`
`
`
`
`
`
`January
`January
`2017
`2017
`Volume 65
`Volume 65
`Number 1
`Number 1
`
`United States
`United States
`Department of Justice
`Department of Justice
`Executive Office for
`Executive Office for
`United States Attorneys
`United States Attorneys
`Washington, DC
`Washington, DC
`20530
`20530
`
`Monty Wilkinson
`Monty Wilkinson
`Director
`Director
`
`Contributors’ opinions and statements
`Contributors' opinions and statements
`should not be considered an
`should not be considered an
`endorsement by EOUSA for any
`endorsement by EOUSA for any
`policy, program, or service
`policy, program, or service
`
`The United States Attorneys’ Bulletin
`The United States Attorneys' Bulletin
`is published pursuant to
`is published pursuant to
`28 C F R § 0 22(b)
`28 C FR § 022(b)
`
`The United States Attorneys’ Bulletin
`The United States Attorneys' Bulletin
`is published bimonthly by the
`is published bimonthly by the
`Executive Office for United States
`Executive Office for United States
`Attorneys, Office of Legal Education,
`Attorneys, Office of Legal Education,
`1620 Pendleton Street,
`1620 Pendleton Street,
`Columbia, South Carolina 29201
`Columbia, South Carolina 29201
`
`
`Editor
`Editor
`K Tate Chambers
`K Tate Chambers
`
`Assistant Editor
`Assistant Editor
`Becky Catoe-Aikey
`Becky Catoe-Aikey
`
`Law Clerks
`Law Clerks
`Sarah Tate Chambers
`Sarah Tate Chambers
`Joseph Giordano
`Joseph Giordano
`Emily Godwin
`Emily Godwin
`
`Internet Address
`Internet Address
`https://www justice gov/usao/resources
`https://www justice gov/usao/resources
`/united-states-attorneys-bulletins
`/united-states-attorneys-bulletins
`
`Send article submissions
`Send article submissions
`to Editor,
`to Editor,
`United States Attorneys’ Bulletin,
`United States Attorneys' Bulletin,
`National Advocacy Center,
`National Advocacy Center,
`Office of Legal Education,
`Office of Legal Education,
`1620 Pendleton Street,
`1620 Pendleton Street,
`Columbia, SC 29201
`Columbia, SC 29201
`
`Cite as:
`Cite as:
`65 U S Attorneys’ Bulletin, Jan 2017
`65 U S Attorneys' Bulletin, Jan 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Forensic Science and
`Forensic Science and
`Forensic Evidence I
`Forensic Evidence I
`
` In This Issue
`In This Issue
`
`
`
`Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
`1
`Introduction
`
`By Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates
`By Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates
`
`Recent Developments in the Forensic Sciences ................................... 3
`3
`Recent Developments in the Forensic Sciences
`
`By Dr. Victor Weedn
`By Dr. Victor Weedn
`
`Mobile Device Forensics: Beyond Call Logs and Text Messages .... 11
`Mobile Device Forensics: Beyond Call Logs and Text Messages .... 11
`
`By Daniel Ogden
`By Daniel Ogden
`
`Decrypting a Predator: The Investigation and Prosecution of Steven
`Decrypting a Predator: The Investigation and Prosecution of Steven
`Rockett ................................................................................................. 15
`15
`Rockett
`By Paul T. Maloney and Gary Y. Sussman
`By Paul T. Maloney and Gary Y. Sussman
`
`Challenges in Modern Digital Investigative Analysis ....................... 25
`25
`Challenges in Modern Digital Investigative Analysis
`By Ovie Carroll
`By Ovie Carroll
`
`Cultural Property ................................................................................ 39
`Cultural Property
`39
`
`By Judith Benderson
`By Judith Benderson
`
`Forensic Accounting in Securities and Financial Fraud
`Forensic Accounting in Securities and Financial Fraud
`Prosecutions .......................................................................................... 45
`45
`Prosecutions
`
`By Henry P. Van Dyck and L. Rush Atkinson
`By Henry P. Van Dyck and L. Rush Atkinson
`
`Investigation and Prosecution of Drone Cases: Emerging Issues for
`Investigation and Prosecution of Drone Cases: Emerging Issues for
`Prosecutors Confronting Unmanned Aircraft Systems .................... 53
`53
`Prosecutors Confronting Unmanned Aircraft Systems
`By Gretchen C.F. Shappert
`
`By Gretchen C.F. Shappert
`
`Note from the Editor........................................................................... 115
`115
`Note from the Editor
`By K. Tate Chambers
`
`By K. Tate Chambers
`
`
`
`WIZ, Inc. EXHIBIT - 1079
`WIZ, Inc. v. Orca Security LTD.
`
`WIZ, Inc. EXHIBIT - 1079
`WIZ, Inc. v. Orca Security LTD.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Introduction
`Introduction
`Sally Q. Yates
`Sally Q. Yates
`Acting Attorney General
`Acting Attorney General
`
`
`Forensic science plays a crucial role in our criminal justice system. Using the tiniest shreds of
`Forensic science plays a crucial role in our criminal justice system. Using the tiniest shreds of
`evidence, whether a drop of blood or a shell casing found at the scene, forensic scientists can help
`evidence, whether a drop of blood or a shell casing found at the scene, forensic scientists can help
`investigators learn who committed a crime and how it was committed. Judges and juries put great stock in
`investigators learn who committed a crime and how it was committed. Judges and juries put great stock in
`this type of forensic testimony, and when presented at trial, such evidence can make the difference
`this type of forensic testimony, and when presented at trial, such evidence can make the difference
`between conviction and acquittal.
`between conviction and acquittal.
`
`But it is precisely because forensic evidence can be so powerful and so persuasive that we must
`But it is precisely because forensic evidence can be so powerful and so persuasive that we must
`be careful in how it is used. Even in the most advanced forensic disciplines, there are limits on what the
`be careful in how it is used. Even in the most advanced forensic disciplines, there are limits on what the
`science can reveal. In recent years, for example, we have seen the risks that forensic science presents, as
`science can reveal. In recent years, for example, we have seen the risks that forensic science presents, as
`we learned that certain experts have overstated the strength of the evidence in their lab reports and at trial.
`we learned that certain experts have overstated the strength of the evidence in their lab reports and at trial.
`These errors have not simply called into question the validity of individual prosecutions, but also
`These errors have not simply called into question the validity of individual prosecutions, but also
`threatened to undermine the public’s confidence in forensic science more broadly.
`threatened to undermine the public's confidence in forensic science more broadly.
`
`To address this, the Department of Justice has taken a number of steps to strengthen forensic
`
`To address this, the Department of Justice has taken a number of steps to strengthen forensic
`science. In 2013, the Department partnered with the National Institute of Standards and Technology to
`science. In 2013, the Department partnered with the National Institute of Standards and Technology to
`establish the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS), a federal advisory committee that makes
`establish the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS), a federal advisory committee that makes
`forward-looking policy recommendations to the Attorney General on forensic science topics. As Deputy
`forward-looking policy recommendations to the Attorney General on forensic science topics. As Deputy
`Attorney General, I have had the privilege of serving as the Co-Chair of NCFS, which has developed a
`Attorney General, I have had the privilege of serving as the Co-Chair of NCFS, which has developed a
`number of significant proposals on the practice of forensic science in both the laboratory and the
`number of significant proposals on the practice of forensic science in both the laboratory and the
`courtroom. In addition, in early 2016, the Department recruited Dr. Victor Weedn to help develop new
`courtroom. In addition, in early 2016, the Department recruited Dr. Victor Weedn to help develop new
`policies and guidance across DOJ’s investigative agencies, research offices, and litigating components.
`policies and guidance across DOJ's investigative agencies, research offices, and litigating components.
`Dr. Weedn, who serves as the chairman of the department of forensic science at George Washington
`Dr. Weedn, who serves as the chairman of the department of forensic science at George Washington
`University and recently completed a term as the president of the American Academy of Forensic
`University and recently completed a term as the president of the American Academy of Forensic
`Sciences, has spearheaded a number of important initiatives during his time at Main Justice and helped
`Sciences, has spearheaded a number of important initiatives during his time at Main Justice and helped
`coordinate this issue of USA Bulletin.
`coordinate this issue of USA Bulletin.
`
`One of the Department’s most significant ongoing projects in this area is the multi-year
`
`One of the Department's most significant ongoing projects in this area is the multi-year
`development of the “Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports,” or ULTRs. Once finalized, the
`development of the "Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports," or ULTRs. Once finalized, the
`ULTRs will outline the specific statements that the Department’s forensic experts may – and may not –
`ULTRs will outline the specific statements that the Department's forensic experts may — and may not —
`make when testifying in court about their scientific conclusions, thus limiting the risk of experts
`make when testifying in court about their scientific conclusions, thus limiting the risk of experts
`overstating the accuracy or reliability of a particular forensic technique. We expect that the guidance
`overstating the accuracy or reliability of a particular forensic technique. We expect that the guidance
`contained in the ULTRs will also prove useful for prosecutors, who will be able to rely on the documents
`contained in the ULTRs will also prove useful for prosecutors, who will be able to rely on the documents
`to ensure that they properly characterize their forensic evidence in Daubert hearings, witness
`to ensure that they properly characterize their forensic evidence in Daubert hearings, witness
`
`United States Attorneys’ Bulletin
`United States Attorneys' Bulletin
`
`
`1
`1
`
`January 2017
`January 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`examinations, and jury summations. The Department’s Office of Legal Policy, along with experts at FBI,
`examinations, and jury summations. The Department's Office of Legal Policy, along with experts at FBI,
`ATF, and DEA, remains hard at work on the project. Draft versions of the ULTRs were posted for public
`ATF, and DEA, remains hard at work on the project. Draft versions of the ULTRs were posted for public
`comment in mid-2016, and final versions are likely to be published later this year.
`comment in mid-2016, and final versions are likely to be published later this year.
`
`As you read through this issue of the USA Bulletin, you’ll see the many ways forensic science
`As you read through this issue of the USA Bulletin, you'll see the many ways forensic science
`impacts federal prosecutions, from investigations on the internet to theft of historical artifacts. I hope you
`impacts federal prosecutions, from investigations on the internet to theft of historical artifacts. I hope you
`find the material informative and that it provides an opportunity to learn more about the important work
`find the material informative and that it provides an opportunity to learn more about the important work
`underway across the Department to strengthen the practice of forensic science.
`underway across the Department to strengthen the practice of forensic science.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States Attorneys’ Bulletin
`United States Attorneys' Bulletin
`
`January 2017
`January 2017
`
` 2
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Recent Developments in the Forensic
`Recent Developments in the Forensic
`Sciences
`Sciences
`Dr. Victor W. Weedn
`Dr. Victor W. Weedn
`Senior Forensic Advisor to the Deputy Attorney General
`Senior Forensic Advisor to the Deputy Attorney General
`Office of the Deputy Attorney General
`Office of the Deputy Attorney General
`I. Introduction
`I. Introduction
`Forensic science is generally dated to Hans Gross’ Handbuch für Untersuchungsrichter,
`Forensic science is generally dated to Hans Gross' Handbuch.* Untersuchungsrichter,
`Polizeibeamte, Gendarmen (Handbook for Magistrates, police officials, military policemen), which was
`Polizeibeamte, Gendarmen (Handbook for Magistrates, police officials, military policemen), which was
`published in 1893, although forensic medicine and forensic toxicology are much older. Edmond Locard
`published in 1893, although forensic medicine and forensic toxicology are much older. Edmond Locard
`established the first crime laboratory in 1910 in Lyon, France. Depending on who is to be believed, the
`established the first crime laboratory in 1910 in Lyon, France. Depending on who is to be believed, the
`first crime laboratory in the United States was established in Los Angeles or Berkeley, California, in
`first crime laboratory in the United States was established in Los Angeles or Berkeley, California, in
`1923. The FBI laboratory was established in 1932. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century,
`1923. The FBI laboratory was established in 1932. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century,
`forensic science laboratories were established throughout the United States. Although the International
`forensic science laboratories were established throughout the United States. Although the International
`Association for Identification has origins dating back to 1915, most professional forensic science
`Association for Identification has origins dating back to 1915, most professional forensic science
`associations were established during the second half of the century. Initial efforts towards standardization
`associations were established during the second half of the century. Initial efforts towards standardization
`in the field soon followed. Perhaps more importantly, gas chromatography-mass spectrometers (GC-MS)
`in the field soon followed. Perhaps more importantly, gas chromatography-mass spectrometers (GC-MS)
`were not in widespread use until the 1970s, and genetic analyzers were not in widespread use until the
`were not in widespread use until the 1970s, and genetic analyzers were not in widespread use until the
`1990s. Both are the basic laboratory instruments of modern crime labs. The television show CSI captured
`1990s. Both are the basic laboratory instruments of modern crime labs. The television show CSI captured
`the attention of the public when it first aired in 2000. Particularly with the rise of databases (fingerprints,
`the attention of the public when it first aired in 2000. Particularly with the rise of databases (fingerprints,
`DNA, firearms), forensic science laboratories became increasingly powerful and increasingly important to
`DNA, firearms), forensic science laboratories became increasingly powerful and increasingly important to
`the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system has had to adapt to this new reality; for instance,
`the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system has had to adapt to this new reality; for instance,
`in addition to appeals based upon unfair process, actual innocence became a basis for appeals in DNA
`in addition to appeals based upon unfair process, actual innocence became a basis for appeals in DNA
`prosecutions. In this article, I will discuss some major developments in forensic science policy over the
`prosecutions. In this article, I will discuss some major developments in forensic science policy over the
`past several years.
`past several years.
`II. 2009 National Academies of Sciences (NAS) Report
`II. 2009 National Academies of Sciences (NAS) Report
`In February of 2009, shortly after President Obama took office, the National Research Council
`In February of 2009, shortly after President Obama took office, the National Research Council
`(NRC) of the National Academies of Science (NAS), supported by National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
`(NRC) of the National Academies of Science (NAS), supported by National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
`funding, published its influential report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path
`funding, published its influential report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path
`Forward. NAT’L ACAD. OF SCI., NAT’L RESEARCH COUNCIL, STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN
`Forward. NAT'L ACAD. OF SCI., NAT'L RESEARCH COUNCIL, STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN
`THE UNITED STATES: A PATH FORWARD (2009). The 2009 NAS Report on forensic science was not the
`THE UNITED STATES: A PATH FORWARD (2009). The 2009 NAS Report on forensic science was not the
`first call for forensic science reform in America, but one that captured the attention of policymakers.
`first call for forensic science reform in America, but one that captured the attention of policymakers.
`Judge Harry T. Edwards and statistician Constantine Gatsonis, co-Chairs, speaking for their committee,
`Judge Harry T. Edwards and statistician Constantine Gatsonis, co-Chairs, speaking for their committee,
`concluded:
`concluded:
`
`United States Attorneys’ Bulletin
`United States Attorneys' Bulletin
`
`
`3
`3
`
`January 2017
`January 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`The forensic science system, encompassing both research and practice, has serious
`The forensic science system, encompassing both research and practice, has serious
`problems that can only be addressed by a national commitment to overhaul the current
`problems that can only be addressed by a national commitment to overhaul the current
`structure that supports the forensic science community in this country. This can only be
`structure that supports the forensic science community in this country. This can only be
`done with effective leadership at the highest levels of both federal and state governments,
`done with effective leadership at the highest levels of both federal and state governments,
`pursuant to national standards, and with a significant infusion of federal funds.
`pursuant to national standards, and with a significant infusion of federal funds.
`Id. at xx
`Id. at xx
`The NAS Report made 13 recommendations (paraphrased here):
`The NAS Report made 13 recommendations (paraphrased here):
`1. Create a National Institute of Forensic Sciences (NIFS);
`1. Create a National Institute of Forensic Sciences (NIFS);
`2. Standardize terminology and reporting practices;
`2. Standardize terminology and reporting practices;
`3. Expand research on the accuracy, reliability, and validity of the forensic
`3. Expand research on the accuracy, reliability, and validity of the forensic
`sciences;
`sciences;
`4. Remove forensic science services from the administrative control of law
`4. Remove forensic science services from the administrative control of law
`enforcement agencies and prosecutors’ offices;
`enforcement agencies and prosecutors' offices;
`5. Support forensic science research on human observer bias and sources of
`5. Support forensic science research on human observer bias and sources of
`error;
`error;
`6. Develop tools for advancing measurement, validation, reliability, information
`6. Develop tools for advancing measurement, validation, reliability, information
`sharing, and proficiency testing, and to establish protocols for examinations,
`sharing, and proficiency testing, and to establish protocols for examinations,
`methods, and practices;
`methods, and practices;
`7. Require the mandatory accreditation of all forensic laboratories and
`7. Require the mandatory accreditation of all forensic laboratories and
`certification for all forensic science practitioners;
`certification for all forensic science practitioners;
`8. Laboratories should establish routine quality assurance procedures;
`8. Laboratories should establish routine quality assurance procedures;
`9. Establish a national code of ethics with a mechanism for enforcement;
`9. Establish a national code of ethics with a mechanism for enforcement;
`10. Support higher education in the form of forensic science graduate programs,
`10. Support higher education in the form of forensic science graduate programs,
`to include scholarships and fellowships;
`to include scholarships and fellowships;
`11. Improve the medico-legal death investigation system;
`11. Improve the medico-legal death investigation system;
`12. Support Automated Fingerprint Identification System interoperability
`12. Support Automated Fingerprint Identification System interoperability
`through developing standards; and
`through developing standards; and
`13. Support the use of forensic science in homeland security
`13. Support the use of forensic science in homeland security
`The NAS Report has been referred to by many courts and was quoted by Justice Scalia in
`The NAS Report has been referred to by many courts and was quoted by Justice Scalia in
`Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) “to refute the suggestion that this category of
`Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) "to refute the suggestion that this category of
`evidence is uniquely reliable,” but Justice Kennedy in his dissent writes:
`evidence is uniquely reliable," but Justice Kennedy in his dissent writes:
`State legislatures, and not the Members of this Court, have the authority to shape the
`State legislatures, and not the Members of this Court, have the authority to shape the
`rules of evidence. The Court therefore errs when it relies in such great measure on the
`rules of evidence. The Court therefore errs when it relies in such great measure on the
`recent report of the National Academy of Sciences. Ante, at 12–14 (discussing National
`recent report of the National Academy of Sciences. Ante, at 12-14 (discussing National
`Research Council of the National Academies, Strengthening Forensic Science in the
`Research Council of the National Academies, Strengthening Forensic Science in the
`United States: A Path Forward (Prepublication Copy Feb. 2009)). That report is not
`United States: A Path Forward (Prepublication Copy Feb. 2009)). That report is not
`directed to this Court, but rather to the elected representatives in Congress and the state
`directed to this Court, but rather to the elected representatives in Congress and the state
`legislatures, who, unlike Members of this Court, have the power and competence to
`legislatures, who, unlike Members of this Court, have the power and competence to
`
`United States Attorneys’ Bulletin
`United States Attorneys' Bulletin
`
`January 2017
`January 2017
`
` 4
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`determine whether scientific tests are unreliable and, if so, whether testimony is the
`determine whether scientific tests are unreliable and, if so, whether testimony is the
`proper solution to the problem. Id. at p. 23.
`proper solution to the problem. Id. at p. 23.
`Several bills have been introduced into Congress without passage; it is the Executive Branch that
`Several bills have been introduced into Congress without passage; it is the Executive Branch that
`has most vigorously responded to the NAS Report.
`has most vigorously responded to the NAS Report.
`III. Subcommittee on Forensic Science (SoFS)
`III. Subcommittee on Forensic Science (SoFS)
`In July 2009, the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) created a
`In July 2009, the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) created a
`“Subcommittee on Forensic Science” (SoFS) to address the issues raised by the NAS report. The SoFS
`"Subcommittee on Forensic Science" (SoFS) to address the issues raised by the NAS report. The SoFS
`oversaw five interagency working groups (Accreditation and Certification; Standards, Practices, and
`oversaw five interagency working groups (Accreditation and Certification; Standards, Practices, and
`Protocols; Education, Ethics, and Terminology; Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation; and
`Protocols; Education, Ethics, and Terminology; Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation; and
`Outreach and Communication), which were responsible for most of the work. SoFS participation spanned
`Outreach and Communication), which were responsible for most of the work. SoFS participation spanned
`23 federal departments and agencies, and was comprised of nearly 200 federal subject matter experts and
`23 federal departments and agencies, and was comprised of nearly 200 federal subject matter experts and
`49 individuals representing state and local forensic scientists. This body completed its work December
`49 individuals representing state and local forensic scientists. This body completed its work December
`2012 and published its report, Strengthening the Forensic Sciences, in May 2014. NAT’L SCI. & TECH.
`2012 and published its report, Strengthening the Forensic Sciences, in May 2014. NAT'L SCI. & TECH.
`COUNCIL’S SUBCOMM. ON FORENSIC SCI., STRENGTHENING THE FORENSIC SCIENCES (2014). The report
`COUNCIL'S SUBCOMM. ON FORENSIC SCI., STRENGTHENING THE FORENSIC SCIENCES (2014). The report
`recommended, among other things, the accreditation of forensic science service providers, the
`recommended, among other things, the accreditation of forensic science service providers, the
`certification of forensic examiners and medicolegal personnel, proficiency testing for forensic examiners,
`certification of forensic examiners and medicolegal personnel, proficiency testing for forensic examiners,
`and a national code of ethics for forensic service providers.
`and a national code of ethics for forensic service providers.
`IV. National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS)
`IV. National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS)
`In 2013, DOJ partnered with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to
`In 2013, DOJ partnered with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to
`establish the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS) as part of the Department’s efforts to
`establish the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS) as part of the Department's efforts to
`strengthen and enhance the practice of forensic science.
`strengthen and enhance the practice of forensic science.
`The Commission is co-chaired by the Deputy Attorney General and the Director of NIST, and
`The Commission is co-chaired by the Deputy Attorney General and the Director of NIST, and
`consists of 29 voting commissioners and eight ex officio non-voting commissioners. The Commission
`consists of 29 voting commissioners and eight ex officio non-voting commissioners. The Commission
`includes federal, state, and local forensic science service providers; research scientists and academics; law
`includes federal, state, and local forensic science service providers; research scientists and academics; law
`enforcement officials; prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges; and other stakeholders from across the
`enforcement officials; prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges; and other stakeholders from across the
`country. The work of the commission is supported by several subcommittees: Interim Solutions,
`country. The work of the commission is supported by several subcommittees: Interim Solutions,
`Accreditation and Proficiency Testing; Human Factors; Medicolegal Death Investigation; Reporting and
`Accreditation and Proficiency Testing; Human Factors; Medicolegal Death Investigation; Reporting and
`Testimony; and Scientific Inquiry and Research.
`Testimony; and Scientific Inquiry and Research.
`As a federal advisory committee, NCFS develops recommendations for consideration by the
`As a federal advisory committee, NCFS develops recommendations for consideration by the
`Attorney General. These recommendations are drafted by the subcommittees and then sent to the full
`Attorney General. These recommendations are drafted by the subcommittees and then sent to the full
`body for a vote by all Commissioners. If approved, a copy of the recommendation is delivered to the
`body for a vote by all Commissioners. If approved, a copy of the recommendation is delivered to the
`Attorney General, who typically responds within six months. To date, the Attorney General has agreed to
`Attorney General, who typically responds within six months. To date, the Attorney General has agreed to
`adopt several NCFS’s recommendations, either in whole or in part, as discussed in greater depth
`adopt several NCFS's recommendations, either in whole or in part, as discussed in greater depth
`elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin. For more information, visit https://www.justice.gov/ncfs.
`elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin. For more information, visit https://www.justice.gov/ncfs.
`
`United States Attorneys’ Bulletin
`United States Attorneys' Bulletin
`
`
`5
`5
`
`January 2017
`January 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`V. NIST Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC)
`V. NIST Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC)
`Also in 2013, DOJ partnered with NIST to create the Organization of Scientific Area Committees
`Also in 2013, DOJ partnered with NIST to create the Organization of Scientific Area Committees
`(OSAC), which assists development of scientific standards in the various forensic science disciplines. The
`(OSAC), which assists development of scientific standards in the various forensic science disciplines. The
`definitions, protocols, and practices, which comprise the “documentary standards” and guidelines
`definitions, protocols, and practices, which comprise the "documentary standards" and guidelines
`considered by the OSAC, are actually promulgated by various Standards Development Organizations (i.e.
`considered by the OSAC, are actually promulgated by various Standards Development Organizations (i.e.
`ASTM, ASB, NFPA, etc.), but only “approved” standards and guidelines are posted to a National
`ASTM, ASB, NFPA, etc.), but only "approved" standards and guidelines are posted to a National
`Registry.
`Registry.
`The OSAC is composed of five scientific area committees (Biology/DNA,
`The OSAC is composed of five scientific area committees (Biology/DNA,
`Chemistry/Instrumental Analysis, Crime Scene/Death Investigation, Digital/Multimedia, Physics/Pattern
`Chemistry/Instrumental Analysis, Crime Scene/Death Investigation, Digital/Multimedia, Physics/Pattern
`Interpretation) that oversee 25 subcommittees (covering the topic areas of the previous SWGs). The five
`Interpretation) that oversee 25 subcommittees (covering the topic areas of the previous SWGs). The five
`SACs are overseen by the Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB). The Human Factors, Quality
`SACs are overseen by the Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB). The Human Factors, Quality
`Infrastructure, and Legal Resource committees also answer to the FSSB.
`Infrastructure, and Legal Resource committees also answer to the FSSB.
`At the time of this writing, three standards have been posted to the National Registry of OSAC
`At the time of this writing, three standards have been posted to the National Registry of OSAC
`Approved Standards, but many others are in the pipeline. For more information, visit:
`Approved Standards, but many others are in the pipeline. For more information, visit:
`https://www.nist.gov/forensics/organization-scientific-area-committees-forensic-science.
`https://www.nist.gov/forensics/organization-scientific-area-committees-forensic-science.
`VI. Microscopic Hair Comparison Analysis (MHCA) Review
`VI. Microscopic Hair Comparison Analysis (MHCA) Review
`In response to a series of exonerations, beginning in late 2012, the DOJ and the FBI, with the
`In response to a series of exonerations, beginning in late 2012, the DOJ and the FBI, with the
`collaboration of the Innocence Project (IP) and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
`collaboration of the Innocence Project (IP) and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
`(NACDL), reviewed laboratory reports and scientific testimony provided by FBI laboratory examiners in
`(NACDL), reviewed laboratory reports and scientific testimony provided by FBI laboratory examiners in
`microscopic hair comparison analysis (MHCA) cases to identify statements that exceed the limits of
`microscopic hair comparison analysis (MHCA) cases to identify statements that exceed the limits of
`science.