U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Crime Scene

Prosecuting Cases of Elder Abuse

June 2010

This panel will feature NIJ-funded research that has direct, practical implications for the prosecution of elder abuse cases. Panelists will present findings from a study of prosecutors in three states that examined the factors that influenced their decisions to prosecute elder financial abuse cases. The panel will also provide the results from an evaluation of five innovative court-based models that target perpetrators of elder abuse.

International Trends in Fighting Child Pornography

June 2009

This NIJ Conference Panel brings together American and European practitioners using innovative approaches to thwart the sharing of child pornography online. The panel will highlight two efforts. The first, which NIJ's International Center is evaluating, is a European multilateral project that teams criminal investigators with international nongovernmental organizations and Internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to child pornography sites. The second effort seeks to prevent child pornographers from accessing credit card and other online payment systems.

A Sexual Assault Kit Partnership

November 2015
NIJ Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences Director Gerald LaPorte and Deputy Director Heather Waltke, along with Heather LaSalle, Forensic Examiner, DNA Casework Unit, and Tina Delgado, Chief, Biometrics Division from the FBI Laboratory discuss why the NIJ-FBI Sexual Assault Kit Partnership was created and how the partnership plans to shed light on the complexities of sexual assault cases, particularly kits that

How Reliable Are Latent Fingerprint Examiners?

September 2015

Brian Cerchiai discusses a NIJ-supported a study conducted by the Miami-Dade Police Department on the accuracy of fingerprint examiners. The study found that fingerprint examiners make extremely few errors. Even when examiners did not get an independent second opinion about their decisions, they were remarkably accurate. But when decisions were verified by an independent reviewers, examiners had a 0% false positive, or incorrect identification, rate and a 3% false negative, or missed identification, rate.