Combined report on the eight Judicial District Departments of Correctional Services for the year ended June 30, 2008

Combined report on the eight Judicial District Departments of Correctional Services for the year ended June 30, 2008

Report on the Iowa Judicial Branch – County Clerks of District Courts, a part of the State of Iowa, for the year ended June 30, 2008

Report on the Iowa Judicial Branch – County Clerks of District Courts, a part of the State of Iowa, for the year ended June 30, 2008

Whose DNA is this? How relevant a question? (a note for forensic scientists).

This communication seeks to draw the attention of researchers and practitioners dealing with forensic DNA profiling analyses to the following question: is a scientist's report, offering support to a hypothesis according to which a particular individual is the source of DNA detected during the analysis of a stain, relevant from the point of view of a Court of Justice? This question relates to skeptical views previously voiced by commentators mainly in the judicial area, but is avoided by a large majority of forensic scientists. Notwithstanding, the pivotal role of this question has recently been evoked during the international conference "The hidden side of DNA profiles. Artifacts, errors and uncertain evidence" held in Rome (April 27th to 28th, 2012). Indeed, despite the fact that this conference brought together some of the world's leading forensic DNA specialists, it appeared clearly that a huge gap still exists between questions lawyers are actually interested in, and the answers that scientists deliver to Courts in written reports or during oral testimony. Participants in the justice system, namely lawyers and jurors on the one hand and forensic geneticists on the other, unfortunately talk considerably different languages. It thus is fundamental to address this issue of communication about results of forensic DNA analyses, and open a dialogue with practicing non-scientists at large who need to make meaningful use of scientific results to approach and help solve judicial cases. This paper intends to emphasize the actuality of this topic and suggest beneficial ways ahead towards a more reasoned use of forensic DNA in criminal proceedings.

Audit report on the Iowa Judicial Retirement System for the year ended June 30, 2009

Audit report on the Iowa Judicial Retirement System for the year ended June 30, 2009

Report on the Iowa Judicial Branch for the year ended June 30, 2009

Report on the Iowa Judicial Branch for the year ended June 30, 2009

Combined report on the eight Judicial District Departments of Correctional Services for the year ended June 30, 2009

Combined report on the eight Judicial District Departments of Correctional Services for the year ended June 30, 2009

Report on the Iowa Judicial Branch – County Clerks of District Courts, a part of the State of Iowa, for the year ended June 30, 2009

Report on the Iowa Judicial Branch – County Clerks of District Courts, a part of the State of Iowa, for the year ended June 30, 2009

Audit report on the Iowa Judicial Retirement System for the year ended June 30, 2010

Audit report on the Iowa Judicial Retirement System for the year ended June 30, 2010

Interpretation of needle biopsies of the kidney for investigation of renal masses.

The development of new therapeutic options for renal tumors has lead to the need of a pretherapeutic diagnosis for an increasing proportion of patients presenting with a renal mass. This need is particularly important for a small, incidentally discovered renal mass (less than 4 cm) as it can be a benign lesion in a significant percentage of cases. Recent studies have shown that needle biopsy is an accurate and safe method allowing for a precise histopathological diagnosis of the mass in most cases. The aims of the biopsy are (1) to assess the benign or malignant nature of the lesion, (2) to assess the primary or secondary nature of the lesion, and (3), in case of a primary malignancy, to determine histological prognostic factors, such as the tumor type. This review, based on the most recent literature and our own experience, is intended to provide a practical approach to the diagnosis, relying on appropriate morphologic assessment and the use of immunohistochemistry.