investigate, in a timely manner, any allegation of professional
negligence or misconduct that would substantially affect the integrity

The exception was the Santa Clara County Crime Lab operated by the Santa Clara County District
Attorney’s Office, which designates the State Attorney General for independent audits under its Coverdell


of the results of a forensic analysis conducted by an accredited
laboratory, facility or entity.
Article 38.01, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, enacted in 2005. The
Commission considered the creation of a Commission similar to the Texas
model, but concluded a new level of bureaucracy is not necessary to achieve
the stated goals in California. We believe the District Attorneys in each
county can be relied upon to evaluate allegations of negligence or
misconduct occurring in all laboratories within their county, and conduct an
independent investigation where appropriate. District Attorneys can call
upon the Attorney General for any additional investigative resources needed
to carry out this function. County District Attorneys would have the
necessary authority and independence to evaluate allegations of negligence
or misconduct in the thirteen laboratories operated by the California
Department of Justice as well. The results of all such independent
investigations should be reported to the California Attorney General, who
already has the requisite authority to maintain oversight over California
District Attorneys. 8 Where a local laboratory is actually operated by the
District Attorney himself or herself, as is currently the arrangement in Santa
Clara, Sacramento and Kern Counties, independent examinations of
allegations of negligence or misconduct should be conducted by the
California Attorney General.
The Commission has not addressed the procedures and policies that
should be implemented when an allegation of negligence or misconduct has
been sustained. There is compelling authority, however, that such
information would qualify as material evidence which should be disclosed to
the defendant pursuant to the obligations imposed by Brady v. Maryland,
even after conviction. 9


California Government Code Section 12550 provides: “The Attorney General has direct supervision over
the district attorneys of the several counties of the State and may require of them written reports as to the
condition of public business entrusted to their charge.”
The prosecution has an independent, self-executing duty under the Constitution of the United States to
disclose discovery material under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). See People v. Gonzales, 51
Cal. 3d 1179, 1260-61 (1990) (noting the State's obligation to disclose Brady material continues after trial);
Thomas v. Goldsmith, 979 F.2d 746 (9th Cr. 1992) (recognizing the State's continuing post-judgment
obligation to disclose exculpatory information).


3. The Need for Forensic Science Standards in California.
The Commission believes that there is a need in California for the
promulgation of standards for scientific testing, report writing, and the
parameters of appropriate expert testimony, as well as for greater circulation
of information to all participants in the criminal justice system, and better
training for those who testify as experts on any aspect of forensic science.
The Forensic Science Board created by the State of Virginia provides
some of these functions. The Board is charged with the power and duty to
ensure the development of long-range programs and plans for the
incorporation of new technologies as they become available. It reviews,
amends and approves recommendations of a Scientific Advisory Committee,
which in turn is charged with the following responsibilities:
A. The Committee may review laboratory operations of the
Department and make recommendations concerning the quality
and timeliness of services furnished to user agencies.
B. The Committee shall review and make recommendations as
necessary to the Director of the Department and the Forensic
Science Board concerning:
1. New scientific programs, protocols, and methods of testing;
2. Plans for the implementation of new programs, sustaining
existing programs and improving upon them where possible,
and the elimination of programs no longer needed;
3. Protocols for testing and examination methods, and
guidelines for the presentation of results in court; and
4. Qualification standards for the various scientists of the
Department, including the Director.
C. Upon request of the Director of the Department, the Forensic
Science Board, or the Governor, the Committee shall review
analytical work, reports and conclusions of scientists employed by
the Department. The Committee shall recommend to the Forensic
Science Board a review process for the Department to use in
instances where there has been an allegation of misidentification or
other testing error made by the Department during its examination
of evidence.
Code of Virginia, § 9.1-1113 (2005).
Continuing education and training of forensic science experts is
essential to maintain their competency in scientific fields that are constantly

changing and improving. A recurring problem of resource allocation in
laboratories arises when personnel must devote substantial time and effort to
on-site training of individuals or small groups of employees. There is
currently no State entity in California which addresses the needs for statewide training and continuing education programs which would consolidate
and address the training needs of laboratories and law enforcement agencies
throughout the state. In addition to the promulgation of standards, such an
entity could serve as a source for coordinated training and continuing
education of forensic science experts. It would also provide a valuable
service to the entire criminal justice system, by serving as a source of up-todate information regarding new developments in the forensic sciences.
Research needs and opportunities could be identified and funded, such as
research utilizing the growing DNA database.
The Commission believes the creation or designation of an entity in
California to assume these responsibilities should be preceded by an
opportunity for the Forensic Science community and all affected criminal
justice agencies to be heard from, to elicit a wide spectrum of views as to
how these needs can best be met. The legislature should undertake an
examination of the comparative merits of the alternatives that are available,
including the assignment of this responsibility to the California Attorney
General. Legislation has already been proposed for the creation of a “Crime
Laboratory Review Task Force” to address some, but not all of these
concerns. [See A. B. No. 1079, Introduced by Assembly Member
Richardson on February 23, 2007]. This legislation, supported by the
Attorney General, could provide an excellent vehicle to elicit the input the
Commission is recommending.
4. The Need for Forensic Science Training for Prosecutors, Defense
Lawyers and Judges.
The diversity of disciplines which become the subject of expert
scientific evidence and the rapid developments in new technology present
serious challenges for the California judiciary. Judges need up-to-date
training to assist them in their evaluation of scientific evidence and expert
testimony. Recognizing this need, in February, 2005 Chief Justice Ronald
M. George of the California Supreme Court established the Judicial Council
Science and the Law Steering Committee, to evaluate the needs of the
courts, including guidance in developing effective education strategies and
pertinent educational content. The Committee, chaired by Associate Justice

Ming Chin, issued its recommendations on January 10, 2007. The
recommendations include a comprehensive plan to establish a statewide
judicial education plan on science and technology. On February 10, 2007,
the Committee issued a second set of recommendations to improve the
judicial management of issues regarding science, technology and the law.
These recommendations include a number of projects and resources to
facilitate the exchange of information between the courts and the science and
technology communities, to assess emerging issues and potential
partnerships relating to science, technology and the law. The Commission
commends and encourages these efforts.
The recurring need for prosecutors and defense lawyers to have up-todate training in issues surrounding forensic science evidence is obvious.
The challenge is to provide the resources to free overworked and heavily
burdened deputies to participate in training programs. Specialized programs
in DNA or other categories of scientific evidence will reach only a small
proportion of the deputies who confront such issues on a day to day basis.
The Commission recommends greater creativity in delivering needed
training, including more on-line resources for in-office training, available on
a state-wide basis. Cooperative ventures should also be encouraged, to
combine the training of deputy district attorneys with the training of public
defenders and defense attorneys. The essential understanding of the science
involved transcends the issues of tactics that may need to be addressed in a
more exclusive setting.
The traditional reliance upon the adversary system to expose errors
may break down when it comes to forensic science evidence. Many of the
examples of wrongful convictions attributable to misconduct or negligence
by forensic experts could have been avoided if defense lawyers were fully
competent to challenge the evidence. But the shortcomings of defense
representation go beyond the problem of education and training. There may
be serious problems with regard to the availability of experts and resources
for expert assistance for defense lawyers. The Commission intends to
explore such problems in addressing the issues surrounding incompetence of
defense attorneys in a future report.


(A) The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice
recommends that California Crime Lab Directors encourage the
certification of the forensic experts they employ, and use certification
wherever possible as a basis for promotion and salary decisions.
(B) The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice
recommends that legislation be enacted to require that any allegation of
professional negligence or misconduct that would affect the integrity of
the results of a forensic analysis conducted by a California laboratory,
facility or entity be reported in a timely manner to the District Attorney
or other appropriate prosecutorial agency, and to require the District
Attorney or other prosecutorial agency to which such allegations are
reported to report the results of any independent investigations of such
allegations to the State Attorney General.
(C) The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice
recommends that the legislature consider the creation or designation of
a governmental agency or commission (which could be the office of the
California Attorney General) with the power and duty to formulate and
apply standards to define who is qualified to perform analysis of
evidence in any particular scientific discipline on a statewide basis. The
creation or designation of such an entity should be preceded by an
opportunity for the Forensic Science community and all affected
criminal justice agencies to be heard from, to elicit a wide spectrum of
views as to how these needs can best be met. A.B. 1079, currently
pending before the legislature, could provide an excellent vehicle to
elicit this input. Rigorous written examinations, proficiency testing,
continuing education, recertification procedures, an ethical code, and
effective disciplinary procedures could be part of such a program. Such
an agency could also promulgate standards for scientific testing, report
writing, and the parameters of appropriate expert testimony; provide
information to all participants in the criminal justice system regarding
the evidentiary validity of forensic science evidence; identify and fund
research needs and opportunities; and provide state-wide training
programs for forensic experts.
(D) The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice
recommends that training programs for California prosecutors, defense

lawyers, judges and police investigators be expanded to include greater
attention to the appropriate use and validity of forensic science
Respectfully submitted,
California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice:
John K. Van de Kamp, Chair
Jon Streeter, Vice Chair
Diane Bellas, Alameda County Public Defender
Harold O. Boscovich, Jr., Danville
Chief William Bratton, Los Angeles Police Department
Jerry Brown, California Attorney General
Glen Craig, Sacramento
Jim Fox, San Mateo County District Attorney
Rabbi Allen Freehling, Los Angeles
Michael Hersek, California State Public Defender
Sheriff Curtis Hill, San Benito County
Prof. Bill Hing, University of California at Davis
Michael P. Judge, Los Angeles County Public Defender
George Kennedy, Santa Clara County District Attorney
Michael Laurence, Habeas Corpus Resource Center
Alejandro Mayorkas, Los Angeles
Judge John Moulds, Sacramento
Prof. Cookie Ridolfi, Santa Clara University School of Law
Douglas Ring, Santa Monica
Greg Totten, Ventura County District Attorney *
Gerald F. Uelmen, Executive Director
Chris Boscia, Executive Assistant
California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice
900 Lafayette St., Suite 608, Santa Clara, California 95050
Telephone 408-554-5002; FAX 408-554-5026

*Commissoner Totten does not concur in Recommendation (C). While he
supports the need for additional training and the establishment of additional
professional standards, he does not support the creation of a new state
agency to oversee crime labs or the assignment of this responsibility to an

existing state agency. He believes that doing so will increase state
bureaucracy without producing a measurable improvement in forensic
services or accuracy.