BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF HAIR MICROSCOPY REVIEW TEAM

 The FBI is currently engaged in a review of microscopic hair analysis cases performed by its laboratory before 2000.  The agency believes some of its examiners may have overstated the extent to which the science underlying hair microscopy allowed for a positive association between a known hair sample and crime scene evidence.  

 The FBI has also indicated that it trained many microscopic hair analysts in state and local crime laboratories, including some laboratories in Texas.  Of course, this does not necessarily mean that state and local analysts in Texas made similar overstatements.  It is also unclear whether the FBI actually trained analysts using principles that could overstate a positive association, or whether the analysts who received FBI training followed the FBI’s lead in their own testimony.

 On April 11, 2013, the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors-Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) released a memorandum describing the FBI review and encouraging (but not requiring) state and local laboratories to review their hair microscopy case files.  ASCLD/LAB noted the forensic science community’s ethical obligation to “take appropriate action if there is potential for, or there has been, a miscarriage of justice due to circumstances that have come to light, incompetent practice or malpractice.”    

 At its public meeting on July 12, 2013, the Texas Forensic Science Commission discussed the FBI review and the ASCLD/LAB memorandum.  After the meeting, Commission staff sent an initial survey to Texas laboratories to identify how many laboratories performed this type of analysis.  At its November 2013 meeting, the Commission appointed an investigative panel to coordinate a review of hair microscopy cases.  The review panel consists of Dr. Sarah Kerrigan (Chair), Dr. Nizam Peerwani, Atty. Richard Alpert and Atty. Bobby Lerma.  The hair microscopy panel held an initial meeting at DPS in Houston in November 2013, during which members sought input from Texas laboratories that have performed microscopic hair analysis.  

 At its January 2014 meeting, the panel updated the full Commission regarding the feedback received at the November meeting in Houston.  The Commission instructed the panel to bring together subject matter experts and attorneys for the purpose of advising the panel and the full Commission on a process and criteria for reviewing cases.  The Commission also allocated $50,000 for the purpose of supporting the laboratories in their efforts to identify relevant case files.

 On January 21, 2014, the Texas Association of Crime Lab Directors sent a letter to the Commission offering its support and suggesting a list of subject matter experts to serve on the review team.  The hair microscopy panel selected four subject matter experts and three attorneys to serve on the team.

 The purpose of the review team is to advise the Commission’s hair microscopy panel and the full Commission regarding the following areas: (1) review process flow; (2) error criteria; (3) individual case reviews and outcomes; and (4) educational lessons learned from the review.  The review team does not make decisions for the panel or the Commission as a whole, nor does it represent the panel or Commission as a whole.  All guidance offered by the review team is subject to deliberation at hair microscopy panel and full Commission meetings that are open to the public.  Any questions from outside parties regarding the hair microscopy review should be directed to the Commission’s general counsel.  All information should be kept confidential and any request for information of any kind should be directed to the Commission’s general counsel.