OFFICIAL: DNA LAB REVIEW NEEDS RIGHTS ADVOCATES

Lack of a civil rights presence draws commissioner’s ire.

Travis County Commissioner Jeff Travillion stormed out of Tuesday’s meeting during a presentation about the Austin Police Department’s troubled DNA lab, later expressing frustration that civil rights advocates and others in the community haven’t had the chance to weigh in on the issue. The heated exchange began when Tra

villion tried to ask Assistant District Attorney Gregg Cox a question during a presentation on the progress of a working group, which is handling the fallout from the faulty lab. Travillion walked out after County Judge Sarah Eckhardt cut him off, asking that he hold his questions until the end of the presentation.

Travillion returned after about 10 minutes. He later apologized for walking out.

“This is very personal for me because while I work for the county, I represent the people most impacted,” said Travillion, who represents a largely minority population in his eastern Travis County precinct. “And I’m concerned that from the word go, there are some glaring oversights and flaws in the process.”

His main concern is that community members, specifically civil rights advocates, should be a part of discussions about how to correct the wrongs from the DNA lab, which closed in June 2016 amid revelations the lab’s staff wasn’t using com-

As of now, the working group is made up of affected organizations, such as the Austin Police Department and the district attorney’s office, as well as defense attorneys.

monly accepted practices for analyzing DNA evidence.

As of now, the working group is made up of affected organizations, such as the Austin Police Department and the district attorney’s office, as well as defense attorneys.

“When I look at the groups that we’re working with, I don’t see any civil rights organizations, and that troubles me,” Travillion said. “If we’re going to ultimately get to a system that is fair, we’re going to have to get all of the communities’ interests represented as well as the government’s interests represented. And if we don’t do that, we fail our communities.”

As part of the response to the lab problems, officials:

Contracted with the Capital Area Private Defender Service, a nonprofit indigent defense agency, to review cases that used evidence processed by the lab, to determine which convictions might have hinged on potentially faulty evidence.

Negotiated an agreement with the University of North Texas DNA Lab to conduct scientific reviews of the analysis and handling of evidence by Austin’s DNA lab for those cases in which the scientific evidence was key. The Austin City Council is expected to review an agreement next month.

Aim to bring full function back to Austin’s DNA lab, which has been opened under Department of Public Safety management at the Austin police lab facility pursuant to a five-year agreement with the city. Right now, it’s functioning on a limited scale while employees are hired and trained.

Plan to conduct a “root cause analysis,” or a review of the DNA lab’s processes and protocols to find the cause of the deficiencies that prompted last year’s lab closure. The city is negotiating with the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice from the University of Pennsylvania to do this review.

Eckhardt suggested Travillion send a list of names of people and organizations that ought to be included in the working group, and Travillion agreed, though he noted he had done so in the past.

At one point, Travillion recommended that civil rights groups also be involved in the process of flagging which cases hinged on labtested evidence. The district attorney’s office is also help- ing to flag cases.

“It’s not in the interest of the prosecution to say this is material,” Travillion said.

District Attorney Margaret Moore later objected to Travillion’s characterization of her office. “It is in the prosecution’s interest (to identify affected cases) because our legal charge is to be the justice system, and this is an office that takes that seriously,” Moore said.

Eckhardt also said that case review process has to happen quickly and can’t wait. Instead, she suggested holding a meeting where civil rights advocates would be briefed on officials’ efforts and asked for feedback. Travillion supported the idea.

Near the end of the discussion, Eckhardt acknowledged, “This is a very emotional issue.”

“So I completely understand, frankly, the rage that’s contained within this issue when we have such demonstrable evidence of failure — and particularly among the communities that are most often discriminated against in the criminal justice system,” she said.

Then Eckhardt added: “Actually, no, I take that back. I can’t possibly understand,” she said, pausing. “But I try.”

Travillion said he appreciated it.

“At the end of the day, what I want to see is progress,” he said. “I am not expecting everything to be perfect, but I do expect us to make a good-faith effort to improve continuously because people’s lives are impacted and most of the people who are impacted are poor and are minority.”