[0:29] everybody. Or good

[13:15] afternoon. I'm

[13:16] Charnell Herring, I'm

[13:17] chair of the Virginia

[13:17] State Crime

[13:18] Commission. I just

[13:20] just wanted to

[13:20] welcome everybody and

[13:21] those in the audience

[13:22] joining us, as well

[13:34] have done some great

[13:35] work for the

[13:36] Commonwealth of

[13:37] Virginia. So with

[13:37] that, I'm going to

[13:38] ask everybody to

[13:40] introduce themselves,

[13:41] the members, and then

[13:42] we'll turn to staff

[13:54] >> My name is Keisha

[13:56] Evans. I am newly

[13:58] appointed to the

[13:59] Crime Commission. So

[14:00] first I would like to

[14:01] say thank you,

[14:02] Governor Abigail

[14:14] two of those years I

[14:15] was in executive

[14:17] leadership at the

[14:17] office of the

[14:18] Commonwealth Attorney

[14:19] in Arlington,

[14:20] Virginia. So I am

[14:21] happy to be here. I

[14:22] have a bachelor's in

[14:34] to forget I'm an

[14:35] elected official in

[14:36] Stafford, so I'm

[14:37] representing Falmouth

[14:39] District and so I'm

[14:40] happy to be here

[14:41] again.

[14:41] >> Thank you.

[14:43] >> Hi, I'm Delegate

[14:52] >> Thank you so much,

[14:55] chair.

[14:56] >> Hi. Good afternoon.

[14:57] I'm Delegate Patrick

[14:58] Hope. I represent the

[14:59] first district part

[15:00] of Arlington County.

[15:03] >> Delegate Terry

[15:03] Kilgore. Good to be

[15:14] of Hampton. I am a

[15:15] career prosecutor

[15:17] dating back while

[15:18] since 1996, first in

[15:21] Portsmouth and then

[15:22] in Hampton since 2000,

[15:34] Mental health

[15:35] Virginia, and then

[15:37] had a career in

[15:38] criminal justice,

[15:39] working for community

[15:40] corrections and Dcjs.

[15:53] General's office. My

[15:55] background I've had

[15:57] experience in

[15:58] criminal justice and

[15:58] public safety for

[15:59] over 20 years. I

[16:00] started my career as

[16:01] a public defender,

[16:03] worked for the Public

[16:04] defender indigent

[16:14] the work of the

[16:15] Commission.

[16:16] >> Thank.

[16:16] >> You, thank you.

[16:17] Welcome. All right.

[16:18] I'm going to now turn

[16:19] it over to our

[16:20] illustrious executive

[16:21] director. And I was

[16:21] just telling somebody

[16:22] I've known, oh, do we

[16:23] have another. Oh

[16:34] eighth district,

[16:37] Lynchburg, Bedford

[16:37] and Campbell counties.

[16:54] the state Senate. And

[16:55] I'm also a practicing

[16:56] criminal defense

[16:56] lawyer.

[16:58] >> Thank you, Senator.

[16:59] And now our

[17:01] illustrious executive

[17:01] Director. What I was

[17:02] saying to somebody is

[17:03] that I met Kristen

[17:14] you for all your work.

[17:15] >> Absolutely. Thank

[17:16] you. Kristen Howard,

[17:17] director of the Crime

[17:18] Commission, been here

[17:19] for 26 years and 17

[17:21] as director. And so

[17:23] welcome to our new

[17:23] Crime Commission

[17:34] to you today. I will

[17:35] start at this end. We

[17:37] have Tracy Rowe.

[17:38] She's a senior

[17:39] research analyst.

[17:39] She'll be presenting

[17:41] one of the

[17:42] presentations today.

[17:42] She's been with the

[17:43] Crime Commission for

[17:54] been working steadily

[17:55] on all the court data

[17:56] for us. So she is our

[17:58] data guru. Next we

[18:00] have Keshia Kovacs.

[18:01] She is received her

[18:03] PhD. She's a senior

[18:14] And then down at this

[18:16] end, we have Amanda

[18:17] Muncy. She's our

[18:18] attorney. She's been

[18:19] here for about six

[18:21] years now and been

[18:22] working on the Mary

[18:23] Jane Burton Project

[18:34] enormous amount of

[18:35] time helping with

[18:36] that. Next we have

[18:37] Adi Namboodiri. She's

[18:38] our newest hire. She

[18:40] was a fellow at VCU,

[18:54] and we are really

[18:55] excited to have her

[18:56] on board. Next is

[18:58] Colin Draper. He is

[18:59] our deputy director.

[19:00] I first started here

[19:01] as an attorney with

[19:02] the Crime Commission

[19:03] and has been here for

[19:14] him around here. And

[19:16] last but not least is

[19:18] Christina Arrington.

[19:19] She also has her PhD.

[19:21] She is also a part

[19:22] time faculty member

[19:34] has been the lead on

[19:36] Mary Jane Burton.

[19:37] Both what will be

[19:38] presented today, but

[19:39] also, as you'll hear

[19:40] her talk about the

[19:41] Crime Commission was

[19:41] also involved in the

[19:43] post-conviction DNA

[19:53] on that. I think she

[19:55] spent more time at

[19:56] DFS this year than in

[19:57] our own office. So

[19:59] yeah, she's been with

[20:00] the Crime Commission

[20:01] for 22 years. So she

[20:03] is we've been

[20:14] And I'll just turn it

[20:15] back over to you to

[20:17] go over the overview

[20:18] of the 2026 studies

[20:19] for this year.

[20:21] >> Absolutely. Thank

[20:22] you, Madam Chair. In

[20:34] you want to introduce

[20:35] yourself?

[20:36] >> 15 minutes. I

[20:37] guess I wasn't added

[20:38] as a panelist, but I

[20:39] am here.

[20:39] >> Yes, ma'am. Do you

[20:41] want to introduce

[20:41] yourself to our new

[20:42] members?

[20:54] you. Glad to be here

[20:56] again today.

[20:56] >> Thank you. All

[20:58] right, Kristin, back

[20:59] to you.

[21:00] >> Yes. Members, in

[21:01] your meeting

[21:02] materials, you have

[21:03] abbreviated version

[21:14] for many, many years.

[21:16] We've been monitoring

[21:17] the implementation of

[21:18] the new laws that

[21:19] took effect last year,

[21:21] and are excited to

[21:23] report that we've had

[21:34] courts and state

[21:35] police and the

[21:35] clerk's

[21:36] Commonwealth's

[21:36] attorneys, the State

[21:37] Bar Indigent Defense

[21:39] Commission, and to

[21:40] make sure that

[21:40] everything is running

[21:41] smoothly. And so far,

[21:43] everything that we

[21:54] your consideration

[21:55] this year, just to

[21:56] provide clarity to

[21:57] the field on the new

[21:59] sealing laws. Another

[22:01] topic that we'll be

[22:02] spending a lot of

[22:03] time on is the Mary

[22:14] also the legislation

[22:15] that created a review

[22:16] panel to take a

[22:17] deeper dive into

[22:19] certain cases that

[22:19] Mary Jane Burton

[22:20] worked. So we'll hear

[22:21] in-depth update on

[22:34] guardrails for the

[22:35] use of Alpr for law

[22:37] enforcement. Crime

[22:37] Commission staff is

[22:39] currently completing

[22:40] a survey to law

[22:40] enforcement agencies,

[22:42] and we will have the

[22:43] results of that

[22:54] Crime Commission

[22:55] studies dealing with

[22:56] impaired driving.

[22:58] Dcjs has a youth

[22:59] human trafficking

[23:00] pilot program. Dcjs

[23:02] also has their Office

[23:03] of Safer Communities

[23:14] many years of work.

[23:15] And now the Virginia

[23:17] Criminal Sentencing

[23:18] Commission has

[23:19] carried the torch on

[23:20] that, and they

[23:20] publish an annual

[23:21] report. So we

[23:23] continue to monitor

[23:34] for pretrial service

[23:35] agencies to use. And

[23:37] lastly, we are

[23:38] continuing to monitor

[23:39] firearm purchaser

[23:41] licenses was a topic

[23:42] we looked at last

[23:43] year, and we're

[23:53] earlier that Caitlyn

[23:55] has been combing

[23:56] through ten years of

[23:57] all district and

[23:58] circuit court data.

[23:59] We are preparing that

[24:01] so that we will have

[24:02] at our fingertips all

[24:03] of the different

[24:14] another agency for

[24:15] that information. We

[24:17] also have some new

[24:18] studies. If you flip

[24:19] over to the back of

[24:20] your sheet that were

[24:22] required by

[24:23] legislation, either

[24:34] Health and Human

[24:35] Resources. They will

[24:36] be issuing a report

[24:37] later this fall on

[24:39] some recommendations

[24:40] in regard to that

[24:41] topic. I've also been

[24:42] serving on the Fees

[24:43] and Fines Workgroup

[24:54] this fall. But their

[24:55] final report will not

[24:56] be until next year.

[24:58] We have also been

[25:00] invited to

[25:01] participate in the

[25:01] Virginia State Police

[25:02] Criminal History

[25:14] and has the

[25:15] Department of

[25:16] Education, with the

[25:17] Crime Commission in a

[25:18] consulting role and

[25:19] been working closely

[25:20] with them. We'll have

[25:21] their report also

[25:22] this fall, and the

[25:34] Virginia State Police

[25:35] Witness Protection

[25:36] Program and the State

[25:38] Child Fatality Review

[25:40] Team and the Virginia

[25:41] Criminal Justice

[25:42] Conference. So we

[25:43] have our pulse on a

[25:54] month. We're

[25:55] currently in the

[25:55] Patrick Henry

[25:56] building, and we will

[25:57] be moving to Old City

[25:58] Hall. So we'll be

[25:59] moving a little

[26:00] closer. So especially

[26:01] for General Assembly

[26:02] session, inclement

[26:03] weather, we won't

[26:14] hopefully will be on

[26:15] boarding 1 or 2

[26:17] attorneys, and we'll

[26:18] be hopefully fully

[26:19] staffed very soon. We

[26:21] are finishing up our

[26:22] interview process now

[26:34] questions if you have

[26:35] any.

[26:35] >> Thank you. Are

[26:36] there any questions?

[26:38] All right. Any

[26:39] questions on. No. All

[26:42] right. Thank you so

[26:43] much, Kristen. And

[26:49] updates. Thank you.

[26:56] Christine, you have

[26:58] the floor.

[27:01] >> Good afternoon,

[27:02] Madam Chair, and

[27:03] members of the

[27:14] Burton was a forensic

[27:15] examiner at the

[27:16] Department of

[27:17] Forensic Science from

[27:21] 1973 to 1988. While

[27:22] much of her work

[27:23] involves serological

[27:23] analysis of evidence

[27:34] deaths. Some of you

[27:37] may recall the Crime

[27:39] Commission's earlier

[27:39] work on the

[27:40] post-conviction DNA

[27:41] project relating to

[27:43] biological evidence

[27:54] podcast was released,

[27:56] alleging a number of

[27:57] concerns with Miss

[27:58] Burton's work, such

[27:59] as discrepancies on

[28:00] lab reports,

[28:02] alteration of test

[28:03] results and

[28:14] including a case file

[28:15] review based on 2024

[28:17] budget language,

[28:18] which will be the

[28:18] focus of my

[28:20] presentation, as well

[28:21] as a review panel

[28:22] relating to certain

[28:23] cases. Work by Miss

[28:33] in 2024, directing

[28:35] the Crime Commission

[28:36] to determine the

[28:37] scope of Miss

[28:38] Burton's work across

[28:38] the following three

[28:40] categories. First,

[28:41] the total number of

[28:42] cases that include at

[28:54] DOC supervision,

[28:56] deceased or were

[28:57] executed. And third,

[28:59] the total number of

[29:00] cases where Miss

[29:01] Burton testified. And

[29:14] DFS sorting through

[29:15] hundreds of boxes to

[29:16] review over 7500

[29:33] your materials. So

[29:35] taking a quick walk

[29:36] through this chart

[29:37] beginning with the

[29:37] red box, this

[29:39] includes the 7500

[29:40] unique cases where

[29:41] Miss Burton was the

[29:54] identified, while the

[29:55] box on the right

[29:57] represents the cases

[29:58] where at least one

[29:59] named suspect has

[30:00] been identified.

[30:03] Looking closer at the

[30:13] number of named

[30:15] suspects does not

[30:16] represent the number

[30:16] of unique individuals

[30:18] as an individual can

[30:19] be a named suspect in

[30:21] multiple cases. So

[30:23] John Smith might be a

[30:34] represent the

[30:35] conviction status of

[30:36] the 5120 named

[30:38] suspects, and thus

[30:40] far, staff has

[30:41] confirmed 1281

[30:54] the orange boxes on

[30:55] the bottom focus on

[30:56] the 1281 named

[30:59] suspects who we know

[31:00] were convicted. The

[31:02] top number in each

[31:03] box. In each orange

[31:14] within each category.

[31:16] So, for example, when

[31:17] we look at the first

[31:18] orange box, staff

[31:20] identified 121 named

[31:22] suspects representing

[31:33] eight unique

[31:35] individuals who were

[31:36] executed. So our next

[31:38] steps relate to those

[31:40] 2800 named suspects

[31:41] in the far right

[31:42] green box, whose

[31:44] conviction status

[31:54] help research the

[31:55] conviction status of

[31:56] those 2800 named

[31:57] suspects. Staff will

[31:58] then classify any

[32:00] convicted named

[32:01] suspects accordingly

[32:02] across the categories

[32:14] finally, staff will

[32:15] provide its next

[32:16] status update in

[32:17] January of next year.

[32:21] Madam chair, this

[32:21] concludes the update

[32:22] on the 2024 budget

[32:34] None. All right. Well,

[32:35] I'll just comment. I

[32:36] just want to say

[32:37] thank you. I mean, a

[32:38] lot of work has gone

[32:39] gone into this and

[32:41] the update about the

[32:42] number of files that

[32:43] have gone that you

[32:53] And, and those who

[32:58] it's startling. And I

[33:00] just just keep up the

[33:00] good work and we

[33:01] appreciate you and

[33:02] the Department of

[33:03] Forensic Sciences for

[33:14] clerk's offices, to

[33:15] figure out a way to

[33:17] help us figure out

[33:18] what happened here.

[33:19] Are there are we

[33:21] going to express that

[33:23] this is very

[33:34] clerk's association.

[33:35] They've already given

[33:36] them the heads up

[33:37] about what's about to

[33:38] be sent out within

[33:39] the month. So and

[33:40] we've always received,

[33:43] you know, cooperation

[33:54] you so much. Then

[33:58] next.

[33:59] >> We'll have Amy

[34:00] Jenkins, our chief

[34:02] deputy director for

[34:03] the Department of

[34:14] Department of

[34:15] Forensic Science.

[34:16] Prior to my

[34:17] appointment to this

[34:18] position by Governor

[34:19] Spanberger in January,

[34:20] I served as

[34:21] department counsel

[34:21] for the Department of

[34:22] Forensic Science. So

[34:34] the Crime Commission

[34:35] staff to provide you

[34:36] an overview of what

[34:38] the Department has

[34:39] done since the

[34:41] identification of

[34:42] this issue and issues.

[34:54] well as the

[34:56] cooperation that we

[34:56] have provided, the

[34:57] Crime Commission and

[34:58] the notification

[34:59] process that we have

[35:01] undertaken with with

[35:02] the affected

[35:14] when we were

[35:15] initially notified

[35:17] that there might be

[35:18] some concerns with

[35:20] Miss Burton's work.

[35:21] The initial request

[35:23] from the podcasters

[35:34] was only in February

[35:35] of 2022 when the

[35:37] podcasters asked for

[35:38] an interview with

[35:39] then director Linda

[35:41] Jackson and our

[35:43] biology program

[35:54] Jane Burton had

[35:55] changed results in

[35:56] particular cases. We

[35:58] immediately asked for

[35:59] copies of that

[36:01] documentation, but we

[36:02] were told by Vpm at

[36:14] those documents with

[36:16] us. So we

[36:17] subsequently didn't

[36:18] receive any of the

[36:19] reference documents

[36:20] until July of 2023.

[36:22] After the podcast

[36:23] initial season had

[36:34] referral under

[36:37] 9.11113 C to the

[36:39] Scientific Advisory

[36:40] Committee. Under that

[36:41] code provision, the

[36:42] Scientific Advisory

[36:43] Committee that is our

[36:54] asked to set up a

[36:56] subcommittee to

[36:57] review those

[36:58] documents that have

[36:58] been provided and to

[37:00] review the issues to

[37:01] determine if there

[37:01] was any sort of

[37:03] nonconforming work or

[37:14] Subsequent to that,

[37:15] we were provided with

[37:16] the entire set of

[37:18] documentation that

[37:19] Vpm had come into

[37:21] possession of as a

[37:34] indicated, there's a

[37:35] code provision that

[37:36] allows us to direct

[37:38] this to the

[37:39] Scientific Advisory

[37:39] Committee to review

[37:40] the analytical work

[37:41] of our scientists.

[37:43] And the director made

[37:53] three times during

[37:55] the course of the

[37:56] review of the

[37:57] documents provided by

[37:59] Vpm. The first

[38:01] meeting was general

[38:02] review of the podcast

[38:03] allegations, and also

[38:14] Forensic Science and

[38:15] also the historical

[38:17] procedures that were

[38:18] in effect at that

[38:19] point in time. In

[38:21] January of 2024,

[38:22] there was a deeper

[38:34] testing project that

[38:35] was referenced by

[38:37] Doctor Arrington

[38:38] prior to that. At

[38:39] that point in time,

[38:40] the Marvin Grimm case

[38:42] had come to the

[38:54] information, that

[38:56] information with the

[38:56] Scientific Review

[38:58] Subcommittee as well.

[39:01] They left that

[39:01] meeting with

[39:02] direction to staff to

[39:13] individuals and to

[39:15] parties involved in

[39:16] those cases. And then

[39:19] we got back together

[39:20] in April of 2024 to

[39:22] review those draft

[39:24] notifications and get

[39:34] the Scientific Review

[39:36] Committee

[39:37] subcommittee as well

[39:38] about the proposed

[39:39] budget language that

[39:40] was proceeding as far

[39:42] as their initiation

[39:54] with the Winston

[39:55] Scott case. The

[39:55] Winston Scott case

[39:56] was also referenced

[39:58] in the course of the

[40:00] podcast. It also was

[40:01] an exoneration that

[40:14] and and also the

[40:15] subject of her

[40:17] testimony, there were

[40:17] still some concerns

[40:18] about why the results

[40:19] had initially been

[40:21] changed. The Marvin

[40:22] Grimm exoneration

[40:34] comparison results in

[40:35] those cases. And we

[40:37] have become aware of

[40:38] those as a result of

[40:40] additional testing

[40:40] the department had

[40:41] done as part of court

[40:54] in that case, as well,

[40:57] as I indicated, the

[40:58] SAC said that they we

[41:00] we needed to do

[41:02] notifications to any

[41:02] of the parties, and

[41:15] indicated that the

[41:15] parties could request

[41:17] review of the cases

[41:18] by DFS, and that as

[41:21] part of our review,

[41:22] we would also be

[41:23] willing to conduct

[41:34] have a duty to notify

[41:36] customers and correct

[41:37] any nonconforming

[41:39] work, so we set up to

[41:41] conduct those

[41:42] notifications and and

[41:53] list of cases were

[41:55] sent out to both law

[41:56] enforcement and

[41:58] prosecutors. The law

[42:00] enforcement and

[42:01] prosecutors were

[42:01] asked to provide any

[42:03] conviction

[42:03] information that they

[42:13] provide additional

[42:15] knowledge. We also

[42:16] sent an inmate

[42:17] notification through

[42:18] the Department of

[42:19] Corrections, through

[42:20] their their tablets

[42:21] that they have so

[42:22] that those that were

[42:24] currently serving

[42:34] to 35 letters from

[42:35] affected individuals

[42:36] that wanted their

[42:38] cases considered and

[42:39] wanted to know if

[42:41] they they were

[42:42] involved in the

[42:54] with Miss Burton's

[42:55] work. Mr. Bell is

[42:56] aware that we talked

[42:58] to the Commonwealth's

[42:59] Attorney Services

[43:00] Council. We talked to

[43:00] the Chiefs of Police.

[43:02] We talked to the

[43:03] Virginia Sheriffs

[43:14] conduct a review of

[43:15] the execution cases.

[43:18] Obviously, we

[43:19] understood that the

[43:19] biggest concern would

[43:20] be the execution

[43:21] cases and whether

[43:22] Miss Burton's work

[43:23] was attributable to

[43:34] the commission and

[43:36] shared her viewpoint

[43:38] that Miss Burton's

[43:39] work did not

[43:40] contribute to any of

[43:41] the individuals that

[43:43] were convicted that

[43:53] Defense bar the Crime

[43:55] Commission staff had

[43:56] had worked with us to

[43:58] develop a working

[43:59] group of defense

[44:00] attorneys and

[44:01] prosecutors and

[44:02] various stakeholders,

[44:12] were appropriate. And

[44:15] one of the things

[44:15] that they suggested

[44:16] was that we send out

[44:17] a notification

[44:18] directly to the

[44:19] defense attorneys. So

[44:20] that was sent out to

[44:21] through a CDL,

[44:34] are currently being

[44:35] made to effective

[44:37] individuals. We have

[44:37] to have the

[44:38] conviction

[44:39] information. As

[44:39] Doctor Arrington

[44:41] indicated, we still

[44:42] need conviction

[44:54] department typically

[44:56] don't even have a

[44:57] date of birth. They

[44:59] usually have a name.

[45:00] It's the name known

[45:01] to law enforcement

[45:02] when they submit the

[45:03] evidence that may or

[45:14] examinations. So

[45:15] we've relied heavily

[45:16] on information coming

[45:17] in from the clerks

[45:19] offices. Back at that

[45:20] time, the clerks

[45:21] would put dates of

[45:22] birth in the

[45:34] to help us identify

[45:36] them, even with

[45:37] personally

[45:37] identifying

[45:38] information, you can

[45:40] still have

[45:41] difficulties in some

[45:42] of the databases that

[45:43] are available to us

[45:53] public records access.

[45:55] We don't have access

[45:55] to law enforcement

[45:57] agencies databases,

[45:59] so we're reliant on

[46:00] what might be

[46:01] available through

[46:03] LexisNexis in order

[46:14] notification to them,

[46:15] indicating that

[46:15] Burton worked on

[46:16] their case. And her

[46:18] work has been

[46:19] questioned,

[46:21] indicating that we

[46:22] couldn't provide any

[46:23] legal advice to those

[46:34] results that we had

[46:36] and that we would

[46:37] discuss testing

[46:38] options of any of any

[46:40] sort that's available

[46:41] on if evidence is

[46:43] located, and we would

[46:54] department does not

[46:55] have any authority to

[46:56] require parties to

[46:57] resubmit evidence.

[46:59] And obviously, if the

[47:00] evidence is within

[47:01] the court and being

[47:02] held by the clerk's

[47:03] office, it would take

[47:14] done, or the court

[47:15] ordered it. I wanted

[47:18] to address a little

[47:19] bit of the overlap

[47:21] between this and the

[47:22] post-conviction

[47:23] testing project that

[47:33] were some examiners

[47:35] during the early part

[47:37] of the department,

[47:38] starting in 1973,

[47:40] where they would

[47:41] retain cuttings and

[47:42] swabs that were

[47:54] their results on that

[47:56] worksheet. And those

[47:58] were retained in the

[47:59] case file. This came

[48:00] to light as a result

[48:02] of one exoneration

[48:03] from the testing of

[48:13] we could and test

[48:15] where we were able to

[48:16] establish convictions.

[48:18] The PC project

[48:19] occurred before I got

[48:21] to DFS, the testing

[48:22] side of it. The

[48:23] notification was

[48:34] where a tape down

[48:35] swabs were identified

[48:37] in the case file.

[48:39] Burton was the one

[48:40] that did the most

[48:42] consistently taping

[48:43] down of items into

[48:53] the department. The

[48:56] 2008 budget language

[48:57] that was passed by

[48:58] the General Assembly

[48:59] required the board,

[48:59] the Forensic Science

[49:00] Board or other

[49:01] oversight body to

[49:02] notify all convicted

[49:14] Board was established

[49:15] to conduct that

[49:17] notification

[49:18] requirement going

[49:19] forward. And that was

[49:21] completed. As I said

[49:22] shortly before the

[49:23] podcast allegations

[49:34] cases if spermatozoa

[49:35] or seminal fluid was

[49:37] indicated and the

[49:38] defendant was

[49:39] incarcerated and the

[49:41] evidence was

[49:42] probative after those

[49:43] criteria were met, we

[49:54] Crime Commission also

[49:55] directed its staff to

[49:56] notify next of kin

[49:58] for any deceased

[50:00] eliminated. There

[50:00] were 19 deceased

[50:02] eliminated

[50:02] individuals

[50:13] eight of the 11

[50:15] defendants next of

[50:16] kin. Probative value.

[50:19] Oftentimes, the

[50:20] serology that was

[50:21] done, it was testing

[50:22] a swab of blood that

[50:34] in sexual assaults,

[50:36] where you might

[50:36] obtain serological

[50:38] evidence that might

[50:39] implicate the

[50:40] defendant versus a

[50:41] crime scene where

[50:42] there is a large

[50:43] amount of blood left

[50:54] with the completion

[50:55] of the notification

[50:57] project. That's how I

[50:58] met Doctor Arrington

[50:59] and we got so close.

[51:01] And in 2016, the

[51:03] Crime Commission

[51:14] able to obtain one or

[51:15] where we also may

[51:16] need a known from the

[51:18] defendant. We may not

[51:19] have a a viable

[51:21] defendant's reference

[51:22] sample. So at least

[51:24] three separate

[51:34] those will be

[51:35] reviewed by the

[51:36] independent panel.

[51:38] They were not. We

[51:39] have not really

[51:41] conducted an

[51:41] independent review of

[51:42] the exonerations,

[51:43] leaving it to the

[51:54] as well as all of the

[51:56] incarcerated files,

[51:57] so that those can be

[51:58] turned over to the

[51:59] independent panel for

[52:00] their review, as well

[52:03] as making this 7500

[52:14] nine of these cases.

[52:16] She may have

[52:17] performed serology in

[52:18] the 10th case, but

[52:19] the exoneration. When

[52:21] the exoneration

[52:22] occurred, DFS

[52:23] expunged the entirety

[52:23] of the original

[52:34] the National Registry

[52:35] of Exonerations will

[52:37] indicate what they

[52:38] believe those

[52:40] exonerations, the

[52:40] wrongful conviction,

[52:41] what it was

[52:42] attributable to. And

[52:54] that we have

[52:55] indicated was a

[52:56] concern. And and the

[52:57] Scientific Advisory

[52:58] Committee review

[53:00] subcommittee

[53:00] indicated was a

[53:02] concern for them as

[53:13] And the individual

[53:15] who was convicted and

[53:17] subsequently executed

[53:18] was indicated in that

[53:20] that DNA testing the

[53:22] fourth individual.

[53:34] suspect in the case.

[53:35] So that supports Mr.

[53:37] Way's inclusion in in

[53:39] that crime. He also

[53:42] confessed and took

[53:42] the officers to the

[53:43] scene of the crime

[53:54] There was not any

[53:55] tape down swabs that

[53:57] were kept or cuttings

[53:58] that were kept in the

[53:59] file with corral.

[54:00] There was no serology

[54:02] results that were

[54:03] informative in the

[54:13] that matter at all.

[54:15] Having been called,

[54:16] the police were

[54:17] called to the scene

[54:19] with the screams of

[54:20] the victim and found

[54:21] him underneath the

[54:22] bed of the victim.

[54:34] full confession in

[54:35] that case, and in

[54:37] Fitzgerald, there

[54:38] were no foreign DNA

[54:40] profiles from the PC

[54:41] testing. The

[54:42] codefendant testified

[54:54] the files. And she

[54:56] agreed with our

[54:57] conclusion that there

[54:58] were no individuals

[54:59] who were wrongfully

[55:01] convicted as a result

[55:03] of Miss Burton's work,

[55:14] PC testing status,

[55:15] looking at the next

[55:17] group of concern

[55:17] which are the

[55:19] incarcerated

[55:19] individuals. And as

[55:20] Doctor Arrington

[55:21] indicated, we have

[55:34] included in the DNA

[55:36] results that were

[55:37] that were resulted

[55:40] from the testing of

[55:41] the tape down. Swabs

[55:52] testing. And

[55:55] inconclusive may or

[55:56] may not typically

[55:58] means that there's

[55:59] just not enough there

[56:00] for us to get DNA

[56:01] results from. If you

[56:15] able, with that type

[56:16] of degradation to be

[56:17] able to get testing

[56:20] results from those

[56:21] that were able to

[56:34] It depends on the

[56:35] nature of the

[56:36] evidence. We take an

[56:37] extra care to make

[56:38] sure that the parties

[56:39] are aware, but

[56:40] there's obviously

[56:42] more evidence to be

[56:43] considered than just

[56:54] testing. We need a

[56:56] result or a sample

[56:58] from the victim or a

[57:00] sample from the

[57:01] defendant in order to

[57:02] draw any conclusions

[57:14] whether or not we had

[57:15] a conviction for that

[57:16] or not. The Crime

[57:17] Commission has been

[57:18] diligent in notifying

[57:19] us when we have that

[57:21] situation, where we

[57:22] are now being

[57:23] notified that an

[57:24] individual was

[57:34] parties, and we have

[57:36] a handful. It has

[57:38] been delayed a little

[57:39] bit more than we

[57:40] would like, as we

[57:41] have moved the

[57:42] central laboratory

[57:42] from Richmond to

[57:43] Hanover, there were a

[57:52] facility in Hanover.

[57:55] Term of incarceration

[57:57] status for the 121

[57:59] individuals who are

[58:00] incarcerated there.

[58:01] You can see the

[58:02] numbers or

[58:03] percentages that are

[58:14] committed, and the

[58:16] center for

[58:17] rehabilitation out in.

[58:19] I'm not going to be

[58:21] able to remember

[58:21] where it is, but you

[58:23] all know what I'm

[58:24] talking about. And

[58:34] you can see, you know,

[58:36] the majority of the

[58:38] vast majority are sex

[58:40] offenses or homicide

[58:42] offenses with some

[58:54] that. If we get

[58:56] additional cases

[58:57] where the convictions

[58:58] are identified as we

[58:59] review the 2800 with

[59:02] the clerks where

[59:03] we're receiving that

[59:04] information, we will

[59:13] testing within DFS

[59:15] resources. We

[59:18] continue to utilize

[59:18] Lexis public records.

[59:20] We have gotten

[59:21] through all the 1281

[59:34] have enough PII to be

[59:36] able to locate a

[59:38] valid address for

[59:39] them. If we get a

[59:41] letter returned, we

[59:42] will send to another

[59:53] calls from affected

[59:55] individuals. I'm also

[59:56] having attorneys

[59:57] reach out to me from

[59:58] those affected

[59:59] individuals wanting

[1:00:00] to know what their

[1:00:01] options are, and we

[1:00:02] are fully cooperative

[1:00:14] continue to take that

[1:00:15] tact in trying to

[1:00:16] rectify the situation.

[1:00:19] And as we get those

[1:00:20] additional updates

[1:00:21] for the 2844, we'll

[1:00:23] continue with this

[1:00:34] independent panel's

[1:00:35] conclusions are, and

[1:00:37] to continue with the

[1:00:38] process. Those are

[1:00:42] all of that's all the

[1:00:43] information I have.

[1:00:43] I'm happy to answer

[1:00:54] changed over the

[1:00:55] years in terms of

[1:00:56] protocol. And now

[1:00:56] with DNA, it's much

[1:00:58] more exact. What what

[1:01:00] changes have you made

[1:01:12] like using a pencil,

[1:01:15] which was alleged

[1:01:16] that whether that's

[1:01:17] permitted or any type

[1:01:19] of other oversight,

[1:01:21] things that may be

[1:01:22] part of the

[1:01:24] accreditation process

[1:01:34] to speak to. That

[1:01:35] would probably be our

[1:01:36] quality manager to be

[1:01:37] able to talk to that.

[1:01:39] But the accreditation

[1:01:40] process, which which

[1:01:41] wasn't in effect when

[1:01:42] these these cases

[1:01:54] that are conducted by

[1:01:55] another examiner of

[1:01:56] files. There are

[1:01:58] additional checks and

[1:02:00] balances that occur,

[1:02:01] as well as this

[1:02:03] reporting of

[1:02:14] going to be in

[1:02:15] anything that can be

[1:02:17] erased. They're going

[1:02:18] to be reviewed. And,

[1:02:20] and so you're not

[1:02:21] going to have the

[1:02:22] kind of situation. It

[1:02:23] was just a different

[1:02:34] review that

[1:02:35] >> Occurs on every

[1:02:36] case that goes out.

[1:02:54] one of our meetings.

[1:02:55] And my thought was,

[1:02:56] why not just ban

[1:02:57] pencils from the

[1:02:58] building? And I

[1:03:00] appreciate the fact

[1:03:01] that a lot of this

[1:03:01] equipment is, or a

[1:03:02] lot of the things are

[1:03:13] off still have to use

[1:03:15] pen and ink

[1:03:16] signatures on the

[1:03:16] documents they sign.

[1:03:18] They initialed

[1:03:19] different parts of

[1:03:20] things. The initial

[1:03:21] changes to show and

[1:03:22] changes are made.

[1:03:23] There still is a

[1:03:33] pen. I never get an

[1:03:35] original copy. I'll

[1:03:35] ever, I'll ever get

[1:03:36] is copies, you know,

[1:03:37] when I send subpoenas

[1:03:38] out. But it's still

[1:03:39] not clear to me why

[1:03:41] DFS would even allow

[1:03:42] anybody to have a

[1:03:43] pencil in the

[1:03:43] building, what the

[1:03:54] documents. And that

[1:03:55] to me, just seemed

[1:03:55] like a really simple

[1:03:57] thing to do. And I'm

[1:03:58] I understand that's

[1:03:59] not your area of

[1:04:00] expertise, but this

[1:04:01] prohibiting pencils,

[1:04:02] many DFS lab to me

[1:04:14] am not certain. Sorry,

[1:04:15] Madam Chair. Yes. Go

[1:04:17] ahead. Senator, I'm

[1:04:21] probably not the best

[1:04:22] to explain the levels

[1:04:34] You know, you you do

[1:04:35] have the ability to

[1:04:36] subpoena our file and

[1:04:37] to review our file

[1:04:38] and have an expert

[1:04:39] review the file. You

[1:04:40] also have the ability

[1:04:41] to sit down with the

[1:04:43] examiner and review

[1:04:54] which, you know, even

[1:04:55] when you're writing

[1:04:56] in pen, you're going

[1:04:57] to have an error

[1:04:58] where you might need

[1:04:59] to scratch through it.

[1:05:00] You're required to

[1:05:01] initial that you have

[1:05:02] made that change and

[1:05:14] initially reported

[1:05:15] and why the change

[1:05:16] was made. You know,

[1:05:18] there is a very

[1:05:19] robust quality

[1:05:20] assurance process. I

[1:05:21] think Director

[1:05:22] Jackson, at that

[1:05:22] meeting where it was

[1:05:34] happy to come and

[1:05:35] talk about the

[1:05:36] quality assurance

[1:05:37] policies, policies

[1:05:38] and the quality

[1:05:39] assurance

[1:05:40] requirements for our

[1:05:42] staff. If it

[1:05:54] >> Madam Chair.

[1:05:55] >> Yes, Senator.

[1:05:58] >> Yeah. I understand

[1:05:59] what the process is.

[1:06:00] We're trying to deal

[1:06:01] with people who don't

[1:06:02] follow the process.

[1:06:14] follow the rules, and

[1:06:15] I think banning

[1:06:16] pencils in the

[1:06:16] building would solve

[1:06:17] the problem, where

[1:06:18] people can erase

[1:06:19] things instead of

[1:06:19] striking and making

[1:06:20] initials and getting

[1:06:21] quality assurance to

[1:06:22] review it or whatever.

[1:06:22] I think it's a very

[1:06:34] is going away. I just

[1:06:35] saw a lab, a

[1:06:37] forensics lab

[1:06:39] technician convicted

[1:06:40] another state last

[1:06:41] week for falsifying

[1:06:43] records because she

[1:06:43] wanted to cut corners

[1:06:54] and banning pencils

[1:06:55] from the building, I

[1:06:56] think would go a long

[1:06:57] way towards, you know,

[1:06:59] it's at least one

[1:06:59] simple solution to

[1:07:00] solving this problem.

[1:07:01] I think a lot of

[1:07:02] people would

[1:07:03] understand. So thank

[1:07:14] maybe we we have a

[1:07:15] sit down conversation

[1:07:17] with the agency. But

[1:07:18] and I really

[1:07:18] appreciate your work.

[1:07:19] The Department of

[1:07:20] Forensic Services.

[1:07:21] Are there any

[1:07:34] available on our

[1:07:35] website. It's a

[1:07:36] review of the DFS

[1:07:38] Quality System and

[1:07:38] Duty to correct. And

[1:07:39] that presentation you

[1:07:40] can find on our

[1:07:41] meetings website page.

[1:07:52] our senior research

[1:07:55] analyst. Are welcome.

[1:07:59] >> Hello. Good

[1:07:59] afternoon, Madam

[1:08:00] Chair, and members of

[1:08:01] the Crime Commission.

[1:08:02] Today, I will be

[1:08:03] providing an update

[1:08:13] designate a panel to

[1:08:15] review cases where

[1:08:16] Miss Burton was the

[1:08:17] forensic examiner,

[1:08:18] and the individual is

[1:08:20] currently

[1:08:21] incarcerated, or was

[1:08:22] executed or

[1:08:23] exonerated, as well

[1:08:34] panel expenses. The

[1:08:37] review panel must

[1:08:38] determine, if

[1:08:39] possible, whether

[1:08:40] Miss Burton engaged

[1:08:41] in a pattern of

[1:08:43] misconduct and

[1:08:54] as actual innocence

[1:08:55] is a separate court

[1:08:57] proceeding. The

[1:09:01] review panel will

[1:09:02] consist of seven

[1:09:03] members, which

[1:09:04] include

[1:09:14] the office of the

[1:09:15] Attorney General and

[1:09:16] the Executive

[1:09:17] Director of the

[1:09:18] Mid-Atlantic

[1:09:19] Innocence Project. To

[1:09:23] date, staff has

[1:09:33] execution cases, 11

[1:09:35] exoneration cases and

[1:09:36] at least 199 cases

[1:09:38] where Miss Burton

[1:09:40] testified. The 2025

[1:09:42] legislation directs

[1:09:43] the review panel to

[1:09:54] and are currently

[1:09:55] incarcerated on an

[1:09:56] unrelated case. In

[1:10:01] preparation for the

[1:10:02] work of the review

[1:10:03] panel, staff is

[1:10:04] collecting and

[1:10:14] also inquiring

[1:10:15] whether any physical

[1:10:17] evidence remains

[1:10:18] available for testing.

[1:10:20] These records are

[1:10:21] being shared with the

[1:10:22] Innocence Project of

[1:10:22] the University of

[1:10:23] Virginia School of

[1:10:34] panel has been

[1:10:36] challenging, as these

[1:10:36] cases are 40 to 50

[1:10:38] years old. Many

[1:10:39] records have been

[1:10:40] destroyed pursuant to

[1:10:42] retention policies or

[1:10:43] are unable to be

[1:10:54] case may be minimal

[1:10:55] or nonexistent.

[1:10:57] Finally, gathering

[1:10:58] transcripts has also

[1:10:59] been difficult as

[1:11:01] court transcripts are

[1:11:02] not generated in all

[1:11:14] legislation. First,

[1:11:16] guidance could be

[1:11:17] provided on how

[1:11:18] attorneys share

[1:11:19] unredacted court, law

[1:11:21] enforcement and

[1:11:22] Commonwealth's

[1:11:22] attorney's records

[1:11:33] defendants. Second, a

[1:11:36] process could be

[1:11:37] developed for the

[1:11:37] review panel to

[1:11:38] request additional

[1:11:39] scientific testing if

[1:11:41] such testing would be

[1:11:42] beneficial to the

[1:11:51] matter experts. In

[1:11:56] conclusion, after the

[1:11:56] Crime Commission

[1:11:57] designates members of

[1:11:58] the review panel,

[1:11:59] staff will continue

[1:12:00] to provide support to

[1:12:01] the panel, including

[1:12:02] record collection and

[1:12:13] 2027. Madam chair,

[1:12:15] that concludes this

[1:12:16] presentation. I am

[1:12:16] happy to answer any

[1:12:18] questions.

[1:12:18] >> Thank you so much.

[1:12:19] Are there any

[1:12:20] questions? Seeing

[1:12:34] through the process

[1:12:35] of interviewing and

[1:12:37] designating or have

[1:12:39] recommendations to

[1:12:40] designate the review

[1:12:40] panel members. And so

[1:12:41] I just want to thank

[1:12:42] them for all their

[1:12:43] work, because I know

[1:12:54] on the Crime

[1:12:55] Commission who

[1:12:56] participated in that.

[1:12:56] And so now I'm going

[1:12:57] to turn it over to

[1:12:59] delegate hope.

[1:13:00] >> Thank you, Madam

[1:13:02] Chair. As you said,

[1:13:03] you we created this

[1:13:13] your direction, the

[1:13:15] subcommittee

[1:13:16] developed an online

[1:13:17] application process

[1:13:18] for interested

[1:13:19] individuals to apply.

[1:13:21] Earlier this year, we

[1:13:22] received multiple

[1:13:34] Crime Commission the

[1:13:36] following individuals

[1:13:37] to serve on the panel.

[1:13:39] Members were

[1:13:39] previously provided

[1:13:40] copies of the

[1:13:42] applications and

[1:13:42] their resumes and

[1:13:43] bios and backgrounds,

[1:13:54] Attorney Megan Clark

[1:13:56] from Prince Edward

[1:13:57] County Public

[1:13:58] Defender Althea Myers

[1:14:00] from the City of

[1:14:01] Portsmouth. Felony

[1:14:02] certified county

[1:14:14] Independent Sarah

[1:14:16] Enologist Keith

[1:14:17] Peterson from

[1:14:19] California.

[1:14:20] Additionally, the

[1:14:21] legislation requires

[1:14:21] that a representative

[1:14:22] from the Attorney

[1:14:23] General's office also

[1:14:32] serve in that role.

[1:14:35] Lastly, Madam Chair,

[1:14:35] the legislation

[1:14:37] requires the

[1:14:37] Executive director of

[1:14:38] the Mid-Atlantic

[1:14:39] Innocence Project to

[1:14:40] serve on the panel,

[1:14:42] and that individual

[1:14:43] will be Shawn

[1:14:53] the review panel.

[1:14:56] >> Thank you. All

[1:14:57] right.

[1:14:57] >> It's been motion

[1:14:58] and proper motion,

[1:14:59] and properly. Second,

[1:15:00] that we appoint the

[1:15:14] members are appointed.

[1:15:15] Congratulations to

[1:15:16] those individuals.

[1:15:17] And thank you for

[1:15:17] putting yourself

[1:15:19] forward, chair.

[1:15:20] >> Thank you, Madam

[1:15:21] Chair. Additionally,

[1:15:22] because we anticipate

[1:15:22] that the work will

[1:15:23] workload will be

[1:15:33] following individuals

[1:15:35] for appointment as

[1:15:36] alternate designees.

[1:15:37] And again, you do

[1:15:39] have their bios and

[1:15:40] resumes in your

[1:15:41] meeting materials. So

[1:15:43] serving as alternate

[1:15:54] Chesterfield County

[1:15:55] felony certified

[1:15:56] County appointed

[1:15:58] attorney. Michelle

[1:15:58] Burton from Ashburn,

[1:16:00] Virginia. Retired

[1:16:02] Circuit Court Judge

[1:16:14] serve as as their

[1:16:16] alternate. And so

[1:16:17] with that, Madam

[1:16:18] Chair, I would ask

[1:16:19] for a motion to

[1:16:20] appoint those

[1:16:21] individuals as

[1:16:22] alternates to the

[1:16:34] related to Mary Jane

[1:16:36] Burton. So all those

[1:16:37] in favor say aye.

[1:16:39] Those opposed? All

[1:16:40] right. Those are our

[1:16:43] alternates. Thank you,

[1:16:43] chair Hope and Chair

[1:16:53] our last meeting in

[1:16:55] December 2nd. That

[1:16:57] was that's in our

[1:16:59] packet. Is there a

[1:17:00] motion to approve the

[1:17:01] minutes.

[1:17:02] >> So moved. Second.

[1:17:04] >> Okay. It's been

[1:17:14] there anyone who has

[1:17:16] any public comments.

[1:17:17] You have two minutes.

[1:17:19] All right. Seeing

[1:17:20] none. And there's no

[1:17:21] one online. Correct.

[1:17:34] adjourned. Thank you

Virginia State Crime Commission

Transcript