The original language, supported by Governor O'Malley, allowed police to take DNA samples from people arrested for violent crimes or burgalary.  Members of Maryland's legislature disagreed with the regulation, and contended that DNA should only be collected from those who had been formally charged with a crime.  The two sides were able to reconcile their differences during a legislative session.

Despite the compromise, members of the Governor's administration left language in the bill that would allow samples to be collected during the booking process.  Members of the Legislative Black Caucus and NAACP charged that the inclusion of the language violated the spirit of the law and was an invasion of privacy.  After a public battle, members of the administration agreed to clarify the bill to meet the initial compromise.

Click here to read The Daily Times' report on the language debate.

In January, Circuit Judge Wanda K. Heard ordered the Baltimore police department to search storage facilities for any DNA evidence remaining from John Williams Simms' 1977 trial. Judge Heard gave the prosecutor and police 90 days to submit a written report detailing their efforts. To date, no report has been filed.

Assistant State's Attorney Joakim Tan explained that the department did not have sufficient funds to complete an investigation of their off-site storage facilities, but Judge Heard was not satisfied with the explanation. Heard has ordered the police and Tan to appear in court to explain why they have ignored the court’s order.

"I understand the city is tying your hands, but I’m not going to disobey an order," said Judge Heard.

Assistant State’s Attorney Tan and the city police are scheduled to appear in court on February 6, 2009.

Ms. Armbrust's presentation was covered by the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Free Lance-Star.  To read their articles, click here and here.   To read about Virginia's re-testing program, click here. 

The New York Times ran a first-page article about the ways in which states are re-thinking their criminal justice procedures based on lessons learned from the nation's first 200 DNA exonerations.  The article highlights Maryland's recent laws on crime lab oversight and eyewitness identification procedures.  The Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project's Executive Director, Shawn Armbrust, testified before the Maryland legislature on both of these bills.  To read the New York Times article, click here. 

The Washington Post today ran an editorial discussing the problem of false confessions.  The author, Shankar Vedantam, described a fascinating study in which non-criminal individuals were led, through mere suggestion, to admit to acts that they had not performed.  The article notes that approximately 25 percent of DNA exonerations have involved false confessions.  To read the Washington Post editorial, click here. 

HB 1625 (eyewitness ID): *Signed 8/23/07
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2007/Bills/House/PDF/H1625v5.pdf

HB 1626 (recording of interrogations): *Signed 8/23/07
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2007/Bills/House/PDF/H1626v5.pdf

HB 1500 (DNA access/preservation of evidence): *Signed 8/31/07

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2007/Bills/House/PDF/H1500v5.pdf

The Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project is disappointed in Governor Ehrlich's response to the crime lab problem in Maryland.  Maryland is still not in compliance with a federal law enacted in 2004, which requires independent crime lab oversight in order to make a state eligible for specific types of federal funding for crime labs.  Currently, Maryland's forensic labs operate without any mandatory standards for the scientific validity of their procedures, the quality of technician training or performance, or the quality of the equipment used for forensic analysis.  They oeprate without any licensing or inspection of the lab or lab work product, including DNA testing, blood testing, and gunshot residue testing — all evidence used to identify and convict violent ofenders.  Governor Ehrlich's executive order does not bring Maryland into compliance with federal law or mandate any quality assurance.  It also does not increase funding, which is desperately needed for recruitment, training, employee retention, and adequate facilities and equipment.     

On December 12, the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project issued a joint press release with the Maryland Office of the Public Defender and the Maryland branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, criticizing Governor Ehrlich's approach as simply authorizing more study of the problems inherent in Maryland's crime labs without doing anything to fix them.  "Despite repeated calls for standards and independent enforcement, despite wrongful convictions based in part upon problematic crime lab evidence, and despite prosecutions jeopardized by poor forensics, Maryland has failed to address the real issues," said Cindy Boersma, Legislative Director for the ACLU of Maryland.  Added MAIP's Shawn Armbrust, "Governor Ehrlich has created a task force charged with reviewing the work of a task force." 

Crime labs that lack funding, oversight, and standards are more likely to produce erroneous evidence that is used to prosecute and convict the wrong people, allowing the guilty to remain in the community and pose a public danger while subjecting innocent people to the possibility of convictions for crimes they did not commit.  We at MAIP find it outrageous that Maryland is not even in compliance with federal standards regulating crime lab oversight.  We urge incoming Governor Martin O'Malley to reduce the risk of unreliable criminal convictions and boost needed federal funding for Maryland's crime labs by embracing a plan that actually reforms the system, rather than continuing to study it. 

As of December 14, 2006, the full text of the Executive Order has not yet been posted on the Governor's web site, but it should eventually be available by clicking here.