22
Your Evidence, Our Court Case: How One General Counsel’s Office Streamlines Evidence in the Labs with Active Criminal Justice Cases Kristin Murrock & Kodiak Hill-Davis Washington DC Department of Forensic Sciences Forensic Science Laboratory | Public Health Laboratory | Crime Scene Sciences

Your Evidence, Our Court Case: How One General Counsel’s Office Streamlines Evidence in the Labs with Active Criminal Justice Cases Kristin Murrock & Kodiak

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Your Evidence, Our Court Case: How One General Counsel’s Office Streamlines Evidence in the Labs with Active Criminal Justice Cases

Kristin Murrock & Kodiak Hill-Davis

Washington DC Department of Forensic Sciences Forensic Science Laboratory | Public Health Laboratory | Crime Scene Sciences

Who Are We?

- NOT SCIENTISTS

- Law Clerks at the D.C. Department of Forensic Sciences, Office of the General Counsel

Washington DC Department of Forensic Sciences Forensic Science Laboratory | Public Health Laboratory | Crime Scene Sciences

What is the Project?

- Previous Method of Case Tracking

- There was a disconnect between the science performed in the labs and the evidence used in Court

- This project sought to address this efficiency issue

Why Should You Care?

- Reallocation of Resources NOT SAVINGS

- By improving the efficiency of what the labs are testing, we sought to improve the overall benefit provided to the stakeholders, the residents of D.C., and by the Agency.

The Project Overview

- Three Spreadsheets- Tracking Various Data Points

- Establishing Communication Between Multiple Parties

- Reporting to Unit Managers

What Did We Track?- Evidence in each of the Labs

- Active Court Cases- All Pending Court Dates

- Closed Court Cases- Resolved- Dismissed

Established Communication

- Attorneys- Court Dates- Testing of

Evidence Necessary

- Unit Managers- Future Court

Dates- Testing of

Evidence Necessary

- Multiple Defendants

What Did We Report?

- Unit Managers- Future Court Dates

- Aids long-term planning and assignment of cases

- Dismissed or Resolved Cases- Alerts that case may be removed from

testing queue

Methodology

Methodology Outcome

- Determination of Available Efficiency Reallocation- Two Criteria:

- Resolved Cases & Dismissed Cases - Formula:

- Date of Result per D.C. Court Case System v. Whether Case Started

Resolved Cases

- FBU: 61 Cases

- LFU: 61 Cases

- FEU: 88 Cases

Dismissed Cases

- FBU: 22 Cases

- LFU: 8 Cases

- FEU: 30 Cases

Total Cases Removed

- The resources necessary to process these 270 cases were able to be reallocated within the respective labs

Quantifying Costs Per Case

- FBU Cases: $3,183.45

- LFU Cases: $573.26

- FEU Cases: $263.01

Quantifying Cost: Resolved Cases

- FBU Cases: $194,190.45

- LFU Cases: $34,968.86

- FEU Cases: $23,144.88

Quantifying Cost: Dismissed Cases

- FBU Cases: $70,035.90

- LFU Cases: $4,586.08

- FEU Cases: $7,890.30

Available Efficiency Reallocation

- $334,816.47 from 270 Cases

Reallocation or Misallocation?

- Without this system, the lab would have worked 300 cases that did not need to be worked

- Where did that money go?

BENEFIT: Efficiency Reallocation

- Since the purpose of testing this evidence is for use in the court system, this reallocation means that DFS scientists were able to process the most relevant evidence.

Where Are We Now?

- Improved efficiency of testing queues

- Transitioning to a Software Database Management Tool

- Exploring capturing new data points

Washington DC Department of Forensic Sciences Forensic Science Laboratory | Public Health Laboratory | Crime Scene Sciences