[Applause.]

ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I thank you for that warm reception, but I really should thank you for your service, and I should be the one applauding you for taking the time from a busy schedule each one of you I know has, and participating in what I think is one of the most important efforts that we are undertaking.

I am particularly gratified that we have such a cross-section of people from the system here. You have one of my mentors in the criminal justice system, a man who I cite more often than probably anybody else, Dr. Joe Davis. You have been so helpful to me on so many issues, the defense bar chief, it's good to have you here. It's exciting. It's just very -- I think what the criminal justice system should be about, when we discuss problems of mutual concern.

As some of you may know, I got interested in just what could be done when Walter Dellenger at one of our 8:30 meetings of a weekday morning said, "I just saw this newspaper article that said 16 people have been found innocent because of DNA. Why don't we study this and understand what happened." And that's the booklet that you have and the publication, and NIJ did a wonderful job of that, and we were able to follow through. But I think that raises a number of questions.

I think that law enforcement as we know it is going to face challenges that stagger the imagination and make us think, doctor, that it was -- we could not possibly have solved all the crimes we did with the technology we had ten years ago. But I think it's going to be critical that we plan with the limited resources we have the right way. How are we going to afford DNA in the best possible scientific terms for all of law enforcement, the small- town, small-county sheriff, and the big-city police department? How are we going to have the advantage of the best expertise, the best equipment, the best training, both at the crime-scene level and in the courtroom as people testify?

We're going to see this problem in other sectors of the criminal justice system, in the issue of cybercrime, how will we ever be able to afford the expertise that will enable us to match wits with the bad guy? How will we be able to develop a global information network that enables us to immediately transmit the DNA sample and understand what's happening? Will the States have enough money to do that? Will the local police department have enough money to do that? I think we will if we plan in a reasonable way based on principles of federalism, with the Federal Government sharing with State and local on a regional basis at times in other interchanges, and I need your recommendations as to how we can best do that and how we can best structure that.

Today is an anniversary of some note, the anniversary of the Gideon decision. And this morning I had an op-ed piece on the need to focus on indigent defense. Dr. Davis and I come from a State that makes its counties pay for everything, and so the defense bar has for indigent defense I think resources that I find lacking in many other jurisdictions. How are we going to make sure that that defense lawyer has the tools for his indigent defendant that will help him ensure that justice is done?

Now there is a tendency to say from my prosecutor's point of view those defense lawyers spend too much money. What we're talking about again is a person's life and liberty. We have seen because of this remarkable tool the fact that innocent people do get charged, they do get convicted, and they do spend time in prison. And this tool can be a marvelous way to avoid it. And I have not met anybody in the system or out of the system that would like to do otherwise.

I would appreciate your suggestions as to how we can ensure a balanced approach that will provide for appropriate resources for indigent defendants as we deal with this issue.

What is the process -- in postconviction proceedings, how do we proceed? These are some of the areas that I would like to have considered. How do we develop systems? There are so many questions, and I will tell you really how I learned how much I don't know about it.

Jeremy invited me to the first group that met to discuss this, and I sat there just amazed and listened around the table and went back and forth just like this like a ping-pong ball at the tremendous opportunities that were available. I need to know how to use the Justice Department to advance those opportunities for law enforcement in the best way that I possibly can. I need to know from the scientists what comes next after DNA.

There is going to be an extraordinary opportunity for scientists and prosecutors and defense attorneys to work together as never before, because the technology is changing so fast that if we don't work together, we are going to lose some opportunities. If they are working together, the scientist is going to learn from the lawyer, and the lawyer from the scientist, the tools that we can develop that will be important to the criminal justice system. The scientist will learn from the lawyer what needs to be done, what tool needs to be developed, and I need your suggestions as to what we can do in terms of research, in terms of grants, that will spur that type of research and development that is critical to the issue.

Those are some of the points that I would like to make, but if I might indulge you for -- if you would indulge me for a moment, I would like to hear from you as of now what I can already start doing without waiting around to promote what you have already started today. What lessons can I learn from you today so far?

CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Well, here's your chance, Commissioners.

ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: Believe me, what you are doing is so important, and I want to put it into effect, not two years from now, not five years from now, if you have an immediate proposal or suggestion as to an area that I should pursue and explore.

CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Dr. Reilly?

DR. REILLY: Good afternoon. I've been following this field outside of law enforcement for some time. I've been impressed by the amount of State legislation that now as we know 48 States that have enacted laws for DNA felon data banking. But I'm a little discouraged by the lack of funding at the State level, and there was already efforts afoot to make funds available to the States, but I put a triple underline under the urge to get money to State governments as soon as possible, to frankly not to wait for the two years' time that it may take to produce this report I think is already very strong evidence to at least open that faucet, funds that are available.

ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: The scientists may put some brakes on me, but if there are specifics that you can suggest, we are already about this. I just have had a chance to talk a number of people both at the local level and at the State level about how we can better organize all of law enforcement, still maintaining the principles of federalism, but whether it be cybertools, DNA technology, information technology, protection against information infrastructure attacks, whatever it is, we are going to have to share resources as never before. Any suggestions you have specifically I would appreciate on an ongoing basis so we don't wait the two years, because I think the funding issue is critical, and I would be very grateful for, if you will, interim suggestions as to what could be done and how it should be structured.

DR. FERRARA: With regard to the funding issue, Ms. Reno, on a preliminary level, we have already looked at a document which has been put together by a coalition of many of the States, and in fact I believe you may have already been briefed on this particular document. It's referred to as the National Forensic Science Improvement Act.

ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: Yes.

DR. FERRARA: And I have a copy of the latest version of it here. While it has not gone through our committees and the full Commission, I might offer this as at least a starting point.

ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: We are well started on that, and that arose because Buddy Nicks and Tim Moore came to me with some other colleagues and said -- they came right after our budget cycle, and I said you got your timing all wrong. And, secondly, you can't come just as six, you've got to develop a more comprehensive effort. So they immediately latched onto the IACP, and I think it's really getting organized. We would appreciate -- I would appreciate -- your thoughts on this proposal and what can be done to shape it, because I think it can -- that's what we're trying to focus on.

And I don't know what's feasible and what's not. I am just absolutely committed to doing everything I can to get it done, and the more we involve a great cross-section of people with familiarity in different disciplines, the more it's going to be accepted.

Let me just put one caution on it. There is a remarkable speech by Dwight Eisenhower, his farewell address, that I think is one of the most -- it's a great political speech, and it's never received much attention, because it was given just as he was leaving office. But amongst many other things in the speech, he warned us of the industrial-military complex and the effect that that would have on spending and initiatives, and I think we have got to be very careful about an industrial-law enforcement complex as we downsize the military and as we depend on the private sector, we've got to build partnerships in which they have an investment, if you will, in solid law enforcement and in public safety.

But it's going to have to bring -- be a partnership built on trust, and that's going to be a very interesting issue, and I would appreciate your suggestions and thoughts on that as well: how we build a working relationship with the private sector that recognizes that they have a right to make a profit, that they don't have a right to sell us a gimmick, that we need to work together to develop the best possible equipment and technology for law enforcement. And I have been impressed by the private sector's commitments to date, but I think we need to explore further, and this is a good basis for doing it.

Other ideas?

Yes?

DR.WEEDN: I'd like to mention one other area. We in Alabama, in trying to do information sharing within the State, find that a significant problem we have is not a single number for a case or case evidential sample. In order to do the information sharing there has to be at least one number that's in common with all the systems. And I believe that complexity also exists among the different States, too. So some way that we can come down with a single number that everybody recognizes would be of use.

ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: If I can get your name afterwards or Jeremy, can't see your name tag, but I'd like to put you in touch with Steve Colgate, who is the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Management Division. And he is responsible for first of all setting up a interoperable network within the Department of Justice, and then on behalf of the Government, a global information network. The key to that is the development of an appropriate network with State and locals as well. It is a mammoth undertaking, but key to it I think is what you're talking about, and how we communicate. So I would like if I may to put you in touch with him so we can follow up on that suggestion. Is that agreeable?

Other ideas?

MS. BALLOU: Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be here. My name is Susan Ballou, Montgomery County Crime Lab, in Rockville, Maryland. And I'm in total agreement on the funding issue, which everybody has been clamoring about. If you've attended any of the technical working groups that have been promoted, TWGDAM, TWGMAT, et cetera, our whole issue has been funding, and what we were trying to do is increase the level of their average, and I want to say average, forensic scientist, who you don't normally hear from or see speaking at any conferences or what not, who would like to increase their educational capabilities but do not have the funds to through their governments or laboratory system. And some of these individuals are in States where there is no nearby academic structure, so it would be very difficult for them to attain additional education.

So if there would be some way that this group could possibly look into supplying education through the computer network, whether it be through a setup such as the National Institute of Forensic Science and Technologies down in Florida, that would be also another possibility. But I do know these forensic scientists want to increase their education to provide better services, but at the State level where they are located cannot accommodate this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I think this is going to -- I think your idea of computer assisted learning and video conferencing and the like is very important. I think it's going to be important for us all as technology just bursts forth with new ideas in so many different areas affecting law enforcement and national security that we figure ways to be competitive with the private sector and we're in the process of doing that. I'm hoping that in the next couple of months the Justice Department can do some work in that just for the technology within the Justice Department and learn from what we might do. But then how we make sure that every State in this nation has available the resources that you talk about, and a minimal level of expertise in a wide variety of areas. You make sure, Jeremy, we follow up on that lead.

Other ideas?

MR. THOMA: Ms. Reno, first I want to thank you for coming, and as a public defender I want to tell you how much I appreciate your administration. I think you're doing an incredible job. But I would like to discuss at as early a juncture as we can proficiency testing for all lab technicians, and to get some uniform type of blind proficiency testing for any laboratory that is testifying throughout the country, because sometimes we have laboratories that are outside of a jurisdiction testifying inside of a jurisdiction and we have multiple problems there with their quality and proficiency.

ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: Again, we will -- I don't want to go off on a tangent without the Commission, but as you develop ideas or specifics, we would welcome them on a continuing basis so that when you reach consensus on certain points, that we are aware of the consensus and can move more immediately than the final report, if that's agreeable, Jeremy.

CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: That's agreeable to me.

[Laughter.]

ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: The final point is in the whole legal area, and it is going to be very important for people to talk in a collegial way, in a nonadversary way, about the critical legal issues that we face in this area, and that we develop an understanding of what should be done. Again, as you identify issues, we would appreciate knowing about them so that we can immediately begin the research that would be appropriate.

I think -- it's fascinating to me to hear the scientists so often say there go those prosecutors at the Department of Justice. They just want to change the Constitution. And I can assure you that there is at least one prosecutor at the Department of Justice that does not want to change the Constitution that believes that it is a living document that is the most remarkable document that I know of in terms of the law. And what I want to do is figure out how that Constitution maintains all its force, effect, vigor, strength, and magnificence while at the same time coping with the new technology. And I think it's possible, and I would just welcome the suggestions of legal issues that you see or that you have confronted already in actual practice so that we might begin to address those.

Thank you very, very much for your willingness to do this. It is so important.

[Applause.]

MR. ASPLEN: As we find ourselves nearing the end of the day, I would like to address a couple of housekeeping issues until the -- until the Chief Justice returns. First of all, each of the commissioners will find in their individual manual or handbook, their own biography. That is not because we are concerned you don't know who you are, it is because what we would like you to do is to take some time to edit that biography so that we can use those in the future. As we advertise and promote the good works of the commission, we want to make sure that what -- who we say you are is in fact who you are any, and any recent accomplishments that we may not have had, that are important, that we do, in fact, have.

You don't need to do that before you leave. If you would like to take them with you and send them back, fax them back to us, that's perfectly fine.

Also, you will be receiving, if you have not already, you may have been -- it may have been passed out to you, the June -- a June calendar. It's with my materials that I moved. You will be receiving a blank calendar for the month of June and we would like to schedule the next commission meeting for June, so what we would like you to do is to put down your available and/or unavailable dates on that calendar and give those back to us so that we can accommodate as many commissioners as possible. Obviously, we will never -- it is very unlikely we will ever have everyone here at the same time. However, we will do the best we can, and this is one way that we will try to accomplish that goal.

Another thing I would like to do is talk about our web page a little bit and that is because it is going to be one of our primary tools to advertise to the public and promote again the work that the commission is doing. It is also the way that we will comply with federal law in terms of making the minutes of this particular commission meeting available to the public. It could be found through our -- it is a link through our NIJ web page.

However, another idea that has come up that we are going to look at in more depth when we get back to the office is the idea of not just having a web page and an e- mail address, which we also have, but also of having a bulletin board, if you will, again, to cast our net as far and as wide as we can to invite public comment on the bulletin board. That has been suggested to us and, in fact, that suggestion was made by Dr. Joshua Lederburg at the last DAB meeting. He thought that, given this age of technology that we are in, that we could do better in terms of inviting public comment and that was probably an appropriate way to do it.

So we will look into that possibility and we will let you know if, in fact, we are able to accomplish that.

Previous	Contents	Next
Back to National Commission Main Page