The use of forensic evidence in the criminal justice system has grown appreciably in the United States. Yet policies that dictate how state and local agencies maintain and store forensic evidence have not kept pace. This study examined the prevalence of evidence retention policies, as well as storage locations and tracking systems, in a nationally representative sample of state and local law enforcement agencies. Less than half of U.S. police departments have a policy for preserving biological evidence from convicted offenders. Among agencies having a policy, the responsibility for retaining evidence was most commonly placed with the investigating law enforcement agency. Implications of these findings and policy directions are discussed.
Badeaux, D. ( 2010). The DNA’s over there . . . right next to the jelly: The problems with the preservation of evidence in Texas. Texas Tech Administrative Law Review, 11, 333-354.
2.
Chromy, J. ( 1979). Sequential sample selection methods. In Proceedings of the 1979 American Statistical Association, Survey Research Methods Section (pp. 401-406). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/papers/1979_081.pdf
3.
Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., & McEwan, T. (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
4.
Folsom, R., & Singh, A. ( 2000). The generalized exponential model for sampling weightcalibration for extreme values, nonresponse, and poststratification. In Proceedings of the 2000 Joint Statistical Meetings, American Statistical Association, Survey Research Methods Section (pp. 598-603). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/papers/2000_099.pdf
5.
Gross, S., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D., Montgomery, N., & Patil, S. ( 2005). Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95, 523-560.
6.
Iannacchione, V. ( 1982). Weighted sequential hot deck imputation macros. Proceedings of the SAS Users Group International Conference, 7, 759-763.
7.
The Innocence Project. (2010). Retrieved from www.innocenceproject.org
8.
Jones, C. ( 2005). Evidence destroyed, innocence lost. American Criminal Law Review, 42, 1239-1270.
9.
Junkin, T. ( 2004). Bloodsworth: The true story of the first death row inmate exonerated by DNA. Chapel Hill, NC: Shannon Ravenel Books/Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.
10.
King, W., & Maguire, E. ( 2009). Assessing the performance of systems designed to process criminal forensic evidence. Forensic Science Policy and Management , 1, 159-170.
11.
Levenson, L., Amoroso, D., Gaertner, S., Williams, K., & Little, R. ( 2008). Transcript of proceedings: The role of the prosecution and defense in causing and correcting wrongful convictions. Southwestern University Law Review, 37, 943-964.
12.
Lovrich, N., Pratt, T., Gaffney, M., Johnson, C., Asplen, C., Hurst, L., & Schellburg, T. (2004). National forensic DNA study report, final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
13.
National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
14.
Pratt, T., Gaffney, M., Lovrich, N., & Johnson, C. ( 2006). This isn’t CSI: Estimating the national backlog of forensic DNA cases and the barriers associated with case processing. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 32-47.
15.
Prottas, J., & Noble, A. ( 2007). Use of forensic DNA evidence in prosecutors’ offices . Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 35, 310-315.
16.
Reaves, B. ( 2007). Census of state and local law enforcement agencies, 2004. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
17.
Rowlingson, R. ( 2004). A 10-step process for forensic readiness. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 2, 1-28.
18.
Steadman, G. ( 2000). Survey of DNA crime laboratories, 1998 . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
19.
Steadman, G. ( 2002). Survey of DNA crime laboratories, 2001 . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
20.
Strom, K., & Hickman, M. ( 2010). Unanalyzed evidence in law enforcement agencies: A national examination of forensic processing in police departments. Criminology & Public Policy, 9, 381-404.
21.
Strom, K., Ropero-Miller, J., Jones, S., Sikes, N., Pope, M., Horstmann, N. ( 2009). The 2007 survey of law enforcement evidence processing: Final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
