San Mateo County Grand Jury • 2010-2011

San Mateo County Forensic Laboratory Issue | Background | Findings | Conclusions | Recommendations | Responses |

Published: September 11, 2010 10 pages
Ver PDF original

Findings and Recommendations 8 findings

F1
Representatives of the crime lab, LEAs and the District Attorney’s Office stated they have a positive working relationship in matters relating to the collection, handling and processing of forensic evidence.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) and representatives of the District Attorney’s Office reported that the ASCLD/LAB accreditation gives confidence that high standard practices 5 and policies are in place at the crime lab. Additionally, independent accreditation attaches value and respect to courtroom testimony given by crime lab personnel.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Maintain the current independent accreditation from the ASCLD/LAB.
F3
The crime lab’s accreditation is current and corrects the one remaining deficiency listed in the 2006 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury summary report: “…obtain[ ] accreditation from ASCLD/LAB…”.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Maintain the current independent accreditation from the ASCLD/LAB.
F4
The crime lab uses a laboratory management system (THEMIS) with the capacity to track workflow progress on Item Submittals. However, there is no on-line access for non- laboratory personnel to view the progress of Item Submittals or to estimate turnaround time. There is no ability within THEMIS at this time for the District Attorney’s Office to contribute/update critical scheduling information that could directly affect the progression and completion of item analyses and the availability of crime lab personnel for courtroom testimony.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
Develop a process or capability that provides LEAs and the District Attorney’s Office with up-to-date information regarding the status of Item Submittals and estimated completion dates.
R4
Develop a process or capability that allows the District Attorney’s Office to provide the crime lab with up-to-date information on trial schedules and the timing for needed analyses and expert witness testimony.
F5
The crime lab does not publish estimates for turnaround times by individual item or category of request. Requests from LEAs or the District Attorney’s Office for expedited turnaround time are communicated by telephone to the Lab Director who then addresses such requests.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Internal cross-discipline training enables technical staff to be redirected as necessary to support other core crime lab services. This provides the crime lab with the capacity and flexibility to quickly address high-priority requests and/or changes in schedules.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
In order to moderate expenses and efficiently utilize existing specialized skills, the crime lab uses lower-cost qualified interns for some specific tasks.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
External training by the crime lab is offered both informally and by official request from an LEA. The crime lab will initiate training if it determines it will improve crime scene investigation and/or the collection of evidence or provide a better understanding of the crime lab’s workflow process, procedures or systems. Conclusions The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Provide current crime lab training to all interested LEAs and the District Attorney’s Office representatives at a minimum of twice a year.

Conclusions 6

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

San Mateo County Sheriff Elected County Office