iting organization. Inthe meantime, theForensic SpecialtiesAccreditation Board(FSAB) was establishedand soon it will bereviewing certificationorganizations foraccreditation purposes.The Academy’s Board ofDirectors agreed at theAugust meeting to rec-ognize the American Board of Psychiatry andNeurology (ABPN) and those members who arecertified in the specialty of forensic psychiatry.This recognition was afforded ABPN becausethe American Board of Medical Specialties hasaccredited it.

In several ways, I think the August meetingof the Board was a benchmark meeting for theAcademy. One historic achievement was toadopt the policies and procedures manual andaccreditation standards for FEPAC, the ForensicScience Education Programs AccreditationCommission. The Commission, under the lead-ership of Jose Almirall, developed these detaileddocuments in support of its mission to maintainand enhance the quality of forensic scienceeducation through a formal evaluation andaccreditation system for college-level academicprograms that lead to a baccalaureate orgraduate degree. The Board of Directors alsopassed a resolution to propose to the membersof the Academy a bylaws change that wouldmake FEPAC a standing committee of the AAFS.Giving FEPAC that status will fulfill federalrequirements and establish FEPAC as the recog-nized accrediting agency for forensic scienceeducational institutions. Together, FEPAC andFSAB significantly strengthen the Academy’sreputation as the pre-eminent organization inthe forensic sciences.

AC

AD

EM

Y N

EW

SAA

MMEE

RRII

CCAA

NN

AACC

AADD

EEMM

YY

OOFF

FF

OORR

EENN

SSII

CC

SSCC

IIEE

NNCC

EESS

SEPTEMBER 2003 VOL. 33 – ISSUE 5 EDITOR: KATHY REYNOLDS

On August 8th and 9th, the ExecutiveCommittee and the Board of Directors met inDallas. What a great venue that city will be forthe 2004 Annual Meeting! We met at theAdam’s Mark Hotel, the headquarters hotel fornext year’s meeting. For five hours on Fridaynight, the Executive Committee met. Weapproved the minutes of previous meetings,developed and approved a budget for this fiscalyear, reviewed the development and implemen-tation of Academy initiatives, and set thecourse for the Academy affairs for the rest ofthis year.

On Saturday, the entire Board of Directorsmet for eight hours. Many things were accom-plished. The office staff was directed by theBoard to engage in negotiations with theconvention center and nearby hotels in SanAntonio for the 2007 annual meeting. Inaddition, the Board asked the staff to prepare aproposal to select one or more cities asmeeting sites on a rotational basis. In otherwords, the site of the annual meetings wouldrotate between two to four permanent loca-tions. The benefit to this plan would be costsavings to the Academy and to the membershipas well as the convenience of familiarity withthe sites. At the February 2004 Board ofDirectors meeting, we will consider specificproposals.

Historically, the Academy has recognizedforensic certifications by including such desig-nations after members’ names in the directory.In 1996, the decision was made not to rec-ognize additional forensic certification boardsthat were not accredited by a credible accred-

PRESIDENT’S

MESSAGE

Kenneth E. Melson, JD

PRE-REGISTRATION

Category FeeMember $235Applicant $235IAI Member $235Trainee Affiliate $235Full Time Student $ 95Daily $135Non-Member $375

ON-SITE REGISTRATION

Category FeeMember $350Applicant $350IAI Member $350Trainee Affiliate $350Full Time Student $105Daily $135Non-Member $450

2004 AAFS ANNUAL MEETING REGISTRATION FEESPre-Registration Deadline: January 21, 2004

continued on page 5

On July 31, 2003, severalConsortium representativestraveled to Washington, DC, tomeet with congressional staffersand to attend the SenateCommittee on the Judiciary,Subcommittee on AdministrativeOversight and the Courtsregarding the Department ofJustice Oversight: FundingForensic Sciences – DNA andBeyond. Susan Johns testified on

behalf of the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations.Several others testified including Sarah Hart, Director of theU.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,Michael Baden, and Peter Neufeld, Director of the InnocenceProject at Benjamin N. Cardoza School of Law, YeshivaUniversity, plus two prosecutors and a crime victim. DirectorHart praised the President’s forensic DNA initiative while theothers questioned the wisdom to spend $1B over five yearsonly on forensic DNA-related programs and not fund others.

Although, I did not testify, I submitted the followingstatement which is abstracted below:

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for this opportunity to brief you on the stateof forensic science in the United States and to speak on thefuture funding for crime laboratories and medical examineroffices. I am Director of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’sDepartment Crime Lab and represent the American Academyof Forensic Sciences, a scientific society of over 5000 prac-ticing forensic scientists, many employed in crime labs andmedical examiner offices. The Academy is a member organi-zation of the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizationswhose task has been to advocate for the needs of forensicscience in Washington.

The forensic science delivery system in our country is introuble. Simply stated, crime labs and medical examineroffices are under funded to meet the demands of a 21stcentury criminal justice system. Crime labs and medicalexaminers offices often cannot provide timely services. Theresult is some investigations are inadequate and adverselyaffect the quality of justice. The ability to appropriately usescience and technology to solve crimes, to help bring theguilty to justice, and to help exonerate the innocent isseriously compromised because of insufficient resources forcrime labs and medical examiner offices.

Unlike the television portrayal of crime labs wherecrimes are solved in under an hour, many labs are unable toget the job done. Unfortunately, I am unable to provide youwith quantitative data to demonstrate this point, but I candescribe the problem facing forensic science labs today. Theproblem presents itself in different ways. In some regions,DNA backlogs are the problem and rape cases are notexamined in a timely fashion. Other jurisdictions faceproblems with drug cases, fingerprints, firearms cases, or

toxicology cases. There are insufficient resources to allowlabs to complete casework in a timely manner. This is some-times due to a lack of adequate work space, enough trainedpersonnel, or proper equipment.

While I do not have numbers to prove my point, thereare scores of newspaper and television reports to demon-strate that there is a problem:

Feb 3, 2003, Pittsburgh, PA (KDKA-TV)—Eight monthsago, a KDKA investigation uncovered a backlog at theAllegheny County Crime Lab that was forcing police to waitweeks, months, and even years for evidence analysis theyneeded to crack cases.

As a result, bags of evidence from hundreds of caseshave been sitting on shelves in the county crime labcollecting dust instead of catching criminals.

Mar 6, 2003, Chattanooga, TN (WDEF-TV)—Methamphetamine use is on the rise in Southeast Tennessee,but now the Meth Task force wonders if it can keep up. TheChattanooga Crime Lab is closing, and all the evidence frommore than 20 counties will have to go to Knoxville.

“It affects every police department. The City ofChattanooga will have to have a transport person...”Hamilton County Sheriff John Cupp says his force will ded-icate one person to take evidence to Knoxville at least once aweek. “They say, ‘Oh, you can mail these, and send them bydifferent ways.’ When it comes to drugs and chain of custodyand a large case, I’m not going to put it in the mail or any-thing else.”

The ingredients to make meth are so dangerous; officersneed special training to handle them. “Inhalation of haz-ardous airborne chemicals has been a problem over theyears. A lot of officers have suffered from respiratoryproblems,” explains Roger Chesshire of the NetworkEnvironmental Service. Not only is the Chattanooga Labclosing, but the Jackson Lab is, too, meaning the KnoxvilleLab could face a heavier workload.

Feb 21, 2003, Augusta ME (Blethen MaineNewspapers)— Proposed budget cuts for the stateDepartment of Public Safety will mean fewer troopers toanswer emergency calls and fewer forensic specialists to helpsolve crimes, according to state police officials. The cuts, partof Gov. John Baldacci’s effort to eliminate the state’s pro-jected $1.1 billion budget deficit without raising taxes,would eliminate as many as 49 positions in the department.The proposed cuts include 14 trooper, one detective and 20civilian positions… the reduction in forensic specialists atthe State Police Crime Lab will have a significant impact. “Wehave backlogs now. We are just going to have to prioritizethose backlogs, ...”

Evidence from some property crimes may not beprocessed at all at the crime laboratories and material fromviolent crimes may wait longer for attention.

Feb 14, 2003, Waterbury, VT (Channel 3 – TV News)—Budget cuts are slowing lab tests of potentially key evidencein a … murder investigation, according to authorities. Policegathered the evidence a month ago … But there have been

LEGISLATIVE CORNER

Barry A.J. Fisher, MS, MBA

continued on page 4

A C A D E M Y N E W S 3

no arrests and police now say they are still awaiting labanalysis of the murder scene evidence, including DNAmaterial.

Eric Buel, Director of the Vermont Crime Lab, says a largebacklog of cases, and a shortage of space and personneldelayed lab testing.

Jan 21, 2003, Wisconsin Leader-Telegram— A state crimelaboratory in Wausau may have to close because of budgetcuts facing the state’s Department of Justice. AttorneyGeneral Peg Lautenschlager talked about the possible closinglast week during an address at the Wisconsin DistrictAttorneys Association Conference in Appleton.

The state also has crime lab offices in Madison andMilwaukee.

Lautenschlager said the impending cuts would be signif-icant, particularly for a Justice Department that already hasbeen operating on a “bare-bones budget.”

She said closing the Wausau crime lab is among the cutsshe is contemplating.

Feb 4, 2003, Alabama, WTVM Channel 9 News— The newdirector of Alabama’s state crime lab says he’ll do the best hecan with the limited resources the state has.… For instance,the crime lab has 9,000 drug cases still unresolved, as well as500 firearms cases. State leaders didn’t help, as this year’sbudget is $2.5 million smaller than last year’s.

July 24, 2003, Corpus Christi, TX, KRIS-TV— A new statelaw tells local authorities to either upgrade their crime labsor don’t bother bringing their evidence to court, and at thispoint, the outlook for Corpus Christi Police doesn’t look toogood. As a result of serious DNA irregularities at the policecrime lab in Houston, lawmakers recently voted to requirethat all similar labs be accredited by 2005. The problem isthat to upgrade Corpus Christi’s lab will require morepersonnel, more equipment, and most of all more money,and right now, that money just isn’t being spent.

May 14, 2003, San Mateo County, CA, Mercury News—The San Mateo County crime lab has just moved into abrand-new, multimillion-dollar building, but inadequate

staffing and poor management are causing serious delays inevidence analysis, according to a grand jury report releasedTuesday.

The 57-page report found that the lab is chronically latein processing evidence, sometimes delaying trials andkeeping defendants in jail when the evidence could possiblyexonerate them. … [The] lab director … acknowledged thatthere is a major backlog of unprocessed evidence, but saidmost of the lab’s delays are due to one thing beyond hiscontrol: low staffing.

July 8, 2003, Mayfield, KY, Channel 3 TV— A GravesCounty circuit judge wants to know what the holdup is intesting for drugs and other evidence at the Kentucky StatePolice crime lab in Madisonville. Circuit Judge JohnDaughaday issued an order … for lab officials to appear in hiscourt Aug. 12 to explain the delay.

Graves and other counties in western Kentucky have seena sharp rise in methamphetamine cases in recent years. Butdelays in getting back lab results have left some defendantssitting in jail. But a police official said the Madisonville lab isunderstaffed, resulting in a backlog.

These are a few of the news stories I have beencollecting. They tell a story that there are problems all around the country within forensic science labs.

The Consortium of Forensic Science Organizationsbelieves that funding forensic DNA is important. But otherforensic science areas, such as drug testing, toxicology,firearms identification, fingerprint identification, and forensicpathology are also important. These disciplines help to solvecrimes. They must be appropriately funded as well.

The U.S. Congress passed the Paul Coverdell NationalForensic Science Improvement Act. Sadly, the amount offunding appropriated for the act is exceedingly small. Weurge that the monies proposed in the Administration’sBudget be placed into the Coverdell Act to allow jurisdictionsto use the funds in ways they feel are necessary.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunityto convey these remarks.

LEGISLATIVE CORNER CONT.

4 A C A D E M Y N E W S

Following the Senate Judiciary hearings. Shown from left to right: Peter Neufeld, Michael Baden, Jamie Downs, Linda Kenny, Susan Johns, Senator Jeff Sessions, Beth Lavash, Barry Fisher, and Victor Weedn

The Schedule of Events for the October 17-19, 2003, Forensic Science EducationalConference at The University of Texas at Arlington is now in its final draft. Applications frommore than 100 middle- and high school science teachers from all over the country have alreadybeen received and approved. President-Elect Ron Singer, Patricia Eddings, Dana Austin, andthe FSEC/UTA Steering Committee are assisting AAFS specialists as they prepare lectures andhands-on workshops for the three-day event. The FSEC/UTA is co-sponsored by the AAFS, TheUniversity of Texas at Arlington, and Court TV.

As has been the case with the two previous conferences at Saint Louis University and PaceUniversity, each partner in the project provides funding and/or in-kind contributions. Neal J.Smatresk, Dean of the College of Science at UTA, and Cathy Boyles, Director of the College’sScience Education & Career Center, are providing excellent facilities (lecture halls, classrooms,and labs) and are assigning on-site personnel to facilitate conference activities. Court TV’sSenior Vice-President of Marketing, Evan Shapiro, Vice-President of Marketing, Linda Finney,

and Marketing Coordinator, John Domesick, continue to promote the FSECs in the network’s outreach programs and onthe Court TV website (www.courttv.com/forensics_curriculum) as well as through cash contributions for scholarships andlectures at the conferences which deal with the various lessons of Forensics In The Classroom. The FSEC/UTA Scheduleof Events may be found on page 6 of this issue of the Academy News.

The AAFS Board of Directors has authorized collaboration with Smart Media Group, Ltd. (www.e-smg.com), a London-based company, to offer to Academy members a "one-stop shop" for essential industry information. Users will haveaccess to interactive supplier profiles, product innovations, industry news, abstracts, case studies, a message board, andan extensive events calendar. The website (www.forensic-technology.com), which will have a prominent link to the AAFSwebsite, will be launched at the EAFS triennial meeting in Istanbul this month. Val-Pierre Genton, Smart Media Group'sManaging Director, believes that forensic-technology.com "will save forensic and forensic-related professionals consid-erable amounts of time by cutting out the tedious, time-consuming, and often frustrating research process." The websitewill also allow the global forensic community to share knowledge via its message board. A high-profile editorial panelconsisting of leading scientific and non-scientific forensic professionals has been assembled to ensure the integrity andcredibility of the website's contents. For promotional activities on the website, please contact Claudette Williams,Business Development Executive, Canada & USA at +44 20 7936 9050, or, e-mail her at c.williams@e-smg.com.Academy members interested in submitting abstracts to forensic-technology.com may contact me (jhurley@aafs.org) forfurther details.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

James P. HurleyAAFS Director of Development

A C A D E M Y N E W S 5

In another important development, the Board alsodecided to send comprehensive bylaws revisions to themembership for consideration. These proposed changeswould have the effect of modernizing the Academy’sstructure, further defining membership categories andexpanding the classes of individuals who can affiliate withthe Academy. All of these proposed bylaws changes will becirculated to the membership in January, along with aconcise rationale for each of the proposed changes. I askthat each of you carefully review the proposals and ratio-nales when you receive them so that you will be preparedto vote at the annual business meeting. If you have any

questions about these proposed changes before the annualmeeting, feel free to call your representative on the Boardof Directors or any Academy officer.

Change in any organization is sometimes difficult, butoften times necessary to keep it moving forward. Over thelast several years, the Academy has made several importantchanges and we are indeed moving forward. The work ofthe Board of Directors at the August meeting shows it hasa vision for the future. As your representatives, the AAFSdirectors and officers are making the Academy responsiveto your needs and the changing landscape of the forensicsciences.

PRESIDENT ’S MESSAGE CONT.

FORENSIC SCIENCE EDUCATION CONFERENCEOctober 17, 18, 19, 2003 ~ University of Texas at Arlington

Schedule of Events

Day 1 Friday, October 177:00 - 8:00 Breakfast, Registration8:00 - 8:30 Introductions and Announcements8:30 - 9:30 Lecture 1 - An Overview of the Crime Laboratory 9:30 - 9:50 Break9:50 - 10:50 Lecture 2 - Forensic Pathology 11:00 - 11:50 Lab 1 Lab 2 Lab 3 Lab 4

Fingerprints Impression Evidence Forensic Anthropology Forensic Odontology12:00 - 1:00 Lunch 1:00 - 1:45 Roundtable Discussion - Morning Speakers and Labs2:00 - 2:50 Lab 2 Lab 3 Lab 4 Lab 1

Impression Evidence Forensic Anthropology Forensic Odontology Fingerprints3:00 - 3:50 Lab 3 Lab 4 Lab 1 Lab 2

Forensic Anthropology Forensic Odontology Fingerprints Impression Evidence4:00 - 4:50 Lab 4 Lab 1 Lab 2 Lab 3

Forensic Odontology Fingerprints Impression Evidence Forensic Anthropology

Day 2 Saturday, October 187:00 - 8:00 Breakfast8:00 - 8:30 Discussion of Day 1, Announcements8:30 - 9:30 Lecture 3 - Legal Aspects of Forensic Science 9:30 - 9:50 Break9:50 - 10:50 Lecture 4 - Current DNA Capabilities 11:00 - 11:50 Lab 5 Lab 6 Lab 7 Lab 8

Bloodspatter Court TV Forensic Entomology Color Tests in the in the Classroom Crime Lab

12:00 - 1:00 Lunch - Speaker: The Future of DNA 1:00 - 1:45 Roundtable Discussion 2:00 - 2:50 Lab 6 Lab 7 Lab 8 Lab 5

Court TV Forensic Entomology Color Tests in the Bloodspatterin the Classroom Crime Lab

3:00 - 3:50 Lab 7 Lab 8 Lab 5 Lab 6Forensic Entomology Color Tests in the Bloodspatter Court TV

Crime Lab in the Classroom4:00 - 4:50 Lab 8 Lab 5 Lab 6 Lab 7

Color Tests in the Bloodspatter Court TV Forensic EntomologyCrime Lab in the Classroom

Day 3 Sunday, October 19th7:00 - 8:00 Breakfast8:00 - 8:15 Discussion of Day 2, Announcements8:15 - 10:00 Basic Crime Scene Investigation10:00 - 10:20 Break10:20 - 12:00 "Hands On" Crime Scene Processing

Red Team Blue Team Green Team Purple Team Crime Scene Crime Scene Crime Scene Crime Scene

12:00 - 1:00 Lunch - Speaker: Court TV1:00 - 1:45 Roundtable Discussion - Crime Scene; The Conference from the Teacher's Point of View2:00 - 4:30 Teacher Presentations: "How I Use Forensics in the High School Classroom"

"How I Use Forensics in the Middle School Classroom"4:30 - 5:00 Summation and Final Remarks

6 A C A D E M Y N E W S

8 A C A D E M Y N E W S

The Academy staff has received all abstracts for the proposed presentations at the February 2004meeting. The task at hand is to organize these abstracts and to develop a program which will attractan audience not only from the United States, but also from abroad. The submissions for podium andposter presentations, workshops, breakfast seminars, luncheons, and workshorts will all undergo arigorous review process by the individual Section Program Committee Chairmen to ensure the highestquality presentations possible. To those who have submitted abstracts, you will be notified of thestatus of your submissions approximately the first week of November. Program Co-Chairmen CarolHenderson and Joe Bono will work to develop a program that will ensure a fulfilling week in Dallas.Everyone who attends will find many opportunities for professional enhancement, as well as the like-lihood of meeting old friends and establishing new friendships.

To those who have never attended an American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting in the past,the 2004 Program promises to address the topical issues of the day. The theme of the meeting will

be “Truth and Justice in the Balance: Forensic Scientists as the Counterpoise.” This will be your opportunity to look ahead withcolleagues from around the world at the developing role forensic science will have in the future. As professionals, those of usengaged in the profession must ensure that forensic scientists remain the “counterpoise” of our justice system. More than atanytime in recent memory, everything we do is in the public eye. What affects one of us, affects all of us. The more peoplewho become active participants in the evolution of the profession, the better able we will all be at serving justice. For many,attending the Academy meeting, February 16-21, 2004, is the first step.

A WORD FROM YOUR 2004 PROGRAM CO-CHAIRMAN

Joseph P. Bono, MA

NEED TO SHARE A ROOM IN DALLAS?If you would like to have more spending money to take in the “must see” sights while in Dallas during the AAFS 2004

Annual Meeting, then share a room!The AAFS office is maintaining a list of meeting attendees who would like to share a room with a colleague at the

Adam’s Mark Hotel. For more information, please contact the AAFS office at (719) 636-1100.

PROGRAM 2004 - DALLAS

GUIDELINES FOR THE RICHARD ROSNER AWARDFOR THE BEST PAPER

The Psychiatry & Behavioral Science Section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences announces its annualaward, “The Richard Rosner Award for the Best Paper by a Fellow in Forensic Psychiatry or Forensic Psychology.” Toqualify: 1) the paper should have been completed as part of the work of the forensic fellowship year, OR within one yearof the completion of the forensic fellowship year based upon work or research that took place during that year, 2) thepaper must have not been previously published, and 3) submission constitutes permission for publication in the Journal of Forensic Sciences.

To apply for the award: 1) send the original paper, plus six copies, 2) send an original letter, plus six copies, from the director of the forensic fellowship program affirming that the author was a forensic fellow and the year of the author’s forensic fellowship, and 3) send seven copies of the author’s curriculum vitae. All submissions should be sent to: Kimberly Wrasse, AAFS, PO Box 669, Colorado Springs, CO 80901-0669. Submissions must be received byDecember 31, 2003.

The award consists of:• Free membership for one year in the Psychiatry & Behavioral Science Section of the AAFS, if the author meets the requirements and completes the application process

• Free registration for the AAFS Annual Scientific Program• Acceptance of the paper for presentation at the Psychiatry & Behavioral Science Section of the AAFS Annual Meeting• Free subscription for one year to the Journal of Forensic Sciences, the official publication of the AAFS• Recommendation of publication to the Editorial Board of the Journal of Forensic Sciences• A cash grant of $350.00 to the author

CRIMINALISTICS

Source: Susan M. Ballou, MS, Section Secretary

Watching the stock market lately has been a real chal-lenge in controlling reflexes. With each stock drop, there isthe automatic reflex to move stock to something morestable. Then of course, you don’t want to pull the stock toosoon just in case an incredible upswing occurred in thatstock that could make you an instant millionaire. The goal,of course, keep as much of that 401K, retirement account,IRAs in your back pocket as possible. Although these con-cerns affect each of us at a personal level, the spread ofdoom and gloom from the federal deficit has encroachedinto the workplace as well. Many have felt the pinch of theeconomy in the work place, spending levels have been cut oreliminated, hiring freezes or RIFs are rampant and thethought of requesting approval for training is beingextracted from our brains. However on the flip side, thereare documents addressing the forensic scientist to complete“continuing professional development” in order to maintainprofessional status. Part of this “continuing professionaldevelopment” is training. So what is a forensic scientist todo when a document says you must have it and managementsays there is no money? One option is to apply for federalgrants that support training as part of that grant. TheNational Institute of Justice (NIJ) hosts a website(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/funding.htm) where there is aposting of solicitations or grants available. ForensicLaboratory Directors, who have applied for these funds tosupport, supplement, or expand laboratory needs, did notinclude training as part of this request, obviously not real-izing that they could do so. Attending meetings, such as theAAFS Annual Meeting, falls under this umbrella of trainingand should not be overlooked. In addition, regional forensicassociations have offered members the chance of obtainingfunding to support “educational” opportunities and all thatthe association requires is a paper request from the inter-ested association member. Although the paper process forgrants from NIJ may be extensive, it is an opportunity toobtain training for the forensic scientist when none exists in-house. It would behoove each of us to keep up to date onwhat is available to make the best use of funding optionsand not rely solely on management, who may be over-whelmed with daily issues, to find these funding sources.

An impetus to start looking for those meeting monies isthe abstracts, posters, and workshops coming together thatwill comprise the Criminalistics Section’s 2004 ScientificProgram. John DeHaan has received the initial slew ofabstracts for consideration and the range is extensive.Offerings for possible workshops include, but are not limitedto: Clandestine Laboratories, Fires and Explosions; ForensicHuman Mitochondrial DNA Analysis; Toxicology Issues; and TheUse of Fire Dynamics and Fire Models in Fire Investigations. Bythe time you receive this newsletter the deadline for sub-mission of abstracts will have passed. On behalf of SectionChairman Tom Brettell, Section Secretary Susan Ballou, andSection Program Chairman John DeHaan, thank you to thosewho sent in papers for consideration.

A date that is still attainable is October 1. Newmembers and members seeking promotion must have appli-cations completed and sent in to the AAFS by that date! Tofind out more on what is required, visit www.aafs.org andhighlight “membership” at the top tool bar and select theappropriate offering from the drop down menu.

ENGINEERING SCIENCES

Source: Carol A. Erikson, MSPH, Section Program Chairman

As of this writing, abstracts are starting to come in forthe 2004 Annual Meeting in Dallas and things are lookinggood! Two full days are anticipated of concurrent sessionsfilled with interesting and informative presentations byindividuals with a wealth of experience in the fields ofenvironmental forensics, electrical accidents, biomedicalengineering, automotive systems, accident reconstruction,and walkway/pedestrian safety, among others. Don’t beleft out - plan on being there!

A joint session with the Criminalistics andJurisprudence Sections will provide a forum for exchangeof ideas about dealing with litigation cases from both theprosecution and defense sides of the issues.

A variety of workshops will also be available to choosefrom; more information to come as those plans becomefinalized.

Make your plans now to be in Dallas for the 2004meeting, February 16-20. The Engineering SciencesSection technical sessions will be held on Thursday andFriday. Workshop schedules will be announced as soon asthey become available. Everyone is encouraged to attendthe section’s business meeting/luncheon on Wednesday,where awards will be presented and new members andpromotions will be announced. And, don’t forget to pencilin the Engineering Sciences Section’s reception onWednesday evening. Meet new people, learn new things,and help make this the best meeting ever!

Looking forward to seeing you all in Dallas in February!

GENERAL

Source: John E. Gerns, MFS, Section Secretary

Applications for membership and promotion arealready under review by Section Chairman Jim Adcock andSection Secretary John Gerns. The deadline for applyingfor membership and promotion is October 1. TheLuncheon Committee and Program Chairman DayleHinman, and the Nominating Committee are alsobeginning their active work. All are expecting a successfulmeeting and program in Dallas. Remember, it is still nottoo late to notify Awards Committee Chairman VernonMcCarty of individuals within the General Section whomyou feel should be nominated for the General Sectionawards for 2004.

1 0 A C A D E M Y N E W S

continued on page 12

A C A D E M Y N E W S 1 1

The General Section offices of Chairman and Secretaryare open for elections this year. The nominating com-mittee will identify one candidate for each of these posi-tions. In addition to these candidates, any Fellow in thesection may be placed on the ballot for one or the other ofthese positions by petition. For a petition to be valid, itmust be supported in writing by a minimum of threeMembers or Fellows of the General Section. To be put onthe ballot, petitions must be received no later thanOctober 15. Candidates nominated by the committee orto be placed on the ballot by petition will be asked toprovide the committee with a one-page resume’ no laterthan December 15 that will be mailed to the section mem-bership before the annual meeting in February. Thecommittee will publish a list of the candidates for GeneralSection Offices in the January Academy News. Candidatesfor the offices of General Section Chairman andSecretary may also be nominated from the floor duringthe election process at the annual General Sectionbusiness meeting in February. The General SectionNominating Committee for this year consists of MaryFran Ernst (Chair), Bob Keppel, and Paul Kish.

JURISPRUDENCE

Source: Betty Layne DesPortes, JD, Section Secretary

The Jurisprudence Section is anticipating an infor-mative and evocative program for the Dallas 2004 annualmeeting. One topic expected to be addressed in-depth isthe forced medication of non-violent defendants forrestoration of competency to stand trial. JusticeDepartment information shows that every year, in federalcases alone, hundreds of defendants are medicated torestore competency to stand trial. Although the majority ofdefendants willingly submit to medication, a sizable numberof the defendants are forcibly medicated. A jointJurisprudence/Psychiatry & Behavioral Science panel willaddress the analytical framework delineated by the UnitedStates Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sell v. UnitedStates, 123 S.Ct. 2174 (2003), and the practical considera-tions of forced-medication cases.

In 1997, Dr. Thomas Sell was accused of Medicaid fraudand money laundering. Sell had a history of mental illness,and psychiatrists who examined him after arrest noted theoccurrence of psychotic episodes. A lower court found Sellincompetent to stand trial, and he was ordered to take anti-psychotic medication. Sell appealed, and the case workedits way through the legal system for five years. In June,2003, the United States Supreme Court held that anti-psychotic drugs can be used to restore competency only in“limited circumstances.” The 6-3 majority decision outlinedthe analytical framework under which the government mayforcibly administer anti-psychotic drugs to a non-dangerouscriminal defendant to render him competent to stand trialwithout violating the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right torefuse medical treatment. The conditions involve themedical appropriateness of the proposed drug treatment,influence of any anticipated side effects on the fairness of

the trial, and the necessity of medication to further thegovernment’s interest in prosecution. The Court’s decisionwill likely continue the debate among mental health profes-sionals concerning the necessity of involuntary medication.See Id., citing Brief for American Psychological Associationas Amicus Curiae 10-14 (nondrug therapies may be effectivein restoring psychotic defendants to competence); and Brieffor American Psychiatric Association et al. as Amici Curiae13-22 (alternative treatments for psychosis commonly notas effective as medication).

Anyone interested in participating in the Dallasprogram should contact the Jurisprudence Program Co-Chairs Linda Kenney (kenneybaden@msn.com) and Chad Dold (cdold@speakeasy.net).

ODONTOLOGY

Source: Bryan Chrz, DDS, Section Chairman

Hopefully everyone has had a great summer and all iswell with family and friends. The section was representedwell at the Academy of General Dentistry in Nashville thisJuly. Section members Mike Tabor, Richard Weems, MikeCisneros, Jim McGivney, David Senn, and Bryan Chrzpresented an all day course on Mass Disaster Responseand the use of WinID3. The limited class was full and allattendees seemed impressed with the presentations andhands-on exercises. Section member Bill Morlang pre-sented a Mass Disaster Course for the American DentalAssociation in Chicago. DMORT Region Six held a trainingsession in Austin, TX, to kick off August. A four-hour classfor the dental crew was given by Richard Weems, DavidSenn, and Bryan Chrz on radiology, charting, and WinID3.Looks like everyone has been busy this summer gettingout the message on standardization of procedures in massdisaster response. Section Program Chairman Tom Davidreports all is on line for an informative and interestingmeeting in February. Texas is a great place to have agathering like this with easy travel and excellent accom-modations. Have fun, be safe, and see you all in Dallas.

PATHOLOGY/BIOLOGY

Source: John C. Hunsaker III, MD, JD, Section Secretary

Program Chairman Victor Weedn is actively preparingthe agenda for the upcoming 2004 annual meeting inDallas. The deadline for submission of abstracts haspassed. The process of comprehensive review is ongoing.Dr. Weedn and the members of the Program Committeethank all who have submitted high quality abstracts aswell as proposals for other special events. They have high

SECTION & PROGRAM NEWS

hopes for a stimulating program with emphasis on thegeneral theme, which underscores the indispensablecontribution of forensic science to American jurispru-dence. Specific information on the program will appear inthe November issue of the Academy News.

Membership and promotion applications are due inthe AAFS office by October 1, 2003. Those memberseligible for promotion are urged to submit applicationssoon. Training program directors and members are espe-cially requested to encourage trainees and young affiliatesto join the Academy. Requirements and forms areviewable at the website (www.aafs.org/promorequirements1.htm#Pathology).

The deadline for grant applications to the Pathology/Biology Research Committee was September 1, 2003.Contact Research Committee Chairman Gregory G. Davis (Alabama Greg) for additional information (205/930-3603 or gdavis@path.uab.edu.)

Many outstanding recommendations from Pathology/Biology Section members for “seminal papers” to appearin the 2005 commemorative issue of the JFS have beenreceived. Senior members in particular are requested tonominate articles published in the earlier decades.

PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

Source: Marilyn R. London, MA, Section Secretary

The 2003 Mountain Swamp and Beach Meeting tookplace August 29-31, in Chattanooga, TN. Tom Bodkin ofthe Office of the Hamilton County Medical Examinerhosted the event.

John Williams has moved to the Department ofAnthropology and Sociology at Western CarolinaUniversity. He has been hired to assemble an M.A.program with an emphasis in forensic anthropology and toestablish a presence in western North Carolina. One of hisfirst tasks will be to hire another forensic anthropologist.His new email address is jawilliams@wcu.edu.

PSYCHIATRY & BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

Source: Gregory B. Leong, MD, Section Secretary

Not all the relevant section news comes from theSection Officers. Any member having news items to shareshould feel free to submit them to gleong@pol.net.Section members, especially those who are not affiliatedwith the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law(AAPL), are invited to attend its annual meeting, October16-19, 2003, in San Antonio, TX. Program information isavailable by calling the Central Office at 800-331-1389 or

visiting the AAPL’s website (http://aapl.org). There will bea panel presentation on Multiple Murder by AAFSmembers from several sections, including Alan Felthous,Robert Weinstock, Ronald Singer, J. Reid Meloy, RobertRessler, and Andre Moenssens. Also of note is sectionmember James Wolfson, who is participating in a panel ofthe recently decided Sell v. U.S. case. Dr. Wolfson wasone of the psychiatrists involved in the case of Dr. Sell.

Richard Rosner is attempting to organize an AAFSPsychiatry & Behavioral Science Section Task Force onAddictions. The purposes of the Task Force are: (1) toidentify members of the Section with interest in, expe-rience in, expertise and/or certification in addiction psy-chiatry and/or addiction medicine; (2) to organize apresentation at the next AAFS meeting in February 2004on addiction; and (3) to encourage further study ofaddiction. Persons interested in participating in the TaskForce and/or in identifying themselves as interested in,experienced in, or expert in addiction should contact Dr.Rosner at forensicpsych@psynet.net.

QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS

Source: John L. Sang, MS, Section Secretary

Program Chairman Dale Stobaugh is busy preparingfor the 2004 meeting. He reports that Moshe Kam of theData Fusion Laboratory at Drexel University and manytime presenter at the Academy Questioned DocumentsSection scientific sessions would like to conduct some ofhis research projects at the meeting. He is currentlyresearching handwriting of individuals whose mothertongue is not English (remember "Fugi"): the effect of peerreview: the ability to work with limited quantities of texts(e.g., Anthrax envelop style texts); and validation ofopinion scales. He also has a set of new results on profi-ciency of FDEs in various document examination taskswhich should be of interest to all. Dale is still acceptingprogram ideas for the upcomig meeting. Please contacthim at Dale.Stobaugh@txdps.state.tx.us or 512/424-2105.

Jerry McMenamin of the Department of Linguistics,California State University, Fresno, and noted author ofForensic Linguistics Advances in Forensic Stylistics willalso be making a presentation.

If any of your colleagues are not members of AAFS,now is the time to invite them to join and take advantageof this opportunity for professional development,enhancement of their knowledge in the field, and to shareideas with academy colleagues. Members are encouragedat this time of year to apply for promotions. Applicationsare available online at www.aafs.org, or from Kim Wrasse(kwrasse@aafs.org).

SECTION & PROGRAM NEWS CONT.

1 2 A C A D E M Y N E W S

A C A D E M Y N E W S 1 3

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE AND THE LAW: MARCH 14-17, 2004 ~ TAMPA, FLSource: Anjali R. Swienton, MFS, JD

The National Conference on Science and the Law is an annual conference sponsored by the West Virginia UniversityForensic Science Initiative. The conference is co-sponsored by the Investigative and Forensic Sciences Division of theOffice of Science and Technology, NIJ, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, the American Bar Association -Criminal Justice Section, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Center for StateCourts, and is held in collaboration with the Federal Judicial Center and the National Academies. The conference wasdeveloped to address the issues that arise when scientific evidence is introduced in the court system and to improveunderstanding between scientists, attorneys, and judges. The conference will focus on a series of panel discussionsbetween distinguished members of the scientific and legal communities, on varied topics such as a discussion of theimpact of the Daubert decision on expert evidence admissibility; the current status of DNA testing; forensic science, lawand human rights; the effect of the popular media on the public’s perception of what can and cannot be achieved in thecrime laboratory; an examination of confessions; a discussion of recent publicized problems in several crime laboratoriesand possible systematic solutions; a day-long discussion of the 1970 Jeffrey MacDonald Green Beret army doctor murdercase; and student poster presentations.

The objective of the conference is to provide a mechanism for improving the understanding between scientists,attorneys, and judges, to foster a better understanding between the scientific and legal communities, and to develop afuture research agenda on issues involving science and law that are currently problematic. The conference also providesthe forensic science, expert witness, and criminal justice communities a forum for discussion of the current problemsinvolved with the presentation of scientific and other expert testimony in court, and promotes the education and trainingof scientists, attorneys, and judges on those areas where the intersection of science and the law is less than perfect. Theconference is intended to aid the criminal justice community by encouraging discussion and soliciting ideas about neededvalidation and research for the continued successful use of forensic and other expert evidence in the courtroom.

The conference is designed for all criminal justice professionals, including prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges,investigators, law enforcement officials, forensic scientists, and members from the academic community and the expertwitness community who are interested in learning more about the current impact of science on the law.

TOXICOLOGY

Source: Amanda J. Jenkins, PhD, Section Secretary

Section Program Chairman Timothy Rohrig needs help

to ensure a successful 2004 meeting for the section inDallas. By the time this article goes to press, the August 1deadline for abstract submission will have passed. Hopefullymany of you will have submitted abstracts on case reports,data interpretation, or evaluation of new methodologies forthe edification of your peers. If not, there is still time foryou to contribute to the program. Please contact Tim tovolunteer your time to serve as session moderators or toconduct a special session in the program. The Fridayafternoon postmortem pediatric toxicology session willonce again be taking place. Workshops in the pipelineinclude interpretation of drug blood concentrations; anupdate on oral fluid; and toxicology of ephedra.

One of the jobs of the Section Secretary, in con-junction with the Section Chairman, is to review mem-bership applications to the Toxicology Section and also allapplications for promotion. In order to be promoted tothe more senior levels of membership, contribution to theorganization is required. Therefore, all individuals seekingpromotion should participate in the program at the annualmeeting by presenting a poster or platform talk, orga-nizing or speaking in a workshop, volunteering as a mod-erator or serving on a committee. Remember, the deadlinefor receipt of applications was changed a few years agoand is now October 1. The appropriate forms may beobtained from the AAFS office by contacting KimberlyWrasse (kwrasse@aafs.org). Everyone is encouraged topromote the Toxicology Section by increasing itsmembership and by contributing to the quality of theprogram at the annual meeting.

The Forensic Sciences Foundation, Inc., gratefully acknowledges the generous contributions made to theFoundation. Please accept our apologies if your name has been inadvertently omitted and contact the AAFS office assoon as possible with the correction. This listing reflects contributions received from 08/01/02 through 08/01/03.

CONTRIBUTORSThe percentages shown indicate the number of members within each section who havecontributed to the Endowment Fund.

1 6 A C A D E M Y N E W S

CRIMINALISTICS(5%)$101+ - “Chairman’s Circle”Peter T. Ausili, MSBAJan S. Bashinski, MCrimAnne R. Manly, ABL. Rafael Moreno G., MDAnita K.Y. Wonder, BS, MA

$51-$100 - “Trustee”Peter De Forest, DCrimJoseph M. Galdi, MSHoward A. Harris, PhD, JDMichele E. Kestler, MSCaroline M. Kim, MSBenjamin A. Perillo, BASteven M. Sottolano, BS, MHRODRobert Strader, BAKay Sweeney, BSAnjali R. Swienton, MFS, JD

Up to $50 - “Board Member”José R. Almirall, PhDSanford Angelos, MS, MEdPhilip R. Antoci, MSSusan M. Ballou, MSEdward G. Bernstine, PhDJoseph P. Bono, MALyndamarie Comerosky, BSGail M. Conklin, MFSRobert S. Conley, BSLydia de Castro, BSJohn De Haan, PhDWilliam R. Dietz, BSJulia A. Dolan, MSBarton P. Epstein, BSSheila M Estacio, BAHiram K. Evans, MScRosemarie Fejeran, BABarry A.J. Fisher, MS, MBADavid Fisher, BSDon Flynt, BSRichard S. Frank, BSJennilee FratellenicoMary Lou Fultz, PhDDean M. Gialamas, MSJo Ann Given, MSShawn Marie Gordon, MAMichael E. Gorn, MSErin Gould, MS, BASheila E. Hamilton, PhDScott Hodgson, BSPaul A. Hojnacki, MFSLucy Davis Houck, BHSThomas J. Janovsky, BSEdwin L. Jones, Jr., MSRoger Kahn, PhDArif Kalantar, BScCarl P. KleinJason C. Kolowski, BA

Darline Laffittee, MSHenry C. Lee, PhDJohn J. Lentini, BAJose A. Lorente, MD, PhDMiguel Lorente, MD, PhDDouglas M. Lucas, MS, DScNicolas Martinez Hern, BSCarl F. Matthies, BA, MFSNancy S. McDonagh, MSDennis McGuire, MSRichard E. Meyers, MSCatherine Musgrave-Nels, BSDaniel C. Nippes, MSCarla Miller Noziglia, MSAlison S. Ochiae, BAStephen M. Ojena, MSNicholas Petraco, MSJames O. Pex, MSDale K. Purcell, MSEarl L. Ritzline, BSLinda C. Rourke, BACatherine N. Rowe, BAMarie Samples, MSGeorge Sensabaugh, DCrimCarl M. Selavka, PhDGeorge Sensabaugh, DCrimMichael G. Sheppo, MSJay A. Siegel, PhDThomas P. Simpson, BSRonald Singer, MSCharles Tindall, PhDCecilia H. von Beroldinge, PhDMargaret M. Wallace, PhDJoseph E. Warren, MS, PhDEdward Whittaker, BSC. Ken Williams, MSDonald A. Wyckoff, BA, BSG. Michael Yezzo, BSJennifer Zawacki, MS

ENGINEERING SCIENCES(12%)$51-$100 - “Trustee”Eugene F. Tims, DSc, PE

Up to $50 - “Board Member”Robert N. Anderson, PhD, PEThomas L. Bohan, PhD, JDHelmut G. Brosz, BASc, PEngPeter J.E. BroszRoy R. Crawford, PE, PLSGerald R.A. Fishe, PEZeno Geradts, MSc, PhDRaymond K. Hart, PhD, JDJames B. Hyzer, PhDWilliam G. Hyzer, PEEugene Jackson, MS, PERobert Pentz, BS

Donn N. Peterson, MSME, PESidney Rubin, BSEE, MSME, PEDavid J. Schorr, PESteven M. Schorr, PEThomas P. Shefchick, BSEE, PEGary D. Sloan, PhDJohn A. Talbott, BS, PERobert E. Witter, MSEE, PE

GENERAL(7%)$51-$100 - “Trustee”William B. Andrews, MFSRonald L. Buskirk, MPAPaul R. Davison, BSRobert A. Freed, BS

Up to $50 - “Board Member” Miguel Aguilar Ruiz, IngTom Bevel, MAAngela G. Birt, MFSTerri Biswanger, BSJane H. Bock, PhDAlan F. Boehm, MFSB.G. Brogdon, MDKaren Taggart Campbell, MDJennifer Christianson, BAThomas C. Coburn, MDC.J. CrumleyGeorge A. Durgin, Jr., MFSJanet Barber Duval, RN, MSPenny Englert, RDH, BSRod Englert, BSJamie Ferrell, BSNSuzanne M. Froede, MABetty Pat. Gatliff, BAJohn E. Gerns, MFSJames G. Gray, MS, MFSSusan L. Hanshaw, MFS, RNJulie A. Howe, BSRobert L. Hunkeler III, MFSEarl W.K. James, JD, PhDBetty L. James, LLB, BSN, MAShannon LangDaniel Marion, Jr., MFAJohn W. Mastalski, BAHerbert Masthoff, PhDWarren J. McChesney, Jr., MFS, MAPatrick M. McKeown, MSWilliam Middleton, Jr., MFSAmos MillerJon J. Nordby, PhDPaul Pierce, MFSJack Pinkus, PhDJames K. Poorman, MFSRobert K. Ressler, MSRobert Thibault, MFSWavelet S. Thompson, BST.L. Williams, BA, MFS

JURISPRUDENCE(6%)$51-$100 - “Trustee”John B. Carraher, LLBCynthia L. Windsor, JDUp to $50 - “Board Member”Jason Kogan, JDDonald E. Mielke, JDDon Harper Mills, MD, JDAndre A. Moenssens, JD, LLMHaskell M. Pitluck, MDPatricia W. Robinson, MS, JDDanielle D. Ruttman, JDWalter W. Stern III, JD

ODONTOLOGY(21%)$51-$100 - “Trustee”Sanford Block, DDS, LLBCynthia Brzozowski, DMDHenry J. Dondero, DDSDelora Fletcher, DDSDavid Grossman, DDSJohn P. Kenney, DDSBarry E. Lipton, DDSJ. Randall Pearce, DDSRichard M. Scanlon, DMDMartin W. Scanlon, DDS

Up to $50 - “Board Member”William E. Alexander, DMDSusan Anderson, BS, DMDRobert C. Ankerman, DDSMark T. Armstrong, DDSJeff D. Aronsohn, DDSRobert E. Barsley, DDS, JDMarvin R. Bledsoe, DDSJeffrey R. Burkes, DDSRobert C. Byrd, DDSHomer R. Campbell, Jr., DDSJohn M. Carson, DDSBrian D. Christian, DMDSheila McFadden Dashkow, DDSRichard D. Dial, DDSGregory T. Dickinson, MS, DDSLinda Edelson, DMDJohn E. Filippi, DDSScott R. Firestone, DDSJohn F. Frasco, DDSB. Kalman Friedman, DDSJoseph R. Gentile, DDSDavid A. Grossman, DDSRoger E. Hasey, DDSArnold Hermanson, BA, DDSKenneth Hermsen, DDSJohn S. Isaac, DDSMeredith B. Jaffe, DDSRobert C. Johnson, DDS

A C A D E M Y N E W S 1 7

Raymond M. Juriga, DMDMitchell M. Kirschbaum, DDSRobert J. Koolkin, DDSGeorge J. Kottemann, DDSA. Michael Krakow, DMDBarry D. Kurtz, DDSKevin G. Landon, DDSPhilip J. Levine, DDS, MSRichard Lewenson, DDSR. Daryl Libby, DDSWilliam T. Lichon, DDSKim M. Look, DDSRobert G. Lyon, DDSBrian S. Margolis, DDSJames McGivney, DMDRaymond Miller, BA, DDSArthur L. Mollin, DDSAlice H. Moore, DDSWilliam T. Moore, DDSLillian A. Nawrocki, DDSWalter P. Neumann II, DDSAraceli Ortiz, DMD, MSDDiane T.S. Penola, MAMichel Perrier, DDSRalph M. Phelan, DDSFrancis S. Przlomski, DDSGerald M. Reynolds, DDSKeith Riley, DDSSusan K. Rivera, DDSThomas P. Rumreich, DDSRichard B. Serchuk, DDSHarvey A. Silverstein, DDSDavid Sipes, DDS, MFSBrion C. Smith, DDSHelena Soomer, DDSMichael N. Sobel, DMDDuane E. Spencer, DDSNorman D. Sperber, DDSFrank M. Stechey, DDSPaul G. Stimson, DDSAnthony K.Y. Sur, DDSWarren D. Tewes, DDSElverne M. Tonn, DDSKathryn I. Vitiello, DMDGregory A. Waite, DDSAllan J. Warnick, DDSDavid W. Watkins, BA, DMDBruce R. Wiley, DMDRobert G. Williams, DDSRobert E. Wood, DDS, PhDKimberly L. Woodard, BS

PATHOLOGY/BIOLOGY(9%)$101+ - “Chairman’s Circle”Neil A. Hoffman, MDHideo H. Itabashi, MD

$51-$100 - “Trustee”Michael D. Bell, MDCharles A. Catanese, BA, MDEdmund R. Donoghue, MDH.E. Fillinger, Jr., MDRoberto Fiori, MDJeffrey D. Hubbard, MDRobert W. Huntington III, MD

James A. Kaplan, MDAmy Martin, MDJohn Pless, MD

Up to $50 - “Board Member”Sally S. Aiken, MDMichael M. Baden, MDCarlton-Jane Beck, BSStanley M. Becker, MDPeter Benson, MDLynda Biedrzycki, MDTamara Bloom, MDCarlo P. Campobasso, MD, PhDJoye M. Carter, MDJames L. Caruso, MDYung A. Chung, MDJ. Scott Denton, MDJohn A. DiMaggio, DPMNunzio Di Nunno, MDGiancarlo Di Vella, MD, PhDJC Upshaw Downs, MDJennie V. Duval, MDPatrick M. Fardal, MD, JDMichael Ferenc, MD, JDMarcella F. Fierro, MDRichard C. Froede, MDJames L. Frost, MDMasaki Q. Fujita, MD, PhDCharles Garrett, MDMirella Gherardi, MDM. Lee Goff, PhDMarie H. Hansen, MDThomas F. Hegert, MDThomas Henry, MDMarie A. Herrmann, MDJames T. Hicks, MD, PhDPaul J. Hoyer, MD, PhDChung Hu, MDJohn C. Hunsaker III, JD, MDKazuhiko Kibayashi, MDLawrence Kobilinsky, PhDThomas Krompecher, MD, PhDMarc A. Krouse, MDNeil E. Langlois, MBBCh, MA, MDRobert D. Lawrence, MDSamuel A. Livingstone, MDJames L. Luke, MDAbubakr A. Marzouk, MDPatricia J. McFeeley, MDLoren J. Mednick, MDBruce Odean Parks, MDHeather N. Raaf, MDRobert P. Raker, MDJames K. Ribe, MD, JDLeRoy Riddick, MDSusan J. Roe, MDWilliam P. Ryan, MBBSGregory A. Schmunk, MDStanley F. Seligman, MDJoel S. Sexton, MDTai-Ping Shih, MDMichael J. Shkrum, MDMarta C. Steinberg, MDPeter J. Stephens, MDLarry R. Tate, MDShakuntala Teas, MDJames Thorpen, MD

Shigeyuki Tsunenari, MDEdward B. Waldrip, PhDCyril H. Wecht, MD, JDRonald K. Wright, MD, JD

PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY(14%) $51-$100 - “Trustee”Laura C. Fulginiti, PhD

Up to $50 - “Board Member”Bradley J. Adams, PhDDana Austin, PhDJoan Baker, PhDHelen E. Bassett, MAWalter H. Birkby, PhDKaren Ramey Burns, PhDPeggy C. Caldwell-Ott, MAMelinda L. Carter, PhDElissia Conlon, BAThomas A.J. Crist, PhDHelen M. Dockall, PhDLeslie E. Eisenberg, PhDMichael Finnegan, PhDDiane L. France, PhDEugene Giles, PhDWilliam E. Grant, MAJ. Michael Hoffman, MD, PhDAngie K. Huxley, PhDRichard Jantz, PhDLinda L. Klepinger, PhDElias J. Kontanis, BS, BAMary H. Manhein, MALee Meadows Jantz, PhDJerry Melbye, PhDElizabeth A. Murray, PhDJessica A. NewnamThomas P. O’Neill, MARobert F. Pastor, PhDLorna C. Pierce, PhDJulie Mather Saul, BAFrank P. Saul, PhDPaul S. Sledzik, MSRichard G. Snyder, PhDJudy Suchey, PhDJohn W. Verano, PhDMichael W. Warren, PhDHelen M. Wols, PhD

PSYCHIATRY & BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE(8%)$51-$100 - “Trustee”Jonathan R. Kelly, MD

Up to $50 - “Board Member”Brian J. Bigelow, PhDAlan R. Felthous, MDMark Jaffe, MDStanley R. Kern, MDDaniel A. Martell, PhDLawrence K. Richards, MDRichard Rosner, MDKaushal K. Sharma, MDJ. Arturo Silva, MDJ. Micael Walsh, PhD

Robert Weinstock, MDJames K. Wolfson, MDJohn L. Young, MD

QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS(13%)$51-$100 - “Trustee”William D. Duane, BAJames L. Hayes, BASusan E. Morton, BADennis J. Ryan, MBA

Up to $50 - “Board Member”Riad F. Basalah, MFSJames A. Black, BSPhilip D. Bouffard, PhDJack R. Calvert, BSDuayne Dillon, DCrimMaria G. Flores, MSNanette G. Galbraith, BSJohn S. Gencavage, BSJames A. Green, BSDonna M. Grim, BSGary R. Herbertson, MDJ. Michael Hull, BSMaria Jose Martir-Alario, BAJanet F. Masson, BJCarl R. McClary, BAGregory A. McNally, BSGordon C. Menzies, Jr., BAA. Lamar Miller, MSDavid L. Oleksow, BSMaureen Casey Owens, ABCharles E. Perrotta, MSFSRichard A. Roper, PhDPhilip A. Rusk, MFSJohn L. Sang, MSJohn R. Sardone, MSEllen Mulcrone Schuetzner, BAGrant R. Sperry, BSDiane K. Tolliver, BS, MPAJanis Tweedy, BAJanis Winchester, MS

TOXICOLOGY(10%)$101+ - “Chairman’s Circle”Bryan S. Finkle, PhD

$51-$100 - “Trustee”Fred S. Apple, PhDMichael R. Baylor, PhDLeo Dal Cortivo, PhDLarry B. Howard, PhDJames W. Jones, PhDThomas C. Kupiec, PhDMichael A. Peat, PhDRobert K. Simon, PhDCharles L. Winek, PhD

Up to $50 - “Board Member”William H. Anderson, PhDDavid M. Andrenyak, PhDChristopher Boden, BSDonna M. Bush, PhDYale H. Caplan, PhD

continued on page 18

1 8 A C A D E M Y N E W S

Michael R. Corbett, PhDRebecca Elledge, MSBruce A. Goldberger, PhDBradford R. Hepler, PhDDaniel S. Isenschmid, PhDGraham R. Jones, PhDBarry S. Levine, PhDMark B. Lewis, BSThomas J. Manning, PhDLaureen Marinetti, MSElizabeth K. Marker, PhDAndrew P. Mason, PhD

Samuel E. Mathews, PhDJoel M. Mayer, PhDF. Leland McClure III, PhDMichael P. McGee, BSAshraf Mozayani, PhD, PharmDAdam Negrusz, PhDHenry C. Nipper, PhDAlex J. Novak, PhDVincent M. Papa, PhDGuy V. Purnell, MSWayne B. Ross, MCLSMichael I. Schaffer, PhD

Richard F. Shaw, BSMichael Slade, PhDKenichi Takaichi, BScRobert F. Turk, PhDJames C. Valentour, PhDAlan Wade, MSMichael J. Ward, PhDVickie Watts, MSJ. Wells, PhDRobert M. White, Sr., PhDMark F. Young, PhD

American Academy ofForensic Sciences

In Memory of Arthur J. McBay, PhDNeil A. Hoffman, MD

NON-MEMBERSSamuel I. BlittmanPeter J.E. Brosz, BEngJim and Becky HurleyJacqueline Fish

FSF CONTRIBUTORS. . . CONT.

FORENSIC SCIENCES FOUNDATIONName ________________________________________________________________________________________________

Address ______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

City ____________________________________ State ______________________________ Zip ______________________

Forensic Sciences Foundation Contribution (80% Restricted Endowment; 20% General: $ ___________

Forensic Sciences Foundation Restricted Endowment Contribution : $ ___________

Forensic Sciences Foundation General Contribution : $ ___________

Mail To: Forensic Sciences Foundation, Inc.PO Box 669Colorado Springs, CO 80901-0669(719) 636-1100 Fax: (719) 636-1993

Thank you for your commitment to forensic sciences. Contributionsto the Forensic Sciences Foundation are deductible as charitablecontributions for federal income tax purposes. Your contribution willbe acknowledged in the Academy News.

q Visa q Mastercard q Enclosed Check

Account No: ______________________________________

Signature: ________________________________________

Expiration Date: __________________________________

Signature, Account Number and Expiration Date Required for Credit Card

Endowment Fund Contribution

(Payable to: FSF)

JFS BACK ISSUES NEEDEDThe Academy office is missing the following issues of the Journal of Forensic Sciences from its library.

January 1990 (vol. 29, no. 4)September 1993 (vol. 35, no. 5)

May 1995 (vol. 40, no. 3)

If anyone has a copy of any of the mentioned issues and wishes to donate it to the AAFS library, pleasecontact Kimberly Wrasse (kwrasse@aafs.org). Your contribution would be greatly appreciated.

A C A D E M Y N E W S 1 9

NOT SO PRIME NUMBERS: IRRESPONSIBLE OR FRAUDULENT LAWYERING

I. Irresponsible Lawyering:Catnapping in the Courtroomand Bypassing a ProceduralStrategyA. A Texas Lawyer Caught

SlumberingIn some circumstances it

may well be prudent tofollow the hoary injunctionto let sleeping dogs lie or asGeoffrey Chaucer put it, “It isnought goode slepyng houndto wake.” But when it comesto lawyers caught sleeping

during their lawyering in the courtroom it would be bestto prod them out of their slumber, else constitutionalclaims lie in wait as they did on the 1984 trial in Texas ofCalvin Burdine.

In January 1984, Calvin Burdine was tried for theparticularly reprehensible murder of his former homo-sexual lover, W.T. “Dub” Wise. Burdine was representedat his trial by a court-appointed lawyer, Joe Cannon. Thetrial lasted over six days, encompassing some 12 hoursand 1 minute of total time before the jury. During thecourse of the prosecution’s presenting its case againstBurdine lawyer Cannon was observed on numerous occa-sions to be either in or slipping off into slumberland.Possibly Cannon felt that the case was a conceded loserfor the facts marshaled against Burdine were as close tooverwhelming evidence of his guilt as you are likely tofind in any criminal case.

Not only had he confessed to his commission of thekilling but he was apprehended in possession of multipleitems of goods stolen from the victim, Wise, or from histrailer where he was found trussed up and knifed todeath. Burdine had testified at his trial that he waspresent as a non-participant in the killing of Burdinewhich was the handiwork of his new homosexual lover.

After many years, more than fifteen in fact, of chal-lenges to his conviction and sentence to death, Burdinefinally hit upon the conceded fact that his lawyer wassleeping during crucial parts of the presentation of thecase against him and that that should stay the“hangman’s noose” or, indeed, provide a basis forgranting him a new trial. The Texas reviewing courtsunanimously rejected Burdine’s claim of his being deniedhis Sixth Amendment right to counsel when his attorneywas in the arms of Morpheus during his trial. But aFederal appeals court disagreed in an opinion in 2001stating what to the lay public seemed to be altogetherobvious, viz. that when “defense counsel repeatedly sleptas evidence was being introduced against (his client) thatdefendant has been denied counsel at a critical state ofhis trial” necessitating the award of a new trial.

As an aside, it is deserving of note that judges alsofall prey to the somnolent influences of a ponderoustrial, sometimes with a risible outcome. As the tale ofone such instance is told, a young barrister appearingbefore the County Court in Ireland was taken aback bythe trial judge’s falling off to sleep, even to theannoyance of guttural snoring, while the attorney wasexamining his witnesses. Not knowing how he couldbring the judge back to the business at hand, the bar-rister tried the shock approach. As he ended his exami-nation of his client he asked in a quiet and even voice,“And I believe it right to mention that you have one pre-vious conviction and that was for murder occurring manyyears ago. Is that not so? As the startled witness saidyes, the slumbering judge sat bolt upright andexclaimed, “Good God. Were you hanged then?”

The disagreement between the federal and Texascourts on the matter of sleeping attorneys lacks theshock value of a hanging offense for it centers on theconstitutionally required proof that a sleeping attorney’srepresentation was in violation of the SixthAmendment’s right to counsel. The Texas courts were ofa mind that the linchpin was whether in fact Burdine hadbeen prejudiced by being convicted of a crime he didnot commit whereas the Federal courts, on habeascorpus, viewed the matter of potential prejudice toBurdine not as a matter of proof but as a matter of anirrefutable presumption of prejudice. The genesis forthis distinction lay in the US Supreme Court’s opinion inStrickland v. Washington, decided in 1984. To com-prehend Strickland it becomes essential to detour to abrief discussion of the issue of competent represen-tation of the defense in criminal prosecutions.

It is axiomatic that defense attorneys representingthose accused of crime, whether indigent or not, mustperform effectively in order assure that the defendanthas a constitutionally guaranteed fair trial as well as thatthe accused’s constitutional right to counsel has beenfulfilled. In the euphemism in which the law indulgesitself the failure to uphold this standard means anattorney is ineffective. The norm is not one of responsi-bility, nor is it one of ethics, nor is it one of propriety.The catch term is effective or rather its negation interms of ineffectiveness.

Assuming a challenge then is made to an attorney’seffectiveness in defense of his accused client’s interests,the question which is next in line is what is the standardof effectiveness to which the attorney must do morethan aspire but must also satisfy? Under the mandate ofthe United States constitution, as interpreted by theUnited States Supreme Court, a defense attorney fallsbelow the minimal degree of effectiveness when hisconduct is deficient in two regards.

James E. Starrs, LLMProfessor of Law & Forensic ScienceThe George Washington University

courtesy of COTTONphoto.com

continued on page 20

2 0 A C A D E M Y N E W S

The test is two-pronged. There are the performanceand the prejudice sides of the matter. As JusticeO’Connor put it for the majority of the United StatesSupreme Court in Strickland v. Washington (104 S.Ct.2052, 1984) the performance standard “remains simplyreasonableness under prevailing professional norms.”And in interpreting whether such performance has beenprovided, the “judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performancemust be highly deferential.”

The prejudice prong is the sticky wicket for not onlydoes it require proof “that counsel’s errors were soserious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial,” but itnecessitates a well-grounded speculation that “there is areasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofes-sional errors, the result of the proceeding would havebeen different.” This criterion imposes on the defendantthe duty to make a strong demonstration of innocence,an innocence that went unproved due to his attorney’sunprofessional behavior.

However, there are exceptions, scant though theymay be, to the requirement of direct and convincingproof of prejudice to establish a case for a denial of theSixth Amendment right to counsel. The Federal court inthe Burdine case said that the proof that a defenselawyer was asleep during critical moments of his client’strial was one of that exceptional character where prej-udice would be presumed without the ingredients of evi-dentiary proof. In short, a lawyer who sleeps during acritical phase of the trial of his client is, so to say, absentwithout leave. And an attorney who is sleeping duringthe trial is not present and is therefore conclusivelypresumed to be ineffective without more. Therefore,Burdine was entitled to a new trial, a new trial which theUS Supreme Court on the Texas prosecutor’s appealfrom the Federal Fifth Circuit’s decision is not moved tooverturn. But, in the absence of such a presumption ofprejudice, the defense is hamstrung in proving inef-fective assistance of counsel. But a recent Michigan casediverges rather dramatically from that view, at least inthis one case.

B. Ineffective Lawyering in Michigan on FingerprintsMichigan, like most states, undeviatingly adheres to

the Federal constitutional criteria for the effectiveness ofdefense counsel as enunciated in Strickland v.Washington. And that standard is normally applied sorigidly throughout the state courts that it is a raritywhen ineffectiveness is declared as a basis for thereversal of a conviction. But such an unusual situation,like finding a trout in the milk, does infrequently occur.The appeal of the armed robbery conviction of ShawnKevin Ballard to the Court of Appeals of Michigan,decided on February 28, 2003, presented a most unlikelyand highly improbable factual setting for a declaration ofthe ineffectiveness of trial counsel. But it happened eventhough it must not be credited too highly for it was asplit opinion of the three judge reviewing court and itwas announced in an unpublished opinion which was

subject to the possibility of the state’s appeal to theMichigan Supreme Court for a more favorable decision.

Ballard was charged and convicted for the street-siderobbery of the manager of a McDonald’s restaurant whowas about to deposit the day’s proceeds. The armedrobber was cagey enough to conceal his face behind abandanna but the victim could still state with assurancethat his assailant was “a black male with a stocky build,wearing black clothes.” However the robber’s getawaywas far less than perfect for he entered the passengerside of a Neon car with an unobscured license plate(admittedly it is mighty difficult to put a bandannaaround a license plate). The victim was savvy and calmenough to take note of the Neon’s license plate numberwhich turned out to be a stolen car which was foundabandoned some two weeks later.

The Neon was impounded and searched with the dis-covery of a latent print on the passenger side of therearview mirror which was identified by an evidencetechnician as belonging to Ballard with a “ninety-ninepercent” degree of certainty.

Ballard was arrested and claimed to have an alibi forthe time of the robbery. When told that the victim hadidentified him as the robber, Ballard blurted out “howcould they identify me, I had a mask on.” Now that wasnot a smart response for Ballard was immediately told thatthe interviewing police officer had not said anything aboutthe robber’s being masked. Ballard then sought to pick upthe pieces his incriminating statement had left strewnabout by claiming another police officer at a previous timemust have told him of the presence of the mask.

From all appearances the evidence cooked Ballard’sgoose. His fingerprint was found on the getaway car.The victim positively identified him. And he all but con-fessed his guilt by his “I had a mask on” declaration. Thejury returned a verdict finding him to be guilty.

Ballard’s appellate counsel was non-plused by thestrength of the evidence against his client at the trial.He argued that Ballard had been denied the effectiveassistance of counsel. He pointed to the fact that thestate’s fingerprint expert had given an insupportablenon-scientific basis for her matching the latent from thecar to Ballard. As he put it, under the Frye-Davis test forthe admissibility of scientific evidence in Michigan theproponent of novel scientific evidence must show it isgenerally accepted in the scientific community to whichit belongs.

Trial counsel had not challenged the admissibility ofthe fingerprint expert’s probabilistic conclusion eventhough he did vigorously cross-examine her on it as wellas her personal requirement of seven points of similarityto declare a positive identification. As it happens, so theexpert said, there were only six points of similarity. Onthat matter trial counsel did address the fact that theexpert had not even satisfied her own standard fordeclaring a match. Moreover counsel was equallythoroughgoing in conducting a follow-up re-cross.

NOT SO PRIME NUMBERS. . . CONT.

Notwithstanding the ardor of trial counsel’sadvocacy on cross-examination, the two judge majorityof the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed Ballard’srobbery conviction holding that trial counsel was inef-fective in failing to address the issue of the admissibilityof the fingerprint expert’s methodology and conclusion.The court found the evidence of Ballard’s guilt to be“subject to reasonable doubt,” to which the dissentingjudge took pointed objection. To the dissenting judgethe trial attorney’s cross-examination of the expert was asufficient attack on her credibility, on the weight to beaccorded to her testimony, regardless of his failure tochallenge the admissibility of her testimony. Further-more “the error,” if any, was harmless at best and” …“defendant has not shown the requisite prejudice” towarrant a reversal of his conviction for the ineffec-tiveness of his trial attorney. In short, according to thedissent, “(t)he evidence against defendant was strong inthis case.”

It remains to be seen whether this appellate opinionwill withstand the test of a further appellate challenge.In any event it is surely a wake-up call to defenseattorneys to be wary of foregoing an admissibilityobjection to evidence, even evidence as well-establishedas fingerprint identifications, for fear of a later claim thatin doing so the attorney may be called to book for givingineffective representation. It is also a reminder to prose-cutors that as the proponent of scientific evidence theybear the brunt of proving its admissibility in the firstinstance and the failure of the defense to address theissue will not immunize the guilty verdict from laterscrutiny and possible reversal. See People v. Ballard,2003 Mich. App. LEXIS 547.

Addendum/Errata: Subsequent to having written theabove summary and evaluation of the Ballard decision, ithas been learned, not surprisingly, that the case wasappealed, as foreseen, to the Michigan Supreme Courtand dutifully and summarily reversed, without anopinion, and apparently without oral argument, after thereviewing court adopted the dissent’s viewpoint in thelower court. The matter has been returned to the Courtof Appeals to give consideration to another unspecifiedissue raised on the appeal. My comments in the lastparagraph of my above review are still relevant and apropos, in my opinion, even though the outcome and thereasoning of the two appellate judges has been unshod.See People v. Ballard, 2003 Mich. LEXIS 1207.

II. Fraudulent Lawyering: A Texas Product LiabilityNightmare

It was a horrific automobile accident, leading to ahorrific Texas law suit for damages, resulting in a horrificpenalty assessed against the plaintiff and her lawyers,followed by equally horrific proceedings against the mis-creant lawyers.

Bridgett Fabila (Bridgett) purchased a Dodge Neonfrom a Dodge dealership. On June 16, 1996, the Neon,while being driven by Bridgett’s husband Juan in Mexico,left the road, rolled over a number of times, ejecting

Juan’s two sisters and Bridgett’s infant son, John, all ofwhom died at the scene. Juan survived the crash whileBridgett was injured as was her daughter, Myriam, whosuffered severe head injuries. Myriam and her mother,Bridgett, were taken by ambulance to Texas whereMyriam was further transported by helicopter to SanAntonio where she died a couple of days later.

All in all four members of the same family died inthe automobile crash which was truly a horrific andcatastrophic one to the Fabila family.

The Mexican police who investigated the accidentissued a citation to Juan Fabila for speeding citing his“immoderate speed” as the only cause of the accident.Bridgett was no help to her husband in avoiding thecitation for she confessed to having observed him to be“falling asleep” whereupon she “jolted the wheel” toavoid an oncoming vehicle. It was then that they wentoff the road with her husband, Juan, now fully awaketrying unsuccessfully to right the car.

In further confirmation of Bridgett’s description ofthe prelude to the accident, the ambulance driver whodrove her and Myriam to the hospital in Texas declaredthat Bridgett had made a similar statement to him duringtheir travels in explanation of the accident. Furthermorehe asserted that Bridgett appeared to be calm andunruffled when she gave him that explanation, not at allovercome or hysterical due to the severe nature of herdaughter’s injuries.

The lawsuit started mundanely enough, nothing hor-rific about its preliminaries. Bridgett and other Fabilafamily members retained the San Antonio law firm ofKugle, Byrne & Alworth sometime between June 16,1996, the date of the accident, and June 24, 1996, whenan attorney for the law firm sent a letter to AllstateInsurance Company, the insurer of the Dodge Neon,seeking to ascertain whether Allstate wouldacknowledge coverage for the consequences of theaccident, it having occurred out of the country, inMexico. In due course Allstate declined coverage.

The legal plot thickened upon DaimlerChrsyler’sissuing a recall notice for the Dodge Neon due to itshaving a safety defect in the steering column. The Kuglelaw firm, upon receiving information about the recall,“filed their original petition” on May 22, 1998, fordamages on behalf of Bridgett and other Fabila familymembers against DaimlerChrysler, the Neon’s manufac-turer, and the auto dealership which sold the car toBridgett.

Some two months later, in July of 1998, attorneysKugle, Wilson and Toscano, all then associated in theKugle law firm, went to a salvage yard in Mexico toexamine the Dodge Neon. They were accompanied byStephen Garza, an investigator with the Kugle law firm,and Tom Persing, an expert retained by the law firm toexamine the car and particularly the steering column toassess whether a manufacturer’s defect might haveplayed a role in contributing to the accident.

Although there was some disagreement among thefive persons who went to the salvage yard about the

continued on page 22

A C A D E M Y N E W S 2 1

happenings there, Persing was quite clear that he tookphotographs of the steering column of the vehicleshowing that the steering decoupler was not separatedor decoupled and that sometime later in July he sentthose pictures to the Kugle law firm. Persing alsorecalled that not only Kugle but other members of theKugle firm were on notice of his findings which werequite detrimental to the pending litigation.

Notwithstanding Persing’s report and pictures, theKugle law firm, in September 1998, hired a “new expertto examine the car.” (the new expert is not named by theTexas appellate court which twice reviewed this matter.)And, mirabile dictu and lo and behold, the new expert“reported that the steering decoupler was decoupled orseparated and concluded that the mechanical failure ofthe steering system had caused the accident.” With thatnew information, contradicting the findings of their pre-vious expert, Tom Persing, the Kugle firm amended itsdamage claim to assert “the decoupler’s failure as acause of the accident.”

Now it was DaimlerChrysler’s turn to investigate theaccident. Its representatives went to Mexico in May of1999 and interviewed and deposed the Mexican policeofficers who had cited Juan Fabila for speeding. Thosereports made the fur fly for one said that the Fabilafamily members had sought to have the location of theaccident changed and another said that an investigatorfor the Kugle law firm had offered the officers a bribe toforget the fact that Bridgett had given them a statementimplicating her in the tragedy.

It was not until January of 2000, however, that thedam of confidentiality shoring up the Kugle firm’slawsuit, which had begun to leak perilously, suddenlyburst with the onrush of new information.DaimlerChrysler’s attorney received an anonymousreport propounding that the Kugle firm’s inspection ofthe Neon in July of 1998, had found no evidence of asteering column defect and no other mechanical flawthat might precipitated the accident. It is taken as agiven by the Texas appeals court that this was the firstnotice that DaimlerChrysler had received of the like-lihood of their having been tampering and the fabri-cation of evidence vis-à-vis the steering column in theNeon.

Now the third phase of this horrific tale commenced.Based on all these disclosures DaimlerChrysler filed a

motion in March of 2000, seeking to penalize the Kuglelaw firm and Bridgett Fabila for witness tampering,evidence tampering, and perjury. Two months later theTexas trial court, after an evidentiary hearing, grantedthe DaimlerChrysler motion to the tune of dismissing thelawsuit with prejudice and levying a monetary sanctionof $865,000 (presumptively the legal fees paid byDaimlerChrysler in contesting the Fabila law suit) againstthe three lawyers in the Kugle firm who had beeninvolved in the perfidious misdealings.

In April of 2002, a three judge panel of the TexasCourt of Appeals affirmed that part of the trial court’sjudgment which had ordered the payment of the mon-etary fine against the Kugle firm members but which setaside (with one judge dissenting) the dismissal of theFabila’s legal action. In August of 2002, the en bancTexas Court of Appeals on rehearing the matter at therequest of the Kugle law firm affirmed the decision ofthe trial court in all respects. This opinion was writtenby the dissenter from the three judge court’s previousdecision, which the judge who wrote the April 2002opinion now became the lone dissenter in August 2002’srevised opinion.

The August 2002 opinion minced no words in con-demning the goings-on at the trial court level. “Thiscase is an egregious (they could just as well have saidhorrific) example of the worst kind of abuse of thejudicial system.” Nothing was said, however, about themisbehavior of the second expert for the Kugle law firmwhose conduct had given them the voice they needed tomove ahead with their damage claim.

The final nail in this horrific coffin of a legal actionhas not yet been put in place. Yes, the Kugle law firm ofSan Antonio is now defunct with Robert Kugle havingbeen disciplined by a one year’s suspension from thepractice of law. But DaimlerChrysler has not called quitsin its attempt to right the imbalance created by thefrauds which were packaged against them. In 2003 theyfiled their own countersuit against the former Kugle firmmembers asking for damages for the conspiracy whichthey contend was compounded against them. This“sordid set of facts revealing attorney misconduct,” asTexas Justice Catherine Stone pointedly called it, is notyet ended. Kugle v. DaimlerChrysler, 88 S.W. 3d 355(Tex. Ct. App. 4th Dist 2002); Kugle v. DaimlerChrysler,2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 2667.

NOT SO PRIME NUMBERS. . . CONT.

2 2 A C A D E M Y N E W S

APPLICATION DEADLINE

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

October 1, 2003

AAFS CHRONICLES – DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN? Source: Ken Field, Academy Historian

In 1953. . . . . . the first recorded reference to the need for a “permanent Academy headquarters” was contained in the AAFSSecretary-Treasurer’s Annual Report. That report also recommended that the Academy become incorporated. Moving swiftly on these recommendations, the Academy incorporated in the State of Illinois in 1964 and opened its first permanent office 20 years later (1973) in Washington, DC.

In 1963. . .. . . the October issue of the newsletter announced the formation of The International Association of ForensicToxicology in London, England, during the Third International Meeting in Forensic Immunology, Medicine, Pathology& Toxicology. At that same meeting, the Questioned Documents profession held its first international meeting.Ordway Hilton served as chairman.

In 1973. . .. . . the Academy celebrated its Silver Anniversary at its annual meeting at the Las Vegas HiltonHotel. Doug Lucas was the President. Also at that gala meeting, the Forensic Sciences Foundationwas accepted by the Academy membership as an affiliate organization and was directed to concen-trate on forensic science research and educational needs. Shortly thereafter, the Academy and theFoundation hired a joint Executive Director and approved the consolidation of its offices inWashington, DC. That entailed moving the Academy from its office in Salt Lake City and theFoundation from is office in Tucson, AZ. The total inventory of office equipment moved toWashington consisted of three file cabinets, two broken down desks and chairs, and two type-writers. Margaret Hibbard came from Salt Lake City to serve as the Academy MembershipAdministrator and Ken Field moved from Tucson.

In 1983. . .. . . the membership classification title “Corresponding Member” was officially discontinued. The original intent inestablishing this classification was to accommodate regular members while temporarily residing outside the UnitedStates and Canada. The classification became too difficult to manage and proved to be very expensive, as members ofthis classification paid no dues.

IN MEMORIAMWilliam F. Berry, MS, Former Fellow of the General Section, June 2003

Kenneth H. Habben, BS, Full Member of the Toxicology Section, Date Unknown

Francis A. Landrigan, BS, Provisional Member of the General Section, July 2003

Alison S. Ochiae, BA, Fellow of the Criminalistics Section, August 2003

F. Nicholas Powers, Jr., DDS, Full Member of the Odontology Section, March 2003

Erling S. Wedding, MD, Retired Member of the Pathology/Biology Section, February 1995

3 0 A C A D E M Y N E W S