[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6621850,"mediaKeyId","2794327-d94dab586c3c947f40a58a0bdd88752f","parentId",2794327,"title","Votes at a glance: Forensic Science Commission actions including disclosures, complaints, accreditation and licensing items","audioSeconds",3740,"startMs",2260000,"endMs",6000000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2794327-d94dab586c3c947f40a58a0bdd88752f&start=2260&end=6000","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2794327-d94dab586c3c947f40a58a0bdd88752f/thumbnail_2260000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6621850/Texas/Votes-at-a-glance-Forensic-Science-Commission-actions-including-disclosures-complaints-accreditation-and-licensing-items","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621850-8bc26695d302d76b42c1697143e3d779/orig.mp4?Expires=1775010024&Signature=ow~pxu6XSHkIiy8SzFIbMkMnsMuB2BUqeeomlMN-ZCQkhjiF6oBow7N1XEvka6r9foxwq72p9NvS8V1G4HQdLnODfJGf5GaPCagRGtpwFor5qM5NUnLYnkia0Sr0rSrI3j8RArNEUu8vqUBEodRua~5TtI9SjJonb8YXoz~lby7Dp8Gcdo5URknERjUb5kzVHEpNlnl1n-Te16g782mYCPJdmxKJuLrQiD4nSBOL~LIf8Bl768qTXp7E7oWl~frshw7em90SKsdCsPIl8YH3B~MOXKFOuzLoJH8GYyFy-Kya444lnwKjf~ptrUlWDlUzWEii3y0wKZ7h7VpkjmcZfA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Criminal Appeals, Court of (CCA)","date","2025-03-27T16:14:54.64Z","article","The Texas Forensic Science Commission on Jan. 31 considered a broad docket of laboratory self‑disclosures, complaints, accreditation items and licensing matters and took the following formal actions.

Key outcomes
- Adopted minutes from the Oct. 25, 2024 meeting.
- Approved staff recommendations of “no further action” on multiple laboratory self‑disclosures after staff review and corrective actions, including items 24.26 (forensic biology, Sherylological Research Institute), 24.47 and 24.48 (NMS Labs, two sections), 24.49 (Southwestern Forensic Sciences refrigerator event), 24.50 (Tarrant County ME refrigerator event), 24.51 (Jefferson County Regional Crime Lab reporting format), 24.52 (DPS breath‑alcohol calibration), 24.55 (Austin seized‑drugs data loss) and other similar disclosures where staff concluded corrective actions were sufficient.
- Accepted several self‑disclosures for investigation or panel review: item 24.32 (DNA Reference Laboratory self‑disclosure; commission assigned a panel of Doctor Coble, Miss Zimac and Mister Daniel); item 25 101 (Harris County Institute of Forensic Science disclosure; accepted for staff investigation and report back). The commission also accepted other self‑disclosures for administrative staff investigation where appropriate.
- Complaints: The commission accepted complaint 24.45 (filed by attorney Mark Thiesen against an analyst in DPS Houston toxicology) for investigation and formed an investigative panel (commissioners Parsons, Kerrigan and Drake). The commission tabled complaint 24.46 (Patrick Niles, document examination) pending a response and additional standards review; the commission dismissed complaint 24.58 (Kevin Schuette v. DPS Tyler) and dismissed Lucio Atkinson’s broad complaint for lack of factual support. Staff dismissals of items 2443, 2444 and 2453 were endorsed.
- Licensing and rules: The Licensing Advisory Committee’s recommendations were adopted: the commission accepted the committee’s coursework determinations (denying two applicants and approving two others) and directed staff to propose rule changes to recognize certain TCOLE crime‑scene course versions taught by TCOLE‑certified instructors or commission‑approved subject‑matter experts. The commission also adopted an inactive license status rule (non‑disciplinary status) and encouraged rules to be drafted accordingly.
- Accreditation and proficiency: The commission reviewed multiple accreditation surveillance documents and 23 proficiency non‑consensus reports; staff and commissioners resolved most items with no further action required at this meeting.
- Firearms and working groups: The commission approved a uniform definition of “consultation” for firearms examiners and directed staff to distribute it to assessors. The commission also directed staff to establish a statewide Rapid DNA working group to recommend licensing criteria and partnership models (see separate article).
- Investigative report adoption: The commission adopted an investigative report (DPS West region seized‑drugs sampling) finding fabrication of a sampling document; the commission approved staff’s recommended discipline (suspend license through expiration and bar reinstatement for two years).

Items carried or tabled for further review included several accreditation nonconformities that require additional staff and accreditor follow‑up and a complaint (24.46) that was tabled pending an analyst response and standards review.

Votes: Most motions were adopted by voice vote with the transcript recording unanimous or near‑unanimous “ayes” and no recorded roll‑call tallies in the minutes provided.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Texas Forensic Science Commission Quarterly Meeting (01.31.25)","oneSentenceSummary","The commission handled a docket of disclosures, complaints, accreditation surveillance and licensing matters on Jan. 31, taking formal actions on a series of self‑disclosures and complaints, assigning investigative panels, adopting rules changes and approving licensing committee recommendations.","taxTitle","Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), Judicial, Texas","taxId",17431,"location","Texas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6621855,"Commission finds misconduct in DPS lab records; recommends suspension and two‑year bar on license reinstatement",705,5245000,5950000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2794327-d94dab586c3c947f40a58a0bdd88752f&start=5245&end=5950","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2794327-d94dab586c3c947f40a58a0bdd88752f/thumbnail_5245000.jpg","/articles/6621855/Texas/Commission-finds-misconduct-in-DPS-lab-records-recommends-suspension-and-twoyear-bar-on-license-reinstatement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621855-4d9ade27ef14d63fb81f70ae3e09ec89/orig.mp4?Expires=1775010024&Signature=iVOa35ut1dHRe~P-mNF7wlzQu4glExUX4BT5ddpLgJoQjMM1EWxU8lUmle53c8mITXmdbArSWKpoiMUc2rJdO0BaItoxbEf1ZMrrO-2eO6Tzm~8SLcSYA9k24Q6bDy~s0FCpk3L8KtGnXGz3nQrhYWEIbbi61G8E63rY6gzFJnMjZuwayE-Kt0aQ2L4rJTEIlpr6Fl9CuRT9N4OM5bMVvGNYCeaalDP-CjICsY-USif-6kHNQ3VrQ5vfgto9vmQd0e5BKdN1HdGaW5bK0AAQ7IdZcdbpEeJDzkWgW37ODziBAUF1MYtxFtjH~s7C8zehEYh~V-vOGtwU4OnIpRvjcg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Texas Forensic Science Commission adopted an investigative report on Jan. 31 finding that an analyst at a Texas Department of Public Safety laboratory fabricated a random‑number generator form used to select items for testing in a seized‑drug submission.

According to the report presented to the commission, the lab received 400 seized items and the analyst intended to test a random sample of five units. By policy the analyst was required to retain the random‑number generator form in the case file. The analyst later could not locate the original form and — according to the report — prepared a replacement form that matched the five items the analyst had already tested and presented it as the original.

A technical reviewer noticed a discrepancy: the initial form submitted for technical review showed a total of 275 units (a different exhibit), and other numbered entries on the form were inconsistent with a form that had been created for a 400‑unit exhibit. After further review the lab concluded the submitted replacement form could not be confirmed as original and staff concluded the analyst intentionally manipulated entries and presented the form as the original.

The investigative report concluded the conduct constituted fabrication of a case document and a deviation from professional standards. The report recommended disciplinary action: suspend the analyst’s license through its June 2025 expiration and bar any attempt to reinstate the license for two years (until June 2027). The commission voted to adopt the draft investigative report, subject to non‑substantive staff revisions.

Why it matters: Accurate records and transparent reporting underpin the chain of custody and the integrity of forensic casework. The report and the commission’s action emphasize that mistakes should be reported and corrected, while fabrication of official records is a serious violation with direct disciplinary consequences.

Commission commentary: Commission staff praised the West region DPS laboratory’s diligence in detecting and reporting the issue and stressed that the lab’s quality system and technical review were the mechanisms that uncovered the discrepancy. The commission noted no accreditation‑level recommendations were made because the commission characterized the event as isolated and the lab as cooperative in its handling and reporting.","The commission adopted an investigative report finding that a DPS Westregion analyst fabricated a random‑sampling form used in seized‑drug testing; staff recommended, and the commission approved, suspension of the analyst’s license until its June 2025 expiration and a two‑year bar on reinstatement.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6621860,"Commission approves uniform definition of 'consultation' for firearms examiners; hears independent Austin lab review",3283,4067000,7350000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2794327-d94dab586c3c947f40a58a0bdd88752f&start=4067&end=7350","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2794327-d94dab586c3c947f40a58a0bdd88752f/thumbnail_4067000.jpg","/articles/6621860/Texas/Commission-approves-uniform-definition-of-consultation-for-firearms-examiners-hears-independent-Austin-lab-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621860-68c82c4ddb9547227d9b40c9c1593e6e/orig.mp4?Expires=1775010025&Signature=i5DGby~fOQHGmNV4DqHWYvxM8b~E1xRYlsQ-bVzViUciY6o58nfZQtUMPAJcyA2fx~ioHd05Zug4qtVCGPxTr7CGvk2SFdyX1mBNQcFR2lNgP0P1O-NAF-etnXdIC2eNhX6234YpqxNUaI2mE3KXkfzG9xUROwmqjsmNoFVm6EpRG2bmWJ8ML5bbWQckUixPJyDu8XkAblg1U1bsnFczCOHXwNwrNGdcDocWDmKFliqgqeF3w42lNj9NkweCW0GDonrJvdY05-6LpJpZNl6H5qCleLgL3HqiN~DjBgNhd6gvuOZP9ci3NL5xK47uqSp9NYNYF5q9FywGrQqu~dnyMQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Texas Forensic Science Commission on Jan. 31 approved a working‑group definition of “consultation” for firearms examiners and received an independent review of the Austin Forensic Science Department’s firearms unit that identified documentation and recordkeeping improvements.

The adopted definition — developed by the statewide firearms working group and consistent with OSAC guidance — defines a consultation as “a discussion between the primary examiner and another qualified examiner for the purposes of providing guidance, opinions, or advice to the primary examiner to aid in their evaluation of suitability or source conclusion,” and specifies that deliberations after a conclusion are governed by verification and conflict‑resolution policies. The commission approved the definition by voice vote.

Why it matters: The change is intended to make laboratories’ consultation documentation more consistent and to clarify when discussions should be recorded as consultations versus verification or conflict resolution. Commission staff and assessors said a uniform definition will help assessors, laboratories and courts understand how and when collaborative input on comparisons should be documented.

Independent review of Austin firearms unit: The commission heard from Dr. Dean Cathery, director of the Austin Forensic Science Department, who described an external review the lab commissioned from Jim Carroll of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Carroll reviewed training records and 34 detailed case files and generally validated examiners’ competency while identifying areas for stronger contemporaneous documentation.

Carroll’s recommendations, as presented, included controlled, single‑source checklists for training steps, more contemporaneous signing and verification of training milestones, clearer pairwise comparison entries in the lab’s case‑record matrix, and annotated photography to show the regions of focus underlying conclusions. Austin said it has implemented controlled checklists, added prompts and dropdowns to matrix fields, improved QA signoffs and is piloting electronic management workflows to make records more accessible and repeatable.

Commission discussion and next steps: Commissioners noted that richer contextual documentation helps later reviewers and the courts evaluate whether a comparison was straightforward or difficult. Commissioners also discussed ongoing multi‑lab efforts on method‑performance data and 3‑D microscopy validation. The commission encouraged labs to coordinate validations and to use NIST and working‑group resources. Staff asked that the working group continue to meet and report back; the definition will be forwarded to ANAB/assessors for alignment with accreditation checklists.

The commission voted unanimously to accept the firearms working group’s definition and asked staff to share the definition with accreditation assessors and statewide stakeholders.","The commission unanimously adopted a working‑group definition of \"consultation\" for firearms examiners and received an independent review of the Austin Forensic Science Department’s firearms unit that recommended improved documentation and training controls.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6621865,"Forensic Science Commission forms statewide working group to guide Rapid DNA use and licensing",1550,6140000,7690000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2794327-d94dab586c3c947f40a58a0bdd88752f&start=6140&end=7690","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2794327-d94dab586c3c947f40a58a0bdd88752f/thumbnail_6140000.jpg","/articles/6621865/Texas/Forensic-Science-Commission-forms-statewide-working-group-to-guide-Rapid-DNA-use-and-licensing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621865-e7cb18618dc45802aa9537e6a3f7b721/orig.mp4?Expires=1775010025&Signature=U3K0kWMhzUpE~AY0LvBxRg7lU7K4HE3i-vF6e21UZxLCtFdsEQ6481I1CsMT30bQOfGKIhTi2-SpC0MVaTs-VimIU9bsimlP298AfH5YsXc-Ie~etqEI5SdRmNPktlVPqZ76Ate340ZpHF9eWrCVWD9h2WuFeK60BwiXmLTAezeru~W9~WaocVO8Idh~HECh9OUNSfQAA3oGH608AVdDeAUa4dObtQtNY7ZZJPmSLJwLpj6e4ulM4kbXjtJd~mZayQiQdpbqJBAIsk-KjOOEnDRJeFoEUrBfUYcKKpyE8VF9cs7vxEYbf7WR15b3LckwSLDy2ojl30~28-fPxyvlZA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Texas Forensic Science Commission on Jan. 31 directed staff to form a statewide working group to recommend criteria for a Rapid DNA operator licensing program and to study how law enforcement partnerships with accredited laboratories will work now that the FBI will permit Rapid DNA results to be submitted to CODIS under certain conditions.

Commission staff told members that the FBI’s updated quality assurance standards will, beginning this year, allow results from Rapid DNA instruments to be entered into CODIS only when a law-enforcement operator’s work is incorporated under the quality system of an accredited forensic laboratory. The commission’s Licensing Advisory Committee recommended that the agency explore a dedicated, limited license for Rapid DNA operators and convene a broad stakeholder group to address accreditation, chain-of-custody, training and reporting issues.

Why it matters: Rapid DNA systems can produce usable DNA profiles in a short time, which proponents say may speed investigations, particularly in property crimes. But commission members and assessors have raised questions about chain of custody, documentation, who will oversee instruments located in law-enforcement facilities and how accredited labs will incorporate those operations into their quality systems.

What the commission decided: By a voice vote the panel directed staff to convene a statewide working group that includes representatives of forensic quality managers, accreditation bodies, defense and prosecutor organizations, the Texas Rangers, police chiefs and sheriffs’ associations, licensing advisory members and affected laboratories. The group’s scope is to recommend criteria for a Rapid DNA operator license and to develop guidance on the partnership model between law enforcement and accredited labs.

Discussion highlights: Commissioners and staff discussed prior Texas pilot efforts and cautioned that improper implementation could leave evidence exhausted and limit later testing. Commissioners asked that the working group consider both crime‑scene Rapid DNA use and booking‑station workflows and that the group solicit participation from larger and smaller jurisdictions as well as laboratory quality managers.

Next steps: Staff will form the working group and report back to the commission; members also directed staff to add working‑group updates to future commission agendas so the commission can review proposed licensing criteria and operational guidance as the group develops them.","The Texas Forensic Science Commission directed staff to assemble a statewide working group to develop criteria for a Rapid DNA operator licensing program and to coordinate partnerships between law enforcement and accredited labs after the FBI cleared limited CODIS access for Rapid DNA results.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Forensic Science Commission actions including disclosures, complaints, accreditation and licensing items

Commission finds misconduct in DPS lab records; recommends suspension and two‑year bar on license reinstatement

Commission approves uniform definition of 'consultation' for firearms examiners; hears independent Austin lab review

Forensic Science Commission forms statewide working group to guide Rapid DNA use and licensing