Attorney General Josh Kaul is seeking more Crime Lab analysts. Here's what to know about the labs
During a tour at the State Crime Lab in Madison on Wednesday, Kaul asked for 19 new positions to be created during the budget process, including analysts for DNA, controlled substances, and firearms.
The Legislature is just beginning its process of setting the biennial budget, which will run from 2025 through 2027, and though agencies typically make requests for new positions or funding through Gov. Tony Evers' budget, which was released last month, the governor doesn't always include all the positions agency heads hope for.
Kaul is hoping to add positions to the labs across the state — located in Madison, Milwaukee and Wausau — in order to process evidence faster and have more analysts available to testify during trials and help district attorneys understand how evidence can be used during a trial.
Here's what we know about the request.
Kaul said there haven't been new analyst positions added in years, and with advances in technology happening more quickly, the labs need more experts.
In past budgets, more prosecutors were added in counties across the state. That's generating more cases that need the work of lab analysts.
"If we have resources at the prosecution or defense level, but we don't have the resources that we need at the crime labs, cases are going to be delayed while we wait for testing to happen," he said.
In his budget released last month, Evers requested a total of six new state crime positions, at a cost of more than $800,000 over the two years of the budget. Kaul's request will come in at just under $2.8 million over the same period.
Kaul said that only adding six positions won't be enough.
"We know that that's a meaningful investment for the legislature to make, but these are not requests that are made without a lot of thought about what the needs of the labs are," he said. "So we are hoping to see the kind of investment that can help ensure that the labs are adequately resourced to do their work in the future."
Ten of the analysts would be hired to work on DNA processing. Three would work in analyzing controlled substances, two would be firearms examiners. Another two would work as forensic science supervisors, while one person would do crime scene response and the final person would handle business automation.
Kaul said evidence backlogs crop up in the state labs at times when analysis need to prioritize evidence in homicides or sexual assaults to ensure law enforcement can apprehend the suspect.
"The Crime Lab is the only laboratory that works on felony level criminal cases, and their expertise is indispensable," Outagamie County District Attorney Mindy Tempelis said. "The labs, analysts and examiners provide vital testing and analysis that help direct investigations, corroborate evidence and ultimately ensure that justice is served."
The analysts not only break down DNA but they also analyze guns, test drugs, and are called in as expert witnesses during trials. They help the jury understand the science behind the evidence and how they reach the conclusions they do.
Testifying can require analysts to travel across the state, taking time away from analyzing evidence waiting in other cases.
"These types of delays impact the case and justice for victims and families as well as defendants," Tempelis said. "This is not just a problem for prosecutors and law enforcement, it's also a problem for victims and for our communities. Timely testing of evidence is a cornerstone of effective law enforcement, and the backlog has real world implications."
Tempelis said advances in technology in recent years have helped to reopen cold cases in Wisconsin. Last year, she was able to prosecute a cold case from 1988 in Outagamie County, thanks to the expertise of the state labs.
"The analyst helped identify a key piece of evidence that hadn't yet been tested that was instrumental in securing the conviction," she said. "She spent countless hours working with me preparing her testimony, and ultimately testified for four hours at the trial."
Kaul said that for the most part, these new analysts would be working on current cases. But more hands on deck could allow the DOJ to help out on more cold cases.
In the coming months, state agencies will have the opportunity to make their case to legislators on funding and positions they need. Legislators will take those requests into consideration.
Republicans, who make up the majority of the Legislature, will then create their own budget proposal.
Evers will have the opportunity to veto parts of the budget he doesn't agree with, and the final budget will be signed into law this summer.
Republican leaders did not immediately respond to questions Wednesday about whether or not they would approve the request from Kaul for more analysts.
Laura Schulte can be reached at leschulte@jrn.com and on X @SchulteLaura.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Josh Kaul asks for nearly $3.2 million for Crime Lab analysts
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
Ex-Trump prosecutor Jack Smith faces investigation by independent political watchdog
BRIDGEWATER, N.J. -- BRIDGEWATER, N.J. (AP) — An independent watchdog agency responsible for enforcing a law against partisan political activity by federal employees has opened an investigation into Jack Smith, the Justice Department special counsel who brought two criminal cases against then-candidate Donald Trump before his election to the White House last year. The Office of Special Counsel confirmed Saturday that it was investigating Smith on allegations he engaged in political activity through his inquiries into Trump. Smith was named special counsel by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022 and his special counsel title is entirely distinct from the agency now investigating him. The office has no criminal enforcement power but does have the authority to impose fines and other sanctions for violations. It was not clear what basis exists to contend that Smith's investigations were political in nature or that he violated the Hatch Act, a federal law that bans certain public officials from engaging in political activity. Sen. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, had earlier this week encouraged the office to scrutinize Smith's activities and had alleged that his conduct was designed to help then-President Joe Biden and his vice president Kamala Harris, both Democrats. Smith brought two cases against Trump, one accusing him of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and the other of hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Both were brought in 2023, well over a year before the 2024 presidential election, and indictments in the two cases cited what Smith and his team described as clear violations of well-established federal law. Garland has repeatedly said politics played no part in the handling of the cases. Both cases were abandoned by Smith after Trump's November win, with the prosecutor citing longstanding Justice Department policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president. There was no immediate indication that the same office investigating Smith had opened investigations into the Justice Department special counsels who were appointed by Garland to investigate Biden and his son Hunter. The White House had no immediate comment on the investigation into Smith, which was first reported by The New York Post. The office has been riven by leadership tumult over the last year. An earlier chief, Hampton Dellinger, was abruptly fired by the Trump administration and initially sued to get his job back before abandoning the court fight. Trump selected as his replacement Paul Ingrassia, a former right-wing podcast host who has praised criminally charged influencer Andrew Tate as a 'extraordinary human being' and promoted the false claim that the 2020 election was rigged. A Senate panel was set to consider his nomination at a hearing last month, but it was pulled from the agenda. Trump's trade representative, Jamieson Greer, is serving as acting head of the office. ___
Screen Geek
2 hours ago
- Screen Geek
Donald Trump Blasts Taylor Swift While Praising Sydney Sweeney
President Donald Trump has taken a side regarding the American Eagle campaign which recently became the subject of backlash and divisiveness on social media. As it turns out, Trump was rather supportive of Sydney Sweeney and her involvement in the campaign, emphasizing that she starred in what he calls the 'hottest' commercial. He released these statements not long after Sydney Sweeney was revealed to have registered as a Republican in Florida. On that subject, Trump also had something to say, claiming that 'being woke is for losers.' The comments were made on Truth Social, where he also took the opportunity to simultaneously call out celebrity Taylor Swift for not sharing the same political standings as Sweeney. Here's what he first shared on Truth Social via The Times regarding Sweeney: 'Sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the 'hottest' ad out there. It's for American Eagle, and the jeans are 'flying off the shelves'. Go get 'em Sydney!' To that end, this is what he said regarding Taylor Swift: 'Ever since I alerted the world as to what she was by saying on TRUTH that I can't stand her (HATE!). She was booed out of the Super Bowl and became NO LONGER HOT. The tide has seriously turned — Being WOKE is for losers, being Republican is what you want to be. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' Although Donald Trump has had plenty to say regarding Sydney Sweeney and the way her American Eagle campaign has been received, Sweeney herself has yet to comment on the matter. With the ad campaign reusing the pun that Sweeney has 'great jeans,' a nod to having 'great genes,' it's something that some viewers have interpreted as Nazi propaganda. For now, Sweeney has chosen to stay clear of the controversy, and even American Eagle has taken a more lighthearted approach to rectifying the situation. Now that Donald Trump has publicly discussed his enthusiasm for the advertisement while also slamming Taylor Swift, we'll have to see how this situation continues. For now, it's likely not the last we've heard about the American Eagle campaign or the controversies it has now started.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Texas dispute highlights nation's long history of partisan gerrymandering. Is it legal?
Who is responsible for gerrymandering? In many states, like Texas, the state legislature is responsible for drawing congressional districts, subject to the approval or veto of the governor. District maps must be redrawn every 10 years, after each census, to balance the population in districts. But in some states, nothing prevents legislatures from conducting redistricting more often. In an effort to limit gerrymandering, some states have entrusted redistricting to special commissions composed of citizens or bipartisan panels of politicians. Democratic officials in some states with commissions are now talking of trying to sidestep them to counter Republican redistricting in Texas. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up How does a gerrymander work? Advertisement If a political party controls both the legislature and governor's office — or has such a large legislative majority that it can override vetoes — it can effectively draw districts to its advantage. One common method of gerrymandering is for a majority party to draw maps that pack voters who support the opposing party into a few districts, thus allowing the majority party to win a greater number of surrounding districts. Another common method is for the majority party to dilute the power of an opposing party's voters by spreading them among multiple districts. Why is it called gerrymandering? The term dates to 1812, when Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed a bill redrawing state Senate districts to benefit the Democratic-Republican Party. Some thought an oddly shaped district looked like a salamander. A newspaper illustration dubbed it 'The Gerry-mander' — a term that later came to describe any district drawn for political advantage. Gerry lost re-election as governor in 1812 but won election that same year as vice president with President James Madison. Advertisement Is political gerrymandering illegal? Not under the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a 2019 case originating from North Carolina, ruled that federal courts have no authority to decide whether partisan gerrymandering goes too far. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: 'The Constitution supplies no objective measure for assessing whether a districting map treats a political party fairly.' The Supreme Court noted that partisan gerrymandering claims could continue to be decided in state courts under their own constitutions and laws. But some state courts, including North Carolina's highest court, have ruled that they also have no authority to decide partisan gerrymandering claims. Are there any limits on redistricting? Yes. Though it's difficult to challenge legislative districts on political grounds, the Supreme Court has upheld challenges on racial grounds. In a 2023 case from Alabama, the high court said the congressional districts drawn by the state's Republican-led Legislature likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of Black residents. The court let a similar claim proceed in Louisiana. Both states subsequently redrew their districts. What does data show about gerrymandering? Statisticians and political scientists have developed a variety of ways to try to quantify the partisan advantage that may be attributable to gerrymandering. Republicans, who control redistricting in more states than Democrats, used the 2010 census data to create a strong gerrymander. An Associated Press analysis of that decade's redistricting found that Republicans enjoyed a greater political advantage in more states than either party had in the past 50 years. Advertisement But Democrats responded to match Republican gerrymandering after the 2020 census. The adoption of redistricting commissions also limited gerrymandering in some states. An AP analysis of the 2022 elections — the first under new maps — found that Republicans won just one more U.S. House seat than would have been expected based on the average share of the vote they received nationwide. That was one of the most politically balanced outcomes in years.
