I Humbly Disagree with One of My Favorite Authors

Just recently this commentary was posted in an online e-newsletter I receive every day, Levine Breaking News. Here is the copy:

*LBN-COMMENTARY By Scott Turow: This Friday a 33-year-old man named Juan Luna will go on trial for the murder of seven people in a Brown's Chicken restaurant in Palatine, Ill., on Jan. 8, 1993. The investigation of the murders, in which the victims' bloody corpses were discovered in the restaurant freezer, languished for more than a decade until Mr. Luna's DNA was identified in the saliva found on a chicken bone at the crime scene. Having spent some time over the years as a criminal defense lawyer, I find this use of DNA evidence somewhat ironic, even a bit perverse. When I was first exposed to the forensic use of DNA, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was seen largely as a tool of the defense, usually resisted by prosecutors who feared manipulation of the underlying science. Ultimately, hundreds of people around the country were able to demonstrate they had been wrongly convicted, and those successes led prosecutors to realize that the same DNA tests -- and experts -- could also provide evidence that guilty people had been walking around free for years. The Brown's Chicken case is but one of hundreds of "cold cases" now being resolved by advances in forensic technology, particularly DNA testing. Greater accuracy in the truth-finding process is a laudable development. But I worry that the growing capacity of today's forensics to reach farther and farther into the past seems likely to undermine the law's time-ingrained notions, embodied in statutes of limitations, about how long people should be liable to criminal prosecution.

As much as I love Scott Turow and respect his work and his writings, I must humbly disagree with his premise. The statute of limitations never runs out on murder. And for good reason: a life has been taken and this egregious act means that a father will no longer be there for his family; that a daughter will never grow up to have her own family; and, that a victim’s family must live with the absence of a loved one every day of their lives.

I understand going back into history and plucking criminals out of their new lives must be a shock, and upsetting to his new family. Oh, well. He should have thought about this before he decided to divorce himself from personal responsibility and moral conduct.

Your view?

p.s. Please visit my new blog along with some other great true-crime authors and commentators, it's sure to be a hit: http://www.incoldblogger.blogspot.com

The 7 Key Differences Between TV Crime Drama and Real Life

TV: 1. “Hot” Crime Scene Technicians:




Reality: 1. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

TV: 2. False Promises


Reality: 2. Honest Assessment with no personal investment



TV: 3. Jumping Jobs

Reality: 3. Lab Assembly Line

TV: 4. Results in One day

Reality: 4. Crime Lab Backlogs



TV: 5. Obscure Techniques (Grissom tastes a bone)

Reality: 5. The Principles of Science



TV: 6. Settings: Glossy, clean and no clutter




Reality: 6. Trailers, cluttered, worn and lived in

TV: 7. Socioeconomics: Id by Dentistry?

Reality: 7. Victims victimizing Victims: no resources, no safety net, no one cares
(May never have seen a dentist)

Crime Show Effects on Real Trials

This came in just recently from a Maricopa County source, Attorney Andrew Thomas.

Of 300 prosecutors in Phoenix's Maricopa County attorney's office:

• 61 percent say jurors seem to believe forensic crime shows on TV are true.
• 90 percent have to explain to juries why police don't collect the kind of evidence seen on television.

Of the 102 most experienced prosecutors:

• 38 percent had at least one trial that ended in an acquittal or a hung jury when forensic evidence was not available to corroborate testimony.
• 52 percent have seen a defendant receive a more favorable plea offer because there were expected problems with the 'CSI effct' had the case gone to trial.
• 80 percent reported juror disapproval with the lack of forensic evidence.

Source: Maricopa County Attorney Andrea Thomas

High School Daze

I spoke to five science classes at Lakeside High School the other day. It was the day before spring break and held in a library with very little air circulating. I walk around when I speak and could feel the rivulets of sweat running down my midriff.

The classes combined equalled about 150 students. My talk that day was about the forensic science field, our state lab, what the jobs are, some of the specifics, and the odd little details. I made sure to get the skinny from J.R. Howard, the Director of the Arkansas State Crime Lab before I went, because I am not keen on passing out misinformation or disinformation. I had thought that with CSI being so popular that I would get a lot of questions and feedback. (I'm always hearing how universities are scrambling to set up more forensic science-based and criminal justice classes.) But, it was very quiet. I think I only got two questions all day. Granted, one class was studying environmental science but the two questions actually came from them. (My husband—who was playing my lovely assistant—said that the questions came from two males who thought I was "hot".) Now the validity of that, I cannot comment.

I was disappointed however in that when I asked them questions, there were no answers. Quiet again. Okay, they were dragged there by their teachers, but where is the passion? I came to forensic science very early, (in the late 80's) before it was on TV and before every other show was a crime drama, but I was led to believe that students were ga-ga over CSI and here I was representing the topic with no life, not nary a spark.

I'm glad I'm not in high school anymore.

Everything Is Hard

The criminal justice system is a huge machine and there are always many things that serve to stop up the cogs. History has never been kind and criminal law is based on history and is a vainglorious attempt at achieving justice.

Some of the things currently plaguing the criminal justice industry are: juror’s prejudices, (the question as to whether there is a “CSI Effect?), the glorification of forensic science in crime scene dramas, the real backlog of the system, fraud by forensic experts, and incompetence with individuals who jeopardize the process among other things.

Where to begin? Whether one wants to believe there is a “CSI Effect” or not—and there are folks who have expressed their doubts—jurors need to realize that achieving justice requires a unique balance of elements, and that nothing is foolproof; and that technology is not the be all and end all for guilt.

Prosecutors are held to a standard when they bring a charging document and defendant to court. And that standard is to find: guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn’t mean that the jury must all be 100% convinced to a certainty. It means that there is sufficient evidence presented by the state that this person has committed this crime.

Now the evidence can come in a variety of forms from eyewitness identification to hard evidence or artifacts and even circumstantial evidence—such as: this person stalked the victim and had a restraining order issued against them in the past. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact. It is built upon reasoning and expecting reasonable people to figure it out. And cases in the past, Dear Reader, have been won on circumstantial evidence. Because, if there are enough things that point to guilt: bad character evidence, no alibi, previous behavior, mental illness, stressors, whatever—sometimes a pile of things put all in one place is a mountain that cannot be ignored.

A Few Pet Peeves

There are more than a few things that drive me crazy about how forensic science and the CSI groups are depicted on TV crime dramas. But I also have some pet peeves that don’t necessarily warrant writing a column about such as: when Delko got shot in the head just recently, died and came back, was his recovery a miracle or what? Out for so long, no brain damage and he was back at work very soon, just a little slower on the uptake. Puleese, this makes victims of TV viewers to allow people to think that this is even possible. I was kind of hoping that he was dead after I saw how they treated his “coming back.”

Okay, one time on an episode quite a long time ago (and since I don’t have the DVD set from years past,) I’ll just say that the CSI—Las Vegas team was out in the dessert and Gil Grissom was talking about “tasting a bone.” Listen, if you find remains, no way are you going to go putting it up to your lips. Can we say dangerous practice? I mean, why doesn’t that man have hepatitis C by now?

And, too, in the same vein, you will never see law enforcement stick their finger into a bag of powder, taste it and say, “that’s cocaine all right.” Wow, how irresponsible it that! It could be PCP, a dangerous hallucinogenic, or any number of harmful substances (in fact some drugs are cut with harmful chemicals themselves, like arsenic). Cops often use crip kits. These are testing kits that will determine the characteristics of a drug or chemical substance using reagents and small squirt bottles and testing vials. For more information on what a kit looks like, what you can test for, and other specifics, check out this link: http://www.cripkit.com/products/carkit.html

Okay, this is short tonight, but I feel better already for saying it.

Dividing it up: Jurisdiction

Usually on television an entire crime scene unit arrives and sweeps through the scene collecting all the evidence including photographs, fingerprints and trace. Then they are shown in the lab manipulating what they have just collected and within a short period of time, they are calling detectives with a match to the prints found at the scene or some other leading discovery.

In reality, a patrol officer is dispatched to a crime scene and maybe, if the jurisdiction has manpower, a backup officer will follow. After securing the area if it’s a small scene, they will take photographs and maybe dust for prints. If it is something more than a patrol officer can handle, a detective is put on call. One will usually arrive and for larger scenes again, maybe two will be called. Generally about the only time an entire criminal investigation division will be sent is for a major case like murder, aggravated robbery, kidnapping or something heinous.

Jurisdiction is probably one of the biggest factors to determine who does what, when, and how. For example, a small town with the population of 900, is going to operate the best they know how with limited men and resources. It’s the police officer then who will do many different jobs such as collecting evidence, logging it in and sending it off to be processed at a lab in a larger city. In a slightly larger city with a more serious crime, the detective may be working alone, collecting evidence, logging it in, making initial contact with victims, typing reports, interviewing witnesses, showing photo lineups, locating potential suspects, and collecting enough probable cause for a judge to issue a complaint. Detectives try to help each other out if it is overly large.

Let’s face it. Communities everywhere make do with what they have. If they need their officers to multi-task, they do it. If law enforcement need more help, the officers will call and ask but you can’t create what isn’t there. And I’d venture to say that all law enforcement everywhere could use more capable men and resources.

One thing that always struck me as funny was when the folks on TV cross over into other jurisdictions, or if they fight with another department to get a case so they can see justice done. Who would have time for that? Who asks for more work when they're overworked already? Plus, officers probably have to wait weeks, if not months for evidence results and the cases just keep coming. Juggling, juggling, trying to make things move in sync—it’s got to be super stressful and tires me just thinking about it.