[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