Goodlatte Statement at Hearing to Examine Forensic Science

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) today delivered the following remarks during the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee hearing to examine the state of forensic science in the United States. Chairman Goodlatte: I want to thank Chairman Gowdy for holding this very important hearing today. The use of forensic science to solve crimes has existed for centuries. One of the first recorded examples occurred in the year 1248. A Chinese book, entitled The Washing Away of Wrongs, detailed how to differentiate between strangulation and drowning. It is believed to be the first recorded application of medical knowledge used to solve a crime. Fast forward 739 years to the year 1987 and the field and the world witnessed a truly remarkable breakthrough in forensic science. While I am certain that our distinguished panel is familiar with the names of Richard Buckland and Colin Pitchfork, some may not be familiar with their story. Their story is the same story, but one with vastly different endings. In 1983 and again in 1986, two 15 year old girls were raped and strangled to death. Using forensic science techniques available at the time, police linked samples taken from their bodies to a person with type A blood and an enzyme profile that matched only 10 percent of males. The prime suspect was Richard Buckland, a local 17-year-old juvenile. In the time between these two linked murders, Dr. Alec Jeffreys, a genetics researcher at the University of Leicester, developed DNA profiling along with Peter Gill and Dave Werrett. Dr. Jeffreys and his colleagues demonstrated that it was possible to obtain DNA profiles from old samples. Using this technique, Dr. Jeffreys compared samples from both murder victims against a blood sample from Buckland and conclusively proved that both girls were killed by the same man, but NOT Buckland. Thus, Buckland became the first person to be exonerated through DNA testing. Dr. Jeffreys would later go on to state that he had “no doubt whatsoever that Buckland would have been found guilty had it not been for DNA evidence.” Police undertook an investigation in which more than 5,000 local men were asked to volunteer blood or saliva samples. After six months, no matches were found. In August of 1987, a coworker of Colin Pitchfork revealed to fellow workers in a pub that Pitchfork had paid him to give a sample while pretending to be Pitchfork. A bystander who overheard the conversation reported it to police. The following month, Pitchfork was arrested.   Pitchfork confessed to both murders and scientists found that his DNA profile matched that of the murderer.  Thus, Pitchfork became the first person convicted of murder based on DNA profiling evidence. Over the ensuing three decades, law enforcement has come to rely on forensic science every day.  Forensic science produces investigative leads and helps exonerate or convict persons of interest. It remains today and will continue to be in the future an invaluable tool in solving crimes of all types. In order for forensic science to be effective, it must be based on sound science and practiced by highly skilled and trained professionals. The federal government should do its part to encourage state and local law enforcement to utilize critical DNA analysis. The House Judiciary Committee is doing its part. Last Congress, this Committee reported out the Rapid DNA Act of 2016, a measure authored by the Gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner.  The Rapid DNA Act amends the DNA Identification Act of 1994 to require the Federal Bureau of Investigation to issue standards and procedures for using Rapid DNA instruments to analyze DNA samples of criminal offenders.  While it once took days or weeks to ascertain, DNA testing can now be completed in a matter of hours. The Rapid DNA Act would ensure that this technology would be available to local law enforcement agencies. As our criminal justice system continues to rely heavily on forensic science, we need to ensure that the public’s confidence in that system remains high and this Committee will do its part to meet that goal. I want to thank our witnesses and I look forward to your testimony. I yield back the balance of my time.