skip navigation

CrimeSolutions.gov

Add your conference to our Justice Events calendar

PUBLICATIONS

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
 
NCJ Number: NCJ 233830   Add to Shopping cart   Find in a Library
Title: NIJ Controlled Substances Case Processing Study
Author(s): Kevin J. Strom ; Hope Smiley McDonald ; Peter R. Stout ; Jeri D. Ropero-Miller ; Jamia Bachrach
Corporate Author: RTI International
United States of America
Date Published: 2011
Page Count: 103
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice
US Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
United States of America
Grant Number: 2007F_07164
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/NCJRS
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America

NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America
Document: PDF 
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This study examined how controlled-substances (CS) cases are processed in crime laboratories; describes the role that CS evidence plays in prosecutors’ charging decisions, pretrial plea negotiations, and posttrial convictions; and obtains descriptive information from a range of U.S. jurisdictions that can be used in identifying problems and developing systemic solutions to backlogs of CS cases and other inefficiencies in these forensic systems.
Abstract: The findings indicate that jurisdictions vary significantly in how they process and analyze CS evidence. Laboratory drug analysis results were not often used or required in the charging process; in many jurisdictions, the charging decisions were linked to the field test results and not to the confirmatory laboratory analysis. In only one jurisdiction did the prosecutor require that the confirmatory analysis be conducted prior to the grand jury process and before any plea negotiation discussions. Although laboratory CS analysis was not required for plea negotiations in most sites, some still submitted all drug evidence directly to the laboratory regardless of whether it would ultimately be needed. The study identified a pressing need for more uniform procedures and standards for submitting and analyzing CS evidence, including attention to prioritization based on factors such as case seriousness. From a law enforcement perspective, the findings indicate that more systematic policies and resources should be in place for evidence retention and storage. A key for improving coordination was the presence of effective laboratory submission guidelines. In three jurisdictions, the development and implementation of a case submission policy was credited with significant reductions in both the number of CS cases pending analysis and the time required to process cases. Case-tracking systems that promote information sharing and monitoring across the various stages of the process were also effective. 5 figures, 1 table, 32 references, and appended overview of legal procedures, and stakeholder interview guides
Main Term(s): Criminology
Index Term(s): Crime Laboratories (Crime Labs) ; Evidence collection ; Plea negotiations ; Evidence identification and analysis ; Evidence ; Prosecutorial discretion ; Evidence preservation ; Drug law enforcement ; Prosecution ; Field drug analysis ; NIJ final report
   
  To cite this abstract, use the following link:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=255766

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.