sources in the article;they were holes underwhich there were trashbuckets. With physicalplant deficiencies likethat, it was not sur-prising other problemswere also identified inthe quality assuranceaudit.

There are clearlythe “have and the have-nots” in the crime laboratory community.Into which camp a laboratory falls maydepend on whether there is a current budgetcrisis in the governing body or responsibleagency. Or, it may depend on the prioritythat elected officials, cabinet members, oragency heads in federal, state, and local gov-ernments place on the quality of forensicscience in their community. Many of the fiscalwoes affecting the laboratories, such as thosethat seem to exist in Houston, did not juststart during the fiscal shortages of the lastcouple years. They have been with us for awhile – even during the good times whentaxes were being cut because of excess staterevenue. So, where was, or should I saywhere is, the commitment to quality forensicscience that should be exhibited by sufficientfunding for physical plants, equipment,training, salaries, and adequate personnel tocomplete analyses timely and accurately?Inadequate funding is a precursor for acriminal justice system that cannot accurately

AC

AD

EM

Y N

EW

SA

ME

RI

CA

N

AC

AD

EM

Y

OF

F

OR

EN

SI

C

SC

IE

NC

ES

JULY 2003 VOL. 33 – ISSUE 4 EDITOR: KATHY REYNOLDS

Issues concerning state and federalfunding of crime laboratories and medicalexaminers offices continue to be a focus ofconcern. On April 25, 2003, I attended thededication of the new FBI laboratory facility atQuantico, VA. It is a magnificent buildingwith state-of-the-art equipment. As DwightAdams, the Director of the laboratory,proudly says on the FBI’s website, “not onlydo we already have world class technologiesand world class individuals applying thosetechnologies, but now we have a world classfacility in which to apply that trade.” On June 16, 2003, I attended the dedication ofthe new Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearmsand Explosives National Laboratory Center.AAFS member Rick Tontarski has beenworking for many years to help bring this newfacility to fruition. I am sure that laboratoryis as magnificent as the FBI’s and thelaboratory director will be just as proud of it.

All of this stands in stark contrast,however, to many of the other crime labora-tories in the United States. Look at theHouston Police crime laboratory, for example.The Washington Post reported in March that anaudit team detailed problems in that labo-ratory, including ” a leaky roof . . . that couldlead to contamination of DNA samples.”These were not just leaks, according to

PRESIDENT’S

MESSAGE

Kenneth E. Melson, JD

continued on page 3

The Nominating Committee has announcedits list of nominees for 2003-04 officers:

Edmund R. Donoghue, MD President-Elect(Pathology/Biology)Carol Henderson, JD Vice President(Jurisprudence)Robert Weinstock, MD Vice President(Psychiatry & Behavioral Science)James G. Young, MD Secretary(General)Bruce A. Goldberger, PhD Treasurer(Toxicology)

The Nominating Committee is composed ofthree Fellows elected by the Board of Directors— Graham R. Jones,(Chairman), Mary Fran Ernstand John McDowell, and the chairmen of each ofthe Academy’s ten sections:

Thomas Brettell (Criminalistics), James Smith(Engineering Sciences), James Adcock (General),Andre Moenssens (Jurisprudence), PamelaHammel (Odontology), Gregory G. Davis(Pathology/Biology), Elizabeth Murray (PhysicalAnthropology), Richard Rosner (Psychiatry &Behavioral Science), William Bodziak (QuestionedDocuments), and Christine Moore (Toxicology).

In accordance with the AAFS Bylaws,nomination for any elected office of theAcademy may be made by petition delivered tothe Nominating Committee in care of the AAFSheadquarters no later than September 1, 2003.Nomination petitions should state the name ofthe nominee, the office sought, a certificatestating that the candidate is a Fellow in goodstating, and the signatures and printed names of50 Fellows or full Members.

NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT

A C A D E M Y N E W S 3

differentiate the innocent from the guilty through theuse of good scientific methods.

The Academy, through the Consortium of ForensicScience Organizations (CFSO), is working on developingthe needed commitment on the federal level. During theweek of May 12, 2003, members of the CFSO descendedon Washington, DC, to meet with representatives of thelegislative and executive branches of government toeducate them on the funding needs for the forensicsciences. Joe Polski, Chair of the CFSO, and Beth Lavash,CFSO’s consultant, met early in the week with theSenators from Minnesota and a Representative on theHouse Commerce, Justice and State AppropriationsCommittee. They also met with the Undersecretary forScience and Technology at the Department of HomelandSecurity. Their message was the importance of financialassistance to the crime laboratories and medical exam-iners offices around the country, and the nexus betweenthat assistance and quality forensic science produced in atimely manner.

On Wednesday, May 14, I joined Joe Polski, BethLavash, the Academy’s representative on the CFSO BarryFisher, AAFS President-Elect Ron Singer, and ASCLDPresident Susan Johns. We met with a staff memberfrom Senator Grassley’s office. Senator Grassley is onseveral budget and finance committees and is also amember of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ourimportant message to the staff member was that there

are many needs in the forensic science community inaddition to the DNA area. While DNA backlogs and otherissues have to be addressed, so do the backlogs in otherforensic science disciplines.

On Thursday of that week, Jamie Downs, repre-senting the National Association of Medical Examiners,joined us at the White House. We visited with DianaSchacht from the Office of the Domestic Policy Counciland Sara Hart, the Director of NIJ. We gave themupdated information on the needs of the forensic sciencecommunity. While we all support the President’s DNAinitiative, consideration has to be given to funding otherareas as well. Susan Johns collected and analyzed infor-mation on backlogs in crime laboratories, and pointedout that workload backlogs in the DNA area representonly five to eight percent of the total backlogs in crimelaboratories.

With the emphasis on the President’s DNA Initiativeby the administration, pursuing funding in other areaswill be a real struggle. Nevertheless, the CFSO and BethLavash continue to spread our message, a message basedon the collective experience and wisdom of the forensicscience community. Despite some pessimism, you cansee by the smile on our faces as we posed for a picture infront of the White House that we felt it was an accom-plishment for representatives of the leading forensicscience organizations to be together in Washingtonspeaking with a single voice.

PRESIDENT ’S MESSAGE CONT.

Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations members met with White House officials on May 15, 2003, to discuss funding for forensic science and medical examiners in the President's 2004 budget. From left, Ron Singer (AAFS President-Elect), Jamie Downs (representing NAME), Ken Melson (AAFS President), Susan Johns (ASCLD President), Beth Lavash (CFSO consultant),

Joe Polski (Chief Operations Officer - IAI) and Barry Fisher (representing AAFS).

The month of May was a busytime for the Consortium ofForensic Science Organizations.AAFS President Ken Melson,President-Elect Ron Singer, and Iwere in Washington along withother members of the Consortiumof Forensic Science Organizationsin our efforts to press for morefederal funding forensic science.Ken’s article discusses theseefforts.

I wanted to use this month’s column to discuss theneed for continued advocacy at the grass roots level.Former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil had a favoriteexpression: “All politics is local.” Of the many visits wehave made to Capitol Hill that refrain rings true.Congressman and Senators ask what their constituentsback home have to say about the need for funding forforensic science. It’s not that they doubt what we aresaying. The fact is that a crime lab director or medicalexaminer from his or her own state carries additionalweight.

You may recall that that I reported in the last issue ofthe Academy News that the Administration’s 2004 budgetprovides approximately $200M, but only for DNA-relatedprograms. Funds are not provided for medical examineroffices, nor for other crime lab related areas.

Each week I spend some time searching the web fornews stories about forensic science. When I find one, I passa copy on to our consultant Beth Lavash and I sometimescontact the crime lab director from the region the story isabout. We then try to have the director or medical examinercontact Congressmen or Senators from that State. Ourefforts are to press our case that there are many problemsfacing forensic science in addition to DNA typing. Theseefforts seem to be working.

Many Academy members have been willing to pick upthe telephone to make a call to key members of Congress intheir own State. A few have even been able to come toWashington to meet with members or their staffs. Letters tomembers also help, especially when a member can write tokey members of the House and Senate AppropriationsCommittees asking them to support the Academy’s position.

Some AAFS members may not able to pick up the phoneand make a call because of restrictions placed on them bytheir parent agencies. In such cases, we have asked them tocontact appropriate people in their organizations withwhom we can speak to make our case. In some cases wehave been able to have others place these calls on ourbehalf.

If you can help us out, we would greatly appreciate yoursupport.

At the 2004 AAFS meeting, we plan on holding a forumon how to affectively advocate for forensic science fundingand to bring you up to date on our continuing efforts. JoePolski, IAI Chief Operations Officer and Chairman of theConsortium of Forensic Science Organizations, Beth Lavash,CFSO consultant, Jamie Downs, and I will lead this forum.We hope you will make time to attend this session andbecome more affective spokespersons for forensic science.

On a final note, a long time friend and Academymember, Lisa Forman, is taking a leave of absence from theNational Institute of Justice to take a temporary position todirect medical research on a childhood genetic disease. Lisahas been a major force at NIJ and we will miss her and lookforward to her return. Another Academy member, KevinLothridge, Deputy Director of National Forensic ScienceTechnology Center, will be taking Lisa’s place for a year.Kevin will be a major asset to NIJ during Lisa’s absence andwill take on many of her duties. We acknowledge NIJ’s keyrole in administering federal funds to the forensic sciencecommunity and wish Lisa and Kevin every success in theirinterim positions.

LEGISLATIVE CORNER

Barry A.J. Fisher, MS, MBA

ABSTRACT FORM AVAILABLE TO SUBMIT ONLINE!

The Call for Papers deadline is fast approaching! Do you have an interesting and educational topic to present at the AAFS 56th Annual Meeting, February 16-21, 2003, in Dallas, TX? The deadline for submission of all abstracts isAugust 1, 2003. Please submit your abstracts now and keep in mind the meeting theme — “Truth and Justice in theBalance: Forensic Scientists as the Counterpoise.” The AAFS Call for Papers form may be found on pages 21-24 of thisissue of Academy News. HOWEVER, did you know you may also submit an abstract online? The online process is faster,easier, and provides immediate feedback from the AAFS office.

What are the requirements? Only that you have an e-mail address to receive your password and future communicationsfrom AAFS headquarters.

What are the advantages? You will receive immediate confirmation of receipt of your abstract, the assurance that yourpaper has been received at the AAFS headquarters, and best of all, access to your abstract for editing.

Remember, the deadline for receiving your abstract is August 1, so have your abstract and curriculum vitae ready toattach and send electronically. Visit the AAFS website at www.aafs.org, and follow the meeting links to the AAFS Call forPapers Online Form.

4 A C A D E M Y N E W S

The Forensic ScienceEducation ProgramsAccreditation Commission(FEPAC) is making steadyprogress in its mission “todevelop and to maintainstandards and to administer anaccreditation program thatrecognizes and distinguisheshigh quality undergraduate andgraduate forensic science pro-grams.” With continued fundingfrom the National Institute of

Justice, the Commission met on May 15 & 16, 2003, in theConference/Press Room of the National Institute of Justicein Washington, DC. AAFS President Ken Melson andPresident-Elect Ron Singer, who were in Washington atthe time on other AAFS business, attended the openingsession of the meeting. Ken and Ron commendedCommissioners for their vision and hard work in launchingthe accreditation initiative and offered continued supportto FEPAC members as they moved forward in theirmission.

Sarah Hart, NIJ Director, and Lisa Forman, Chief of the Investigative & Forensic Sciences Division, NIJ OS&T,made personal visits to welcome commissioners and toextend to them words of appreciation and futurecommitment.

The specific reason for this mid-year meeting inWashington was to finalize accreditation standards, policyand procedures, and a self-study and to prepare for thepilot accreditation for Fall 2003. Noting that the NIJ-sponsored TWGED document was official, FEPACChairman José Almirall affirmed the Commission’sintention to align the accreditation standards and policy & procedures with that document while following AAFSprotocol. Those draft documents will be presented to theAAFS Board of Directors at the Mid-Year Meeting for theirconsideration and review. One final goal of theCommissioners during the two-day mid-year meeting wasto determine which institutions and on-site reviewerapplicants would be selected for the pilot accreditationprocess in October/ November 2003. The six institutions(totaling eight academic programs) chosen for the firstround are Cedar Crest College (Allentown, PA), EasternKentucky University (Richmond, KY), Florida InternationalUniversity, (Miami, FL), Metropolitan State College ofDenver (Denver, CO), Michigan State University (EastLansing, MI), and Virginia Commonwealth University(Richmond, VA).

Information about FEPAC (summaries of meetingminutes, list of commissioners, draft documents, etc.) maybe found on the AAFS website (www.aafs.org) at the link“AAFS,” then “Committees,” and then “FEPAC.”

Academy members continue to provide textual andtechnical support to Court TV and its “Forensic In TheClassroom” lessons. Five AAFS Fellows (Ken Melson inAlexandria, Brian Gestring in New York City, Jennifer

Mihalovich in San Francisco, Adam Negruz in Chicago,and Allan Warnick in Detroit) were on hand at LoewsTheaters in those cities on April 29, 2003, for Court TV’s“Forensics Day” to assure that forensic science infor-mation provided by the network to teachers and studentswas both accurate and appropriate. While some aspectsof the DVD-produced brief program were not up toAcademy standards, Court TV officials have expressedtheir strong desire to rely upon the AAFS as the networkexpands its outreach educational activities. Future“Forensics Day” live, interactive telecasts, targeting othersites throughout the US, are in the offing and will buildupon existing lessons. AAFS advisors Tom Bohan, BrianGestring, and Suzanne Bell will continue to evaluatematerials being produced and to monitor progress of theinitiative.

There are encouraging signs of another successfulForensic Science Educational Conference. More than 50applications have already been received for the FSEC/UTAwhich will take place on October 17, 18, and 19, 2003, onthe campus of the University of Texas at Arlington.President-Elect Ron Singer, Patricia Eddings, and theConference Steering Committee have finalized the“Schedule of Events.” Lectures, roundtables, and hands-on workshops will include an overview of the crimelaboratory, forensic pathology, fingerprints, forensicbotany, impression evidence, forensic anthropology,forensic odontology, legal aspects of forensic science,current DNA capabilities and the future of DNA, bloodstain pattern analysis, hairs and fibers, forensic ento-mology, color tests in the crime lab, and crime sceneinvestigation and processing.

Teachers’ essays on why they believe an FSEC willbenefit them and their students are a constant reminderof why this AAFS outreach activity has much merit. The following comes from a science teacher in Delaware:

I teach in an economically depressed area. More than halfof my students are on free or reduced lunch. It's always a challenge to get them interested in their own education, sowhen something comes along that they are really interested inand also meets our state's science standards, I get very excited.All of my students watch CSI and have a high interest in thegenetics/heredity unit. If I can bring home hands-on activitiesthat bring the unit to life, I believe I can make more of a difference in their lives. I'm writing a grant to purchasematerials for the entire seventh grade to support a forensicsactivity.

Full information about the FSEC/UTA, sponsored bythe University, Court TV, and the AAFS is available on theAAFS website under the link “Meetings” and then “FSEducational Conference.”

It is not too late to attend the Third Annual EuropeanAcademy of Forensic Science Triennial Meeting which willtake place on September 22-27, 2003, in Istanbul, Turkey.The main theme of the conference is "Partnerships AgainstCrime." For further information, please log on to the EAFS2003 website (http://www.eafs2003.org/).

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

James P. HurleyAAFS Director of Development

A C A D E M Y N E W S 5

6 A C A D E M Y N E W S

The theme of the 2004 annual meeting is "Truth and Justice in the Balance: Forensic Scientists asthe Counterpoise." With less than a month to the deadline for abstracts, response to the Call forPapers has been outstanding. If you have not submitted your abstract, now is the time! In order toassemble the program in a timely fashion we must adhere to the August 1 deadline. TheAnnouncement and Call for Papers may be found on pages 21-24 of this issue of Academy News. Youare also encouraged to submit your abstracts electronically at http://aafs.org/abstracts/intro.asp.Please submit your proposals for workshops, breakfast seminars, luncheons, and other specialprogram functions as well.

The 2004 Program Co-Chairmen and the Program Committee are presently evaluating yourresponses to the surveys conducted at the Chicago meeting. The majority of comments were veryfavorable, other than the sadness of missing some of our colleagues due to the snowstorms whichblanketed the eastern seaboard and the vastness of the hotel facilities. The Dallas meeting location

will provide a more centralized facility that will accommodate convenient access to all sessions. We still can't figure out how tocontrol Mother Nature, so we'll hope for a mild winter. We received many excellent suggestions from the surveys that we willincorporate in the 2004 program.

The Program Committee is ready to receive the rest of your abstracts and proposals. We will be calling on many of you toassist with the review of abstracts. The quality of the program is dependent on your devotion to good science.

Mark your calendars for the dates in Dallas, TX, February 16-21, 2004. We look forward to seeing you there!

A WORD FROM YOUR 2004 PROGRAM CO-CHAIRMAN

Carol Henderson, JD

What topics should be addressed at the Academy’s 56th Annual Meeting? AAFS members are asked to send suggestionsfor topics of interest/needs for the 2004 AAFS Annual Meeting to the Academy headquarters. All responses received will becommunicated to the program committee members when they commence their review of abstract submissions. Take thisopportunity to have a voice on the program content in Dallas; send your suggestions today. Should you have any questions,please contact Nancy Jackson (njackson@aafs.org) at the AAFS office.

AAFS TOPICS OF INTEREST/NEEDS REQUESTED

BREAKFAST SEMINAR TOPICS SOLICITEDPresentations for breakfast seminars to be conducted during the AAFS 56th Annual Meeting in Dallas are being

solicited by Chairman Anthony Falsetti. Because of the popularity of these programs, topics are expected to undergo acareful review and selection process. It is disappointing to turn away potentially excellent presentations because theabstract was received too late to ensure a time slot on the program.

Please call Tony at (352) 392-6772, or e-mail: falsetti@ufl.edu, with your ideas or questions. All abstracts must besubmitted by August 1 to the AAFS office.

LAST WORD SOCIETYPresentations for the Last Word Society at the 2004 AAFS Annual Meeting are being solicited. Since the primary purpose

of this session is enjoyment for both the listeners and the presenters, presentations should be on cases of wide generalinterest which have forensic science connotations. The material presented should represent either new or little known infor-mation, a fresh approach to old information, a personal involvement in an unusual case, or one of historical interest.

If you wish to participate, please submit your abstract as soon as possible to the AAFS office. Additionally, you may wishto forward a brief outline of your story to Last Word Society Chairman James Starrs, George Washington University, 72020th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20052; jstarrs@main.nlc.gwu.edu.

PROGRAM 2004 - DALLAS

CRIMINALISTICS

Source: John D. DeHaan, PhD, Section Program Chairman

Considering the theme for the 2004 Meeting – Truthand Justice in the Balance... – the idea for a joint sessionfocusing on “Seeing Both Sides of the Coin” seems like anatural. Members of both the Engineering Sciences andCriminalistics Sections, particularly private sectorpractitioners, find themselves seeing cases from bothprosecution/plaintiff and defense perspectives (pre-sumably not all three in the same case). Carol Erikson ofthe Engineering Sciences Section and John DeHaanwould like to invite all interested parties to contributepapers on this topic. The plan is to invite someone fromthe Jurisprudence Section to act as moderator who couldoffer commentary or mediate a debate on the role of theindependent forensic scientist or engineer in balancingthose scales of justice. There may be an opportunity toattract some users of forensic services such as prose-cutors, public defenders, or plaintiff and defense civillitigators to join in the fray.

Two other topics that have currency (and someurgency) concern the shift of criminalists away fromproviding crime scene responses and away from tradi-tional trace evidence and impression evidence analysesto more clinical, in-lab activities. It seems that with everyretirement of an experienced crime scene or traceperson, the profession loses more expertise. Thisknowledge was earned through years of experience andfrom a variety of sources, and there seems to be littleinterest in some sectors to maintain or replace it, letalone improve it. All the fancy tools and pretty picturesin the world will not help if the knowledge of scenereconstruction and trace evidence analysis is lost. Asession or a panel discussion on “Criminalists at CrimeScenes” and one on “Vanishing Trace Evidence Expertise”would seem very valuable. Perhaps there are still a lot ofpractitioners of these seeming “lost arts” out there andthey are just not being heard from anymore. Remember,without being able to put evidence into a meaningfulphysical context, the analysis of that evidence, no matterhow accurate or sensitive, is of limited use (and may bemore hazard than help!).

“Fires in Clandestine Drug Labs” is a topic thatshould spark the interest of a wide cross-section of theCriminalistics Section membership (and other sections aswell!), so that is under consideration as well as a work-short or as a session. Let’s hear from you if you areinterested in hosting one of these special sessions. If you know of a speaker/instructor that you considerknowledgeable and capable, please let us know rightaway so we can begin “persuading” the candidates.

No matter where your interests may be inCriminalistics, there will be a spot in the program foryou. Together, let’s make Dallas – 2004 the mostmemorable Criminalistics program ever! Contact JohnDeHaan at (707) 643-4672, or by fax (707) 643-4682 forbest results.

ENGINEERING SCIENCES

Source: Carol A. Erikson, MSPH, Section Program Chairman

Preparations for the 2004 Annual Meeting in Dallasare well underway, with lots of folks lending their con-siderable talents to the effort. Several changes haveoccurred to the program plans. In April, Gary Brown hadto step down from the Program Chairman position dueto time constraints. Carol Erikson is now serving asProgram Chairman for the upcoming annual meeting.Active tracks and chairs stand as follows: Environmental- Gary Brown (grbrwn@aol.com); Automotive/AccidentReconstruction - Holly Adams (asaholly@comcast.net);BioMedical Engineering - Laura Liptai (liptai@biomedicalforensics.com); Electrical Accidents - Peter Brosz(pbrosz@brosz.net); Mechanical Safety - AdamAleksander (aka@aleksander.net); Walkway/PedestrianSafety - Mark Marpet (mmarpet@rcn.com).

While the track chairs are actively soliciting papersfor presentation, contributions from any and all members(or friends who might be considering becomingmembers) are certainly welcome. Please don’t feellimited to the topics listed above; there will be anappropriate venue for all high quality presentations onany Engineering Sciences subject!

The section is also working toward a joint sessionwith Jurisprudence and Criminalistics, an idea originatedby John De Haan, entitled “Seeing Both Sides of theCoin.” Members of Engineering Sciences andCriminalistics Sections, especially private sectorpractitioners, may participate in a given case from eitherthe prosecution/plaintiff or the defense perspective. Howdo these perspectives compare? Are they different? Howdo you approach/handle/deal with them? Do you have acase study (or two) you can share? Answers to any ofthese questions (or others of your own making) shouldlead to some interesting papers for Dallas. Contact John DeHaan at (707) 643-4672, or Carol Erikson atcerikson@trilliuminc.com, with any questions or suggestions.

Watch for a workshop entitled “How to be a BetterExpert Witness,” organized by Environmental Track ChairGary Brown. This is one you won’t want to miss!

Don’t forget that the deadline for submission ofabstracts is August 1, 2003. It’s easy, quick, and efficientto do it all on-line, at www.aafs.org.

A correction: Robert Anderson is chairing theStudent Academy Committee. Laura Liptai, who was previously identified as the chair, is serving on the committee.

Looking forward to reviewing papers in August, andseeing you all in Dallas in February!

8 A C A D E M Y N E W S

continued on page 10

A C A D E M Y N E W S 9

GENERAL

Source: John E. Gerns, MFS, Section Secretary

Section Program Chairman Jim Adcock remindssection members to submit paper abstracts to theAcademy office by the August 1 deadline. Opportunitiesto share research, training, and experience make each session valuable. Please consider presenting your work toensure a solid slate of scientific papers for the meeting inDallas, TX. AAFS has even made it easier now by allowingonline submission of abstracts.

Many members of the General Section have expertiseto share in a longer format than an oral paper or poster.Consider proposing a workshop to share your knowledgewith others. Workshop plans should also be submitted assoon as possible, but no later than August 1, to theAcademy Program Workshop Chairman.

Awards Committee Chairman Vernon McCartyreminds all members that nominations for the John R.Hunt Award and the Paul W. Kehres Meritorious ServiceAwards must be received in writing by August 1. If youknow of any section member deserving of either of theseawards, please submit the written recommendationpromptly. It has been two years since the General Sectionhas recognized one of its members for their superb contri-butions to the AAFS and the General Section. Let’s not letanother year go by without nominating the deservingmembers in the General Section for these prestigiousawards.

ODONTOLOGY

Source: Pamela W. Hammel, DDS, Section Chairman

As you all may be aware, the Odontology Section willhave an election of officers at the next meeting in Dallas.In an effort to familiarize the section membership withhow the system works:

Frank Wright is the Chairman of the section’sNominating Committee. He will ask a Fellow in the sectionto be a committee member. The past chairman, MikeTabor, is a committee member, and he will ask a Memberof the section to also be on the committee. The fifthmember of the committee is appointed by the currentchairman, and Scott Firestone has graciously agreed to beappointed to the committee. This committee will have theslate of officers selected by late autumn in order to havetheir names published in the January edition of theAcademy News. Nominations are also accepted from thefloor at the annual business meeting. By tradition, the newofficer elected is for Program Chairman, and all officersserve a two year term. So please plan on attending thebusiness meeting as elections are very important.

Scott Firestone did a fantastic job at the 2003meeting coordinating the computers used by the presenters. Scott worked all day, both days, and deservesa huge "thank you" from the section. He's a glutton forpunishment as he has volunteered to do it again next year,

which will also save the section some funds. Thanks, Scott.In March, the American Dental Association, in con-

junction with the US Public Health Service, held the firstever conference — "Dentistry's Role in Responding toBioterrorism and Other Catastrophic Events" — inWashington, DC. It was gratifying to see so manymembers of the Odontology Section in attendance,including Tom David, Richard Scherf, Phil Levine, VirginiaMerchant, Gary Berman, and Jane Kaminski. Also, JefferyBurkes presented as part of the outstanding faculty. Theconsensus is that there will be much the dental professioncan do in the event of bio attack.

Wishing you all a safe, healthy, and wonderfulsummer. Remember Charlie Brown's words: "Summer runs,and winter walks." So, have a good one!

PATHOLOGY/BIOLOGY

Source: John C. Hunsaker III, MD, JD, Section Secretary

The deadline for abstract submission for the 2004meeting in Dallas next February is August 1.SectionProgram Chairman Victor Weedn recommends early sub-mission to guarantee timely review. For easier processingand prompt feedback, visit the AAFS website for instruc-tions about online submission. Remember, the ResearchCommittee offers some funding. Grant applications toSection Chairman Greg Davis are due September 1.Residents who are eligible for the Best Resident Paperaward, including a $500 cash bonus, are encouraged tosubmit papers. Jack Frost, Best Resident Paper CommitteeChairman, congratulates Angela Wetherton, the 2003winner for her oral presentation, Investigation of TimeInterval for Recovery of Semen and Spermatozoa from FemaleInternal Genitalia.

Members should consider development of collabo-rative, cross-sectional ½- or full-day workshops, brieferworkshorts, or the popular multidisciplinary joint sessionswithin the scientific program.

In commemoration of the 50th volume of the Journal ofForensic Sciences in 2005, a special issue containing“seminal papers” from each section will be published.Please nominate papers previously published during the50-year chronicle of the Journal. Such epochal papersshould manifest a unique, far-reaching impact on the waypractitioners re-think and practice the specialty.Nominations and a short rationale for selection should besent by early summer to the Greg David (205-930-3603 orgdavis@path.uab.edu) or John Hunsaker (502-564-4545 orjhunsak@uky.edu) for submission to the editorial board.

The current lack of ANY funding from NIJ for non-DNAforensic science, particularly for Coverdell (NFSIA) legis-lation, should prompt all concerned about this zero-fundingstatus to contact their Congressional representatives!!

SECTION & PROGRAM NEWS

PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

Source: Marilyn R. London, MA, Section Secretary

Section Program Chairman Paul Sledzik is seekingmoderators for the 2004 sessions. Each session willrequire two moderators: one to handle powerpoint pre-sentations and computer issues, and another to manageintroductions, time, and related topics. Those who wishto moderate, contact Paul at sledzik@afip.osd.mil.

The Mountain, Swamp & Beach crew is scheduled tomeet in Chattanooga this year, with Tom Bodkin as host,sometime around Labor Day weekend. Anyone interestedin getting on the MSB mailing list, please send an email toelizabeth_murray@mail.msj.edu and she'll be sure you arenotified of meeting details as they emerge.

Steve Symes has accepted a teaching/research positionwith Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute at MercyhurstCollege in Erie, PA (http://mai.mercyhurst.edu/). His newemail is SSymes@mercyhurst.edu, as of the last week ofJune. Steve and Dennis Dirkmaat will be developing a'Center of Excellence' for the College, with a new MAprogram in Physical/Forensic Anthropology, and a BS inapplied Forensic Sciences. Steve will continue to consultand lecture nationally and internationally since the collegeis quite interested in international student participation.

PSYCHIATRY & BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

Source: Gregory B. Leong, MD, Section Secretary

Section Fellow-at-Large J. Arturo Silva has just pub-lished a second article in his research stream involving theuse of a Neurodevelopmental Model for the study of serialkillers. His first article on the subject was published in theNovember 2002 issue of the Journal of Forensic Sciences.

Section Program Chairman Stephen Billick has justbeen nominated to be a candidate for the office of VicePresident of the American Academy of Psychiatry and theLaw. Section Chairman and former AAFS PresidentRichard Rosner anticipates a summer release of Textbookof Adolescent Psychiatry, which he has edited.

QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS

Source: John L. Sang, MS, Section Secretary

It is with great sadness to report the passing of asenior member of the Questioned Documents Section.James V.P. Conway, who passed away on May 29, 2003.Mr. Conway had served as Section Secretary, Chairman,and Chairman of the Academy Council. He was also therecipient of the Distinguished Fellow Award and served asa past Director with the ABFDE and a past President of theASQDE. Mr. Conway was a former Deputy PostmasterGeneral, Postal Inspector in charge of San FranciscoIdentification Laboratory, U. S. Postal Inspection Serviceand the author of Evidential Documents. Mr. Conway was a

role model and he will be sadly missed by all, but hisvalued contributions to the document community will behis legacy.

The next Academy meeting will be here in no time atall and preparations are well underway. The ProgramChairman for the 2004 meeting is Dale Stobaugh (512-424-2105; Dale.Stobaugh@txdps.state.tx.us ). Dale is busy preparing another full program, including work-shops. Please let him know how you are going to partic-ipate in the program. If you have not already done so,please submit your abstract form to ensure your spot onthe program. Don't forget that the abstract deadline isAugust 1, 2003. Dale is still surveying the field andrequests information on the type of workshop you wouldlike to have at the meeting.

Anyone wishing to nominate a colleague for the 2003Hilton Award should contact Awards Chairman JanetMasson as soon as possible (jfmasson@netropolis.net).

If any of your colleagues are not members of AAFS,now is the time to invite them to join and take advantageof this opportunity for professional development,enhancement of their knowledge in the field, and to shareideas with AAFS colleagues. Members are encouraged atthis time of year to apply for promotions. Applications areavailable online at www.aafs.org, or from Kimberly Wrasse(kwrasse@aafs.org).

TOXICOLOGY

Source: Timothy P. Rohrig, PhD, Section Program Chairman

It is not too soon to begin planning for the 2004meeting in Dallas, TX. Although several individuals havealready expressed interest in assisting in next year’sprogram, more assistance is always needed. Participationin the Toxicology Section program is a good way to worktoward one’s promotion to Member or Fellow status.

The success of the program is dependent upon highquality scientific presentations. To this end, all membersare asked to consider sharing their knowledge and expe-rience through a formal presentation, be it platform or aposter.

Workshops are another educational benefit at theAcademy meetings. Everyone is encouraged to suggesttopics and/or consider presenting a workshop. The sectionhas historically asked that the workshop proposals bereviewed by the Program Chairman (Tim Rohrig) and theWorkshop Chairman (Adam Negrusz) prior to submissionto the Academy.

Plans to continue the successful annual Lectureship inToxicology are underway. The topic will be announced inthe near future. Robert Middleburg has agreed tocontinue his special session on Pediatric Toxicology onFriday afternoon.

With your help, this will be another great meeting!Hope to see “y’all” in Dallas next February.

Please email any comments, suggestions and/or if youwould like to volunteer to assist in next year’s program(trohrig@sedgwick.gov).

SECTION & PROGRAM NEWS CONT.

1 0 A C A D E M Y N E W S

The Forensic Sciences Foundation, Inc., gratefully acknowledges the generous contributions made to theFoundation. Please accept our apologies if your name has been inadvertently omitted and contact the AAFS office assoon as possible with the correction. This listing reflects contributions received from 08/01/02 through 06/01/03.

CONTRIBUTORSThe percentages shown indicate the number of members within each section who havecontributed to the Endowment Fund.

1 4 A C A D E M Y N E W S

CRIMINALISTICS(4%)$101+ - “Chairman’s Circle”Peter T. Ausili, MSBAJan S. Bashinski, MCrimAnne R. Manly, ABL. Rafael Moreno G., MDAnita K.Y. Wonder, BS, MA

$51-$100 - “Trustee”Peter De Forest, DCrimJoseph M. Galdi, MSHoward A. Harris, PhD, JDMichele E. Kestler, MSCaroline M. Kim, MSBenjamin A. Perillo, BASteven M. Sottolano, BS, MHRODRobert Strader, BAKay Sweeney, BS

Up to $50 - “Board Member”José R. Almirall, PhDSanford Angelos, MS, MEdPhilip R. Antoci, MSSusan M. Ballou, MSEdward G. Bernstine, PhDJoseph P. Bono, MAGail M. Conklin, MFSRobert S. Conley, BSLydia de Castro, BSJohn De Haan, PhDWilliam R. Dietz, BSJulia A. Dolan, MSBarton P. Epstein, BSSheila M Estacio, BAHiram K. Evans, MScBarry A.J. Fisher, MS, MBADavid Fisher, BSDon Flynt, BSRichard S. Frank, BSJennilee FratellenicoMary Lou Fultz, PhDDean M. Gialamas, MSJo Ann Given, MSShawn Marie Gordon, MAMichael E. Gorn, MSSheila E. Hamilton, PhDPaul A. Hojnacki, MFSLucy Davis Houck, BHSThomas J. Janovsky, BSEdwin L. Jones, Jr., MSRoger Kahn, PhDArif Kalantar, BScCarl P. KleinJason C. Kolowski, BADarline Laffittee, MSHenry C. Lee, PhDJohn J. Lentini, BAJose A. Lorente, MD, PhD

Miguel Lorente, MD, PhDDouglas M. Lucas, MS, DScNicolas Martinez Hern, BSCarl F. Matthies, BA, MFSNancy S. McDonagh, MSDennis McGuire, MSRichard E. Meyers, MSCatherine Musgrave-Nels, BSDaniel C. Nippes, MSCarla Miller Noziglia, MSAlison S. Ochiae, BAStephen M. Ojena, MSNicholas Petraco, MSJames O. Pex, MSDale K. Purcell, MSEarl L. Ritzline, BSLinda C. Rourke, BACatherine N. Rowe, BAMarie Samples, MSGeorge Sensabaugh, DCrimCarl M. Selavka, PhDGeorge Sensabaugh, DCrimMichael G. Sheppo, MSJay A. Siegel, PhDThomas P. Simpson, BSRonald Singer, MSCharles Tindall, PhDCecilia H. von Beroldinge, PhDMargaret M. Wallace, PhDJoseph E. Warren, MS, PhDEdward Whittaker, BSC. Ken Williams, MSDonald A. Wyckoff, BA, BSG. Michael Yezzo, BSJennifer Zawacki, MS

ENGINEERING SCIENCES(11%)$51-$100 - “Trustee”Eugene F. Tims, DSc, PE

Up to $50 - “Board Member”Robert N. Anderson, PhD, PEThomas L. Bohan, PhD, JDHelmut G. Brosz, BASc, PEngPeter J.E. BroszRoy R. Crawford, PE, PLSGerald R.A. Fishe, PEZeno Geradts, MSc, PhDRaymond K. Hart, PhD, JDJames B. Hyzer, PhDWilliam G. Hyzer, PERobert Pentz, BSDonn N. Peterson, MSME, PESidney Rubin, BSEE, MSME, PEDavid J. Schorr, PESteven M. Schorr, PEThomas P. Shefchick, BSEE, PE

Gary D. Sloan, PhDJohn A. Talbott, BS, PERobert E. Witter, MSEE, PE

GENERAL(6%)$51-$100 - “Trustee”William B. Andrews, MFSRonald L. Buskirk, MPAPaul R. Davison, BSRobert A. Freed, BS

Up to $50 - “Board Member”Tom Bevel, MAAngela G. Birt, MFSTerri Biswanger, BSJane H. Bock, PhDAlan F. Boehm, MFSB.G. Brogdon, MDKaren Taggart Campbell, MDThomas C. Coburn, MDC.J. CrumleyGeorge A. Durgin, Jr., MFSJanet Barber Duval, RN, MSPenny Englert, RDH, BSRod Englert, BSJamie Ferrell, BSNSuzanne M. Froede, MABetty Pat. Gatliff, BAJohn E. Gerns, MFSJames G. Gray, MS, MFSSusan L. Hanshaw, MFS, RNJulie A. Howe, BSRobert L. Hunkeler III, MFSEarl W.K. James, JD, PhDBetty L. James, LLB, BSN, MAShannon LangDaniel Marion, Jr., MFAJohn W. Mastalski, BAHerbert Masthoff, PhDWarren J. McChesney, Jr., MFS, MAPatrick M. McKeown, MSWilliam Middleton, Jr., MFSJon J. Nordby, PhDPaul Pierce, MFSJack Pinkus, PhDJames K. Poorman, MFSRobert K. Ressler, MSRobert Thibault, MFSWavelet S. Thompson, BST.L. Williams, BA, MFS

JURISPRUDENCE(6%)$51-$100 - “Trustee”John B. Carraher, LLBCynthia L. Windsor, JD

Up to $50 - “Board Member”Jason Kogan, JDDonald E. Mielke, JDDon Harper Mills, MD, JDAndre A. Moenssens, JD, LLMHaskell M. Pitluck, MDPatricia W. Robinson, MS, JDDanielle D. Ruttman, JDWalter W. Stern III, JD

ODONTOLOGY(19%)$51-$100 - “Trustee”Sanford Block, DDS, LLBCynthia Brzozowski, DMDHenry J. Dondero, DDSDelora Fletcher, DDSJohn P. Kenney, DDSBarry E. Lipton, DDSJ. Randall Pearce, DDSRichard M. Scanlon, DMDMartin W. Scanlon, DDS

Up to $50 - “Board Member”William E. Alexander, DMDRobert C. Ankerman, DDSMark T. Armstrong, DDSJeff D. Aronsohn, DDSRobert E. Barsley, DDS, JDMarvin R. Bledsoe, DDSJeffrey R. Burkes, DDSRobert C. Byrd, DDSHomer R. Campbell, Jr., DDSJohn M. Carson, DDSBrian D. Christian, DMDSheila McFadden Dashkow, DDSRichard D. Dial, DDSGregory T. Dickinson, MS, DDSJohn E. Filippi, DDSScott R. Firestone, DDSDelora FletcherJohn F. Frasco, DDSB. Kalman Friedman, DDSJoseph R. Gentile, DDSDavid A. Grossman, DDSRoger E. Hasey, DDSJohn S. Isaac, DDSMeredith B. Jaffe, DDSRobert C. Johnson, DDSRaymond M. Juriga, DMDMitchell M. Kirschbaum, DDSRobert J. Koolkin, DDSGeorge J. Kottemann, DDSA. Michael Krakow, DMDBarry D. Kurtz, DDSKevin G. Landon, DDSR. Daryl Libby, DDSWilliam T. Lichon, DDS

A C A D E M Y N E W S 1 5

Kim M. Look, DDSRobert G. Lyon, DDSBrian S. Margolis, DDSJames McGivney, DMDArthur L. Mollin, DDSAlice H. Moore, DDSWilliam T. Moore, DDSLillian A. Nawrocki, DDSWalter P. Neumann II, DDSAraceli Ortiz, DMD, MSDDiane T.S. Penola, MAMichel Perrier, DDSRalph M. Phelan, DDSFrancis S. Przlomski, DDSGerald M. Reynolds, DDSKeith Riley, DDSSusan K. Rivera, DDSThomas P. Rumreich, DDSRichard B. Serchuk, DDSHarvey A. Silverstein, DDSDavid Sipes, DDS, MFSBrion C. Smith, DDSHelena Soomer, DDSMichael N. Sobel, DMDDuane E. Spencer, DDSNorman D. Sperber, DDSFrank M. Stechey, DDSPaul G. Stimson, DDSAnthony K.Y. Sur, DDSWarren D. Tewes, DDSElverne M. Tonn, DDSKathryn I. Vitiello, DMDGregory A. Waite, DDSAllan J. Warnick, DDSDavid W. Watkins, BA, DMDBruce R. Wiley, DMDRobert G. Williams, DDSRobert E. Wood, DDS, PhDKimberly L. Woodard, BS

PATHOLOGY/BIOLOGY(8%)$101+ - “Chairman’s Circle”Neil A. Hoffman, MDHideo H. Itabashi, MD

$51-$100 - “Trustee”Michael D. Bell, MDCharles A. Catanese, BA, MDEdmund R. Donoghue, MDH.E. Fillinger, Jr., MDRoberto Fiori, MDJeffrey D. Hubbard, MDRobert W. Huntington III, MDJames A. Kaplan, MDAmy Martin, MDJohn Pless, MD

Up to $50 - “Board Member”Sally S. Aiken, MDMichael M. Baden, MDCarlton-Jane Beck, BSStanley M. Becker, MDPeter Benson, MDLynda Biedrzycki, MDTamara Bloom, MDCarlo P. Campobasso, MD, PhD

Joye M. Carter, MDJames L. Caruso, MDYung A. Chung, MDJ. Scott Denton, MDJohn A. DiMaggio, DPMNunzio Di Nunno, MDGiancarlo Di Vella, MD, PhDJC Upshaw Downs, MDJennie V. Duval, MDPatrick M. Fardal, MD, JDMarcella F. Fierro, MDRichard C. Froede, MDJames L. Frost, MDMasaki Q. Fujita, MD, PhDCharles Garrett, MDMirella Gherardi, MDM. Lee Goff, PhDMarie H. Hansen, MDThomas F. Hegert, MDThomas Henry, MDMarie A. Herrmann, MDJames T. Hicks, MD, PhDPaul J. Hoyer, MD, PhDJohn C. Hunsaker III, JD, MDKazuhiko Kibayashi, MDLawrence Kobilinsky, PhDThomas Krompecher, MD, PhDMarc A. Krouse, MDNeil E. Langlois, MBBCh, MA, MDRobert D. Lawrence, MDSamuel A. Livingstone, MDJames L. Luke, MDAbubakr A. Marzouk, MDPatricia J. McFeeley, MDLoren J. Mednick, MDBruce Odean Parks, MDHeather N. Raaf, MDRobert P. Raker, MDJames K. Ribe, MD, JDLeRoy Riddick, MDSusan J. Roe, MDWilliam P. Ryan, MBBSGregory A. Schmunk, MDStanley F. Seligman, MDJoel S. Sexton, MDMichael J. Shkrum, MDMarta C. Steinberg, MDPeter J. Stephens, MDLarry R. Tate, MDShakuntala Teas, MDJames Thorpen, MDShigeyuki Tsunenari, MDEdward B. Waldrip, PhDCyril H. Wecht, MD, JDRonald K. Wright, MD, JD

PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY(14%) $51-$100 - “Trustee”Laura C. Fulginiti, PhD

Up to $50 - “Board Member”Bradley J. Adams, PhDDana Austin, PhDHelen E. Bassett, MAWalter H. Birkby, PhD

Karen Ramey Burns, PhDPeggy C. Caldwell-Ott, MAMelinda L. Carter, PhDElissia Conlon, BAThomas A.J. Crist, PhDHelen M. Dockall, PhDLeslie E. Eisenberg, PhDMichael Finnegan, PhDDiane L. France, PhDEugene Giles, PhDWilliam E. Grant, MAJ. Michael Hoffman, MD, PhDRichard Jantz, PhDLinda L. Klepinger, PhDElias J. Kontanis, BS, BAMary H. Manhein, MALee Meadows Jantz, PhDJerry Melbye, PhDElizabeth A. Murray, PhDJessica A. NewnamThomas P. O’Neill, MARobert F. Pastor, PhDLorna C. Pierce, PhDJulie Mather Saul, BAFrank P. Saul, PhDPaul S. Sledzik, MSRichard G. Snyder, PhDJudy Suchey, PhDJohn W. Verano, PhDMichael W. Warren, PhDHelen M. Wols, PhD

PSYCHIATRY & BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE(7%)$51-$100 - “Trustee”Jonathan R. Kelly, MD

Up to $50 - “Board Member”Brian J. Bigelow, PhDAlan R. Felthous, MDMark Jaffe, MDStanley R. Kern, MDDaniel A. Martell, PhDLawrence K. Richards, MDRichard Rosner, MDKaushal K. Sharma, MDJ. Arturo Silva, MDJ. Micael Walsh, PhDJames K. Wolfson, MDJohn L. Young, MD

QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS(13%)$51-$100 - “Trustee”William D. Duane, BAJames L. Hayes, BASusan E. Morton, BADennis J. Ryan, MBA

Up to $50 - “Board Member”Riad F. Basalah, MFSJames A. Black, BSPhilip D. Bouffard, PhDJack R. Calvert, BSDuayne Dillon, DCrimMaria G. Flores, MS

Nanette G. Galbraith, BSJohn S. Gencavage, BSJames A. Green, BSDonna M. Grim, BSGary R. Herbertson, MDJ. Michael Hull, BSMaria Jose Martir-Alario, BAJanet F. Masson, BJCarl R. McClary, BAGregory A. McNally, BSGordon C. Menzies, Jr., BAA. Lamar Miller, MSDavid L. Oleksow, BSMaureen Casey Owens, ABCharles E. Perrotta, MSFSRichard A. Roper, PhDPhilip A. Rusk, MFSJohn L. Sang, MSJohn R. Sardone, MSEllen Mulcrone Schuetzner, BAGrant R. Sperry, BSDiane K. Tolliver, BS, MPAJanis Winchester, MS

TOXICOLOGY(10%)$101+ - “Chairman’s Circle”Bryan S. Finkle, PhD

$51-$100 - “Trustee”Fred S. Apple, PhDMichael R. Baylor, PhDLarry B. Howard, PhDJames W. Jones, PhDThomas C. Kupiec, PhDMichael A. Peat, PhDRobert K. Simon, PhDCharles L. Winek, PhD

Up to $50 - “Board Member”William H. Anderson, PhDDavid M. Andrenyak, PhDChristopher Boden, BSDonna M. Bush, PhDYale H. Caplan, PhDMichael R. Corbett, PhDRebecca Elledge, MSBruce A. Goldberger, PhDBradford R. Hepler, PhDDaniel S. Isenschmid, PhDGraham R. Jones, PhDBarry S. Levine, PhDMark B. Lewis, BSThomas J. Manning, PhDLaureen Marinetti, MSElizabeth K. Marker, PhDAndrew P. Mason, PhDSamuel E. Mathews, PhDJoel M. Mayer, PhDF. Leland McClure III, PhDMichael P. McGee, BSAshraf Mozayani, PhD, PharmDAdam Negrusz, PhDHenry C. Nipper, PhDAlex J. Novak, PhDVincent M. Papa, PhD

continued on page 16

1 6 A C A D E M Y N E W S

Guy V. Purnell, MSWayne B. Ross, MCLSMichael I. Schaffer, PhDRichard F. Shaw, BSMichael Slade, PhDKenichi Takaichi, BScRobert F. Turk, PhD

James C. Valentour, PhDMichael J. Ward, PhDVickie Watts, MSJ. Wells, PhDRobert M. White, Sr., PhDMark F. Young, PhD

American Academy ofForensic Sciences

In Memory of Arthur J. McBay, PhDNeil A. Hoffman, MD

NON-MEMBERSSamuel I. BlittmanPeter J.E. Brosz, BEngJim and Becky HurleyJacqueline Fish

FSF CONTRIBUTORS. . . CONT.

AAFS GENERAL SECTION MEMBERS — THANK YOU!

The Forensic Sciences Foundation wishes to express its deep appreciation for the General Section'sgenerosity. The Section recently donated $5,000 to the Foundation's Endowment Fund. This donation is a largestep toward the goal of $500,000 by 2005. A major function of the Endowment Fund is to provide monetaryfunding for research in forensic science through its Acorn and Lucas Grants. Interest earned on donations is usedto provide funding for such grants. The closer we come to reaching our goal, the larger the monetary fundsbecome. Thank you, General Section members!

FOUNDATION NEWS

Source: Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FSF Chairman

Summer is upon us and school is out, but education is the continued focus of the FSF.Many of you have seen the new and revised FSF Career Book, So You Want To Be A Forensic Scientist! which is now

available on the AAFS website. But did you also know that copies of this fascinating informational book are available forschools? It is the goal of the FSF to have a copy of the FSF Career Book in every middle, high school, and college library.For more information, contact Kathy Reynolds at kreynolds@aafs.org.

To acknowledge the support that many of you continue to give to the FSF every year, categories of giving have been created. Look at the FSF Contributors list on the previous pages? Find your name? If it's not there, why don't youconsider making a donation to the FSF? See page 35 for a contribution form.

I'd like to personally thank Susan Morton of the Questioned Document Section, for her recent donation of usedequipment to the FSF. This equipment was being surplussed, but by donating it to the FSF, it will find a new home inAfrica, courtesy of ICITAP! What a great way to assist forensic scientists not as fortunate as we.

Equipment, instruments, and supplies are desperately needed in other countries. Imagine that you have theknowledge but not the means to use it because of a lack of resources. In Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, for instance, the test-firing of weapons is still done in a cotton box; the document section has no microscope; and one magnifying loop forfingerprint comparisons is shared by six fingerprint examiners. These are situation that we would find intolerable, yet thescientists there do a good job with these limited resources.

Instead of tossing out those old supplies, or surplussing that perfectly good ESDA, GCMS or microscope, considerdonating it to the Foundation. It will be put to good use and it won't cost you a cent! Please, won't you donate that oldequipment now? You'll have the satisfaction of knowing you helped other scientists do a good job. Contact CarlaNoziglia at skipncar@aol.com, or Dan Garner at daniel.garner@usdoj.com for more information.

A new committee of the FSF has been formed, the Futures Committee. Chaired by Ken Field, it is charged withidentifying a vision for the FSF: where we are, where we want to be, what we should do to get there. If you have ideas,contact Ken at ksfield@aol.com.

Enjoy your summer and the extra time with your children and grandchildren.

A C A D E M Y N E W S 1 7

THE LAW’S MANTRA: FINALITY A.K.A. . CLOSURE

In penning the lines “when‘tis done, ne’er will beundone,” Shakespeare wasmost unwittingly voicing thelaw’s mantra of finality or, inthe contemporary parlance,closure. The urge to call itquits resonates in the law,both in the opinions from thecourts as well as in thestatutes issuing from the leg-islative halls. No one, itseems, who is in the slightestway linked to the law

espouses or promotes continuation of litigation in perpe-tuity. An end must be in sight, else enough will never beenough and an end will never arrive. The door to thecourts must be shut tight at some point or so it isfrequently asseverated by judges, legislators and publiccommentators alike.

One would think it to be incontrovertible that death,without more, would bring finality to legal proceedingsbut that has been proved, on rare occasions, not to be the case.

The opponents of capital punishment have strivenmightily – high and low, long and hard, even far and wide– to find a case where someone was executed upon con-viction for a crime of which that person was not genuinelyand demonstrably guilty. It is thought that such a case,better, or cases would have a debilitating effect on thearguments of those who support capital punishment.After all, surely everyone would be at least chagrined andshaken by the knowledge that an innocent person hadbeen executed. Maybe, so it is conceived, such a findingwould be the tidal wave sufficient to swallow up thethinking that capital punishment has a rightful place in thecriminal justice system.

Just such an effort to debunk capital punishment waslaunched in the Virginia state courts some ten years afterVirginia executed Roger Keith Coleman for the murder ofWanda McCoy.

The trial and sentencing to death of Roger Colemanwas a cause celebre in Virginia and around the world inthe ten years from his capital trial in 1982 for the rape-murder of Wanda McCoy until his execution in 1992. Now,in 2002, the Virginia Supreme Court has rendered anopinion (The Globe Newspaper Company, d/b/a The BostonGlobe v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 264 Va. 622, 570 S.E.2d. 809 (2002)) focusing on the trial and conviction ofColeman, even though long dead and, to that extent, hehaving gained a kind of finality.

The gravamen of the case brought by The Boston Globe,joined by The Washington Post, The Richmond Times-Dispatchand The Virginian-Pilot, was to gain access to samples ofbodily fluids attributable to the rape-murder of Ms. McCoywhich were still in existence and in the possession of theprosecutorial offices of the Commonwealth of Virginia. It

was not only access that was sought but also permission toretest those samples with the most current form of DNAtesting for the purpose of clarifying once and for all, in thispurported final effort, whether Coleman was truly theguilty murderer or not.

The Buchanan County Circuit Court judge denied thenewspapers’ petition and the Virginia high court has nowupheld that determination.

The newspaper petitioners attempted to make theircase on two fronts. First, they argued that their FirstAmendment (Freedom of the Press) right should suffice toallow them to obtain and retest the evidence they wereseeking. Secondarily, they maintained that the VirginiaFreedom of Information Act gave them such a statutorytoe-hold to access the requisite bodily fluids. TheCommonwealth of Virginia vigorously opposed the posi-tions of the affected newspapers. And they did so fromthe outset and their view that neither the Constitutions ofVirginia or the United States nor the cited statutes ofVirginia gave the newspapers any legitimate basis for theirpetition prevailed in a unanimous opinion of the VirginiaSupreme Court.

Apart from the case itself and its resolution, there area number of behind-the-scenes features of moment whichare deserving of mention.

The newspapers sprang into action upon their beingnotified that in July 2000, eight years after Coleman’s exe-cution, there was “a more sophisticated testing pro-cedure” than was available in 1990 when Coleman was ondeath row and had obtained court permission to have“PCR-DNA” testing performed on the preserved bodily fluidsamples from Wanda McCoy. The 1990 testing had beenconducted by Edward T. Blake, DCrim. whose test resultscombined with the previous ABO typing of the biologicalstains, narrowed “the percentage of the population withthese characteristics to .2%.” In 1992 a Federal DistrictCourt (Coleman v. Thompson, 798 F. Supp. 1209 (W.D. Va.1992) viewed these results as “significantly bolster(ing) thejury’s finding of (Coleman’s) guilt.”

But in July 2002, Dr. Blake sent a letter to theBuchanan County Circuit Court declaring that “a moresophisticated testing procedure was (now) available.” AsBlake put it in his letter, “an analysis on the remaining halfof the DNA preparation from the Wanda McCoy vaginalslides could resolve any lingering factual issues concerningthe source or sources of the spermatozoa in this case.”The newspapers needed no further incentive to come frontand center with their petition for just such a DNA analysis.

But the Commonwealth of Virginia would have no partin granting access to the necessary biological fluids.

In spite of the technical nature of the Commonwealth’sargument, viz. that the newspapers lacked constitutionalor legislative authority to bring such an action, underlyingtheir opposition was the fear of dire consequences to thelegal system in Virginia if such a right were confirmed toexist in the newspapers. It was finality that was sought,garbed as it was in contentions of gross impracticality.

James E. Starrs, LLMProfessor of Law & Forensic ScienceThe George Washington University

courtesy of COTTONphoto.com

continued on page 18

1 8 A C A D E M Y N E W S

In the words of the Virginia Supreme Court, “the rightto test evidence in a criminal case has not been historicallyextended to the press and general public.” No mention,however, was made to the obvious fact that the criminalcase against Coleman had terminated with his execution.

More pertinently the court’s opinion pointed to thevery practical difficulty of limiting the right of access toevidence and the testing of the evidence as requested bythe newspapers. Would such a right, if granted, berestricted only to “cases in which a death sentence hasalready been imposed?” But that, it was said, would notbe a “principled way” of resolving this case. “The practice… would logically apply to all criminal proceedings.”Aside from these ipse dixits, unsupported by the adum-bration of rational and convincing grounds, the court sawall kinds of skeletons, so to speak, lurking in the arras ofits courtrooms if the petition were to be approved.

These skeletons which the court presaged were all ofthe practical kind, ramifications which would have puzzlingand perturbing consequences for Virginia courts. In theirpresence, and with the scare of their lurking menacingly inthe courthouse wings, finality was definitely in order. Andfinality meant an end to the newspapers’ efforts to unearththe truth, as they saw it, of the guilt or innocence throughscientific testing of Roger Keith Coleman.

But what were these skeletons which the court saw asso overpowering in leading to its decision? In the wordsof Justice Lemons for the Virginia Supreme Court,

“it does not take much imagination to envisionrequests for ‘access’ to test substances alleged tobe illegal or weapons alleged to have been used inassaults. When the items to be tested are limitedin quantity or subject to destruction when tested,how would a court supervise such testing? Howwould competing claims of rights to ‘access’ behandled when quantity or integrity of the itemsare an issue?”

However, Justice Lemons did not tarry to reconcile hisopinion with that of the United States Supreme Court inPress-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986)where it was declared, in a different context, that “a qual-ified First Amendment right of public access attaches …(unless) closure (read finality for present purposes) isessential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailoredto serve that interest.” Presumptively the “higher values”to be preserved in the Coleman matter all related to theinfliction of practical woes upon the trial courts in Virginiaif access and retesting were permitted.

As the colloquialism has it, Roger Keith Coleman,through the failed interposition of the newspapers, wasleft “dead in the water.”

Although alive and kicking on his appeal from his con-victions on Federal drug charges Chamond Henderson a/k/a“Butter” suffered the same fate as Roger Keith Colemanand on a parity of judicial logic.

Henderson (I choose not to call him by his nickname.)was convicted in the Federal District Court inMassachusetts for various Federal drug charges involving

crack cocaine (a common superfluity). On his appeal to theFirst Circuit Federal Court of Appeals he raised many griev-ances with the outcome at the trial but the one dealingwith finality concerned the sentence he received under theFederal Sentencing Guidelines. Henderson suffered thesentencing consequences of having had a prior drug traf-ficking conviction in the state courts of South Carolina.Such a previous conviction followed by this Federal drugtrafficking conviction upped his sentencing ante under theFederal Sentencing Guidelines to a minimum twenty yearsentence. However, Henderson had a card to play to fendoff the aggravated sentence.

He challenged the validity of the South Carolina con-viction, thus seeking to negate it as an aggravating factorat the time of his later Federal sentencing. But he was saidto be disabled from interposing such a roadblock by afederal statute proscribing challenges to the validity of“any prior conviction” occurring “more than five yearsbefore the date of the information alleging such priorconviction.” That statute plainly and clearly prevented hisattacking his South Carolina conviction which occurred in1991. Since his involvement in the current drug distrib-ution was of 1998 vintage the five year statute’s decla-ration of finality to all claims of invalidity of convictionsprior to the running of that five year period was seeminglyan insurmountable obstacle to Henderson’s attempt tolower his Federal sentence. But Henderson had yet anothercard to play.

The Federal sentence he received was unconstitutionalunder both the due process and equal protection clausesof the United States Constitution, so he protested. Thefive year limit is “patently arbitrary” as a cut-off date andbeing arbitrary it contravened his due process rights, wenthis argument. The equal protection clause also came intoplay in his support, as he maintained, because the five yearlimitation “unfairly discriminates against those whocommit a federal offense more than five years after a priorconviction.” In a manner of speaking he was urging that noreasonable basis existed for differentiating those withinthe five year period and those, like him, who were beyond.

But the Federal court had the trump card and that cardwas the call for finality. There was a “rational basis” forthe five year cut-off, in the appellate court’s view of thematter, since there were “the administrative difficultiesinherent in challenges to prior convictions, such as lost ordestroyed records, unavailable witnesses, and fading mem-ories.” But the clincher the reviewing court found to be“the interest in finality.”

The perceived, not proved (skeleton-in-the-closet-like),results of finding the Federal statute in question to beunconstitutional as applied to Henderson and others in hisclass were more worrisome and onerous than the possi-bility that the aggravated sentence given Henderson mighthave been generated by an invalid South Carolina con-viction. It was not a question of fairness to Henderson butof practicalities in the operation of the Federal courtswithout the benefits of finality as settled by the five yearstatutory cut-off.

THE LAW’S MANTRA. . . CONT.

In Virginia the newspapers lost because of the appre-hension of the traumatic impact on the judiciary ofkeeping the door open to attack a conviction beyond theexecution of the convicted criminal. In the First FederalCircuit Henderson lost because the court was all atwitterover similar practical effects from a lack of finality asdefined by the Federal sentencing statute. And in generalterms, the omnipresent statutes of limitations throughoutthe states and the federal system put the brakes on liti-gation, both criminal and civil, after the prescribed periodfor filing the necessary litigation documents has expired.

It is a repeated refrain, even a cliché, in the legalsystem that “ubi jus ibi remedium” (where there is a rightthere is a remedy). But the extant statutes of limitationsprove the limited value of this axiomatic declaration for ifthere is a statute of limitations concerning the right toseek redress for a wrong, then that statute can stymie anyeffort, by litigation, to right that wrong. David Pearl’s situ-ation was a case in point as well as in proof of the fact thatthe finality exacted by a statute of limitations can mandatefinality even to litigation both justified and needful.

David Pearl waited 35 years to seek his full-blown legalremedy for the injuries he sustained at the hands of lawenforcement officers of the City of Long Beach (NassauCounty, NY). It was not that Pearl was dilatory. It was justthat he did not know until all those years had passed thathe had been wronged to the extent that he later learnedhe had been.

It was the all-too-familiar scenario. Pearl, a sixteenyear old, was called over to a police cruiser on August 9,1967, for questioning. He was ordered into the rear seatin the police car and transported to the police precinct.During that trip Pearl was “repeatedly punched in thestomach and face” by one police officer while he wasrestrained by another police officer. The pummeling con-tinued at the police station until Pearl lost consciousness.The injuries inflicted on Pearl “required a ten-day period ofhospitalization and left him permanently blind in one eye,”according to a 2002 opinion from the Second CircuitFederal court on Pearl’s appeal from the dismissal of hisFederal civil rights action instituted to secure recompensefor the injuries he sustained and continues to exhibit. Itwas, you see, a simple matter of Pearl’s waiting too long toright the wrong perpetrated on him.

As Circuit Judge Jon O. Newman put it in the exordiumto his opinion for the Federal appellate court - “This appealillustrates, in a dramatic context, the tension between thejudicial system’s instinct to provide a remedy for everywrong and the system’s recognition that the passage oftime must leave some wrongs without a remedy.”

In short, Judge Newman and the two concurring judgesagreed that the finality declared by the applicable statuteof limitations for such Federal civil actions for damagesmust prevail over the humanitarian interest to assuage andright the wrong inflicted on Pearl, a wrong it was concededby the court did occur. It was not considered to be com-pelling that Pearl did not learn of the police conspiracyinvolved in his beating and the cover-up following it untilJune of 1999, when officer Vincent F. Milo, Jr., one of theofficers directly involved in the 1967 episode, recanted his

and his fellow officers previous statements as a fabricationintended to put the blame for Pearl’s injuries squarely onhis shoulders. Furthermore Milo, in another sworn affi-davit, affirmed that “beatings by senior officers, especiallythe detectives to extract confessions were common place”in the City of Long Beach’s police department. Indeed, heconfessed that “blackjacks, clubs and rubber hoses andtelephone books were all part of our ‘unofficial’equipment” in 1967.

To make matters within the legal system in Long Beachever so much worse, officer Milo declared under oath thatthe lawyer the City of Long Beach hired to represent himand his fellow officers in 1967 was present in the grandjury room “while the Pearl case was being presented.”Indeed that attorney gave “detailed accounts” of the grandjury testimony of “each civilian witness’ testimony so thatwe could adjust our presentation” to contradict theirgrand jury testimony.

Unfortunately for him Pearl was conceded to be awarein 1967 that he had been wronged by the police. He hadalso then exerted his right to redress by suing the City ofLong Beach and the police involved. That civil action ter-minated with his accepting $30,000 in return for his dis-missing his civil damage claim. But he had been the victimnot only of police brutalization but the police’s fraudulentconcealment “of facts that, if known, would (have)enhance(d) (his) ability to prevail as to a cause of action ofwhich (he) was previously aware.”

The Federal appeals court, in agreeing with the trialcourt’s dismissal of Pearl’s belated action, distinguishedthe concerted police concealment in this action from theconcealment of the existence of a cause of action in thefirst place. The latter form of concealment was said to beactionable in spite of the statute of limitations due theequities which would support such a late claim but theconcealment of facts augmenting the known cause ofaction would not militate in equity in Pearl’s favor. Suchreasoning reminds one of the cynicism inherent in theaphorism about counting the number of angels on thehead of a pin.

Pearl’s civil rights action’s dismissal was affirmed withthe concluding sop that “(t)he absence of an availablejudicial remedy... does not necessarily mean that DavidPearl has no recourse. Courts are not the only forum forredress of grievances.” The City of Long Beach, in itsmagnanimity, might grant “whatever compensation it con-cludes is warranted.” The demands of finality espoused bythe statute of limitations must be upheld, come what may.

And so finality seems to be an end in itself in the legalorder and the upshot in terms of redress takes a back seat.

Many other examples of the dispiriting effects offinality come to mind, not the least of which is found inthose statutes of limitations which will cut short prosecu-tions of criminals for their crimes when the identity of thecriminal, at least by name in contrast with DNA, isunknown until the statute of limitations governing theprosecution for such offenses has run its course. DNAwarrants have been called to the task of taking the bite outof such statutes. And at least in the state of Wisconsin anappellate court has upheld the use of such a DNA warrant

continued on page 20

A C A D E M Y N E W S 1 9

to enlarge the statute of limitations. (State v. Dabney, Wis.Ct. App., April 2003)

But finality and its tension with justice are ever vyingfor the lead role. It is a conflict with no end in sight, whichcalls to mind the patois of Seinfeld to the effect that “yadayada yada.”

L’envoi:All this being said and re-said there are minimal signs

from the courts that there may be chinks in the armor offinality. One such crack, not yet a crevice, appeared in theUnited States Supreme Court’s decision on April 22, 2003,in Jinks v. Richland County, South Carolina, 123 S.Ct. 1667(2003). Justice Scalia wrote for a unanimous court inupholding a federal statute which tolled state statutes oflimitations during the pendency of federal court pro-ceedings. In this case the state of South Carolina’s statuteof limitations, a statute declaring finality to litigation, for

the tort action commenced by Susan Jinks, whose husbanddied in confinement after his arrest for failing to pay childsupport was two years. Notwithstanding that state statutethe U.S. Supreme Court found that it had been extendedby the federal statute in question during Mrs. Jinks federalcourt damage action against the municipality of RichlandCounty. That decision effectively opened the courthousedoors in South Carolina to Mrs. Jinks’ tort action.

So finality in the law is not a categorical imperative, atleast under the circumstances occurring in the Jinks case.Such is the state of affairs with finality for the nonce, toquote the Bard again, but a new chapter may be writtenwhen the U.S. Supreme Court issues its opinion in thepending matter of Marion Reynolds Stogner’s prosecutionin the California state courts for child molestations in spiteof the purported constitutional bar of ex post facto finality.The Stogner case will be grist for later milling.

THE LAW’S MANTRA. . . CONT.

2 0 A C A D E M Y N E W S