SOS, CSI and NAC
ON JANUARY 2 7, 2006, a remarkable event occurred in our nation's history. After over 150 years of continual use, the last Western Union telegram was delivered to its final customer. The telegram met its demise as a victim of many of the newer technologies we now take for granted, including the drastic reduction in long distance telephone costs and the advent of cell phones, e-mails and instant messaging.
Technological changes are also taking place in our courtrooms. Scientific evidence unimagined a few decades ago is now commonplace. DNA evidence is probably the most obvious example, and that and other advances have become the stuff of television programs such as CSI and its various offshoots. In fact, prosecutors are challenged by the "CSI effect" to find successful ways to cope with unrealistic juror expectations that demand the introduction of scientific evidence in practically every case.
The other new technology in our courtrooms involves the way we present our cases before judges and jurors. It might be as basic as a Power Point presentation, or it could be as elaborate as a computer-generated reconstruction of the crime. Somewhere in between are videotaped interrogations and digitally-enhanced recordings of eavesdropped conversations. Prosecutors have to position themselves as the leaders in bringing new technology to the courtroom to help us meet our burden of proof and convict the guilty. At the same time, we must become comfortable with the use of all available technology to also support the search for truth and the exoneration of those who are innocent. The ever-evolving use of the new technology has increased the importance of NDAA's educational efforts in support of America's prosecutors.
Certainly, programs offered by the National College of District Attorneys (NCDA) and the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) have already made substantial contributions to the knowledge of prosecutors not only in the area of substantive law but also in the technological support of our litigation.
More recently, the National Advocacy Center (NAC) has come on board and has brought local and state prosecutors from all over the country to Columbia, South Carolina. There, on the campus of the University of South Carolina, the advocacy center provides a state-of-the-art facility and dedicated staff and faculty to help prosecutors bring the strongest possible prosecution into our nation's courtrooms. Thousands of elected and appointed prosecutors and their assistants have been given the opportunity to attend the NAC at no cost and receive perhaps the finest training available to prosecutors anywhere in the world. If you haven't attended the center, then I encourage you to make application for a course that would meet your needs.
Now, our challenge is to ensure the continued funding of this most important prosecution asset. The NAC receives approximately $4.5 million in funds from the federal government. While no one opposes the funding of this important program, it is unfortunately somewhat of an orphan within the budget-making process of the federal government. At our Capital Conference held in early February of this year, it became quite clear that we have to do a better job of identifying our friends in Congress who will support the passage of a formal legislative authorization for the state and local training programs at the NAC and who will pass the necessary appropriation of funds.
This must be a priority for NDAA along with our continuing efforts to pass meaningful loan forgiveness legislation for the benefit of assistant prosecutors who do important work in our offices, while suffering under the burden of oppressive student loan debt. Some people may question our emphasis on NAC funding when so many other programs such as Byrne Justice Assistance Grants are losing all funds in the latest proposed federal budget. The answer is simple. With Byrne and other federal programs, we have many allied organizations such as the chiefs of police, sheriffs and state governments that are working alongside us to keep those programs in the federal budget. In the case of the NAC, however, we stand alone because we are the only direct beneficiary of the federal appropriation.
I urge all of you, in the weeks and months ahead, to communicate with your members of Congress and stress to them the importance of both the continued funding for the National Advocacy Center as well as the implementation of student loan forgiveness for prosecutors. It is easy to slide these issues to the back burner when we are fighting the daily battle to convict the guilty and to make our communities safer. I ask all of you, however, to take a few moments to communicate your thoughts to Congress and urge support for the programs that are essential to the continued success of America's prosecutors.
