Forensic Triage: A Guide for Prosecutors

Authors: PCE, NRTAC

As the demand for forensic evidence has exploded, so has the pressure on crime laboratories to keep pace with an ever-growing workload. This paper, developed by PCE’s Executive Director Kristine Hamann and St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office Chief of Trials Rachel Smith, addresses the critical question of how best to maximize the resources of a public forensic laboratory. This question is explored in three different parts, each with an emphasis on the prosecutor’s perspective:

Author(s): Kristine Hamann, Rebecca Rader Brown

In May 2013, a Colorado man fails to show up to work. Concerned, the man’s boss visits his house, where the man’s roommate refuses to let the boss enter. The boss contacts the police, who launch a missing person investigation. Using cell tower technology, police are able to approximate the missing man’s location in the hours leading up to his disappearance.

Prosecutors, Police and Public Forensic Laboratories Working Together

Forensic evidence is an increasingly important part of a criminal case. As a result, it is critical for prosecutors and police to work closely with their public forensic laboratories to understand its procedures and the reliability of its tests. A Customer Working Group is an excellent way to achieve this goal.

On September 19, 2016, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) issued a 174-page report titled “Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods”. Read

The PCAST Report does not bind any prosecutors or any courts, but it contains arguments that defense attorneys will use to exclude certain forensic evidence.  These motions have already begun.

Author: Kristine Hamann