IAPE Evidence Blog

www.wfrv.com
BYLINE: Angenette Levy — angenette.levy@wfrv.com

Green Bay, WI

GREEN BAY (WFRV) — As many as 12,000 DNA sam­ples from con­victed felons were never sub­mit­ted to Wisconsin’s State Crime Lab for analy­sis and entry into the state’s DNA data­bank, Wis­con­sin Attor­ney Gen­eral J.B. Van Hollen said Thursday.

“There are prob­lems hun­dreds of expla­na­tions to cover those 12,000 indi­vid­u­als and why they didn’t have those sam­ples col­lected,” Van Hollen said. Felons are required to sub­mit a DNA sam­ple for entry in the Com­bined DNA Index Sys­tem, OR CODIS, when con­victed. The col­lec­tion of the sam­ples and devel­op­ment of the pro­files has led to arrests and con­vic­tions in other cases.

“What it means at worst, is that there are offenses that have been com­mit­ted for which we have DNA evi­dence and we don’t have a known offender in the data bank to tie that offense to,” Van Hollen said.

The arrest of sus­pected ser­ial killer Wal­ter Ellis in Mil­wau­kee led to the dis­cov­ery of the absent DNA pro­files. Ellis appar­ently had another inmate sub­mit his sam­ple. When crime lab tech­ni­cians real­ized the pro­file was a dupli­cate, it was dis­carded, but the Depart­ment of Cor­rec­tions was never noti­fied, and a sam­ple was never col­lected from Ellis. Van Hollen said his agency is not respon­si­ble for col­lect­ing DNA sam­ples and is not required to notify DOC of duplicates.

Van Hollen said the sam­ples are col­lected by county jails or the state prison sys­tem. In 2001, a change in state statute made it manda­tory for felons to sub­mit to a DNA sam­ple col­lec­tion. Van Hollen feels con­fi­dent the sam­ples were never col­lected, but no one seems to be able to rule out imper­son­ation by other inmates, or pos­si­ble cor­rup­tion in the sys­tem as causes for the sam­ples to be missing.

The Depart­ment of Cor­rec­tions could be respon­si­ble for 70% of the miss­ing sam­ples. DOC spokesman John Dipko said late Thurs­day the agency had received the names of the 12,000 inmates whose pro­files are not in CODIS. Dipko said DOC Sec­re­tary Rick Raemisch — a for­mer pros­e­cu­tor and sher­iff — was “stunned” to learn of the mas­sive oversight.

“He’s mak­ing it a first pri­or­ity for this agency to do this cross-check, and to review our inter­nal processes,” Dipko said.

In 2001, when it became manda­tory for DOC to col­lect DNA sam­ples, Dipko said pris­ons con­ducted “sweeps” peri­od­i­cally to col­lect the sam­ples from inmates. Since then, the col­lec­tions have been con­ducted dur­ing the intake phase, when a felon enters the prison sys­tem, mak­ing the col­lec­tion process more indi­vid­u­al­ized. Dipko doesn’t believe pos­si­ble cor­rup­tion by prison employ­ees is to blame.

“We have a very ded­i­cated and pro­fes­sional staff at the Depart­ment of Cor­rec­tions. They under­stand the impor­tance of DNA and they’re tak­ing this seri­ously as well.”

Dipko said DOC hopes to pin­point the loca­tion of those felons whose pro­files are miss­ing within days rather than weeks.

Van Hollen said he does not know how much the col­lec­tion of DNA sam­ples and pro­cess­ing at the crime lab will cost tax­pay­ers but didn’t antic­i­pate a “huge” expense, but con­ceded it will increase the work­load of DNA analysts.

“We are def­i­nitely going to have to con­tribute resources that we oth­er­wise wouldn’t have had to come up with these iden­ti­ties.”
Van Hollen also said he does not antic­i­pate any appel­late issues from those felons serv­ing time in the prison sys­tem whose con­vic­tion relied on DNA evi­dence, even though the appear­ance of flaws within the sys­tem is unde­ni­able. Van Hollen said any­time a DNA match is made using CODIS in an unsolved crime, a sec­ond sam­ple is taken from the sus­pect for analysis.

“I want the gen­eral pub­lic to be reaf­firmed that the DNA process still works,” Van Hollen said. He added, “It still has great integrity and none of this issue effects the integrity of the DNA process and our abil­ity to make sure that we acquit those who are not guilty and con­vict those who are guilty.”

- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — -
Inter­na­tional Asso­ci­a­tion for Prop­erty and Evi­dence
“Law Enforce­ment Serv­ing the Needs of Law Enforce­ment”
www.IAPE.org