Upgrade of LAPD Crime Laboratory Urged : Law enforcement: Internal report calls for $7.2 million in new funding and an outside panel of experts to review the maligned facility.

The Los Angeles Police Department crime laboratory, much maligned during the murder trial of O.J. Simpson, needs $7.2 million in new funding and should be subjected to a review by a panel of outside experts in order to become a first-rate facility, a draft internal LAPD report has concluded.

“For years, the department’s support functions have been seriously underfunded, and this lack of budgetary support has contributed significantly to the issues that arose during the Simpson trial,” said the report, which was forwarded Tuesday by Police Chief Willie L. Williams to the mayor and City Council members.

“Reestablishment of the credibility and effectiveness of the criminalistics laboratory must be based on an independent analysis and will require the infusion of significant funding,” the report said.

That recommendation reflects the latest in what has become a sometimes contradictory set of signals from the LAPD about its lab. During the trial, witnesses vigorously defended the lab’s work, and officials have continued to argue that laboratory errors did not compromise any evidence in the case.

Nevertheless, previous internal LAPD reports have identified a series of problems with equipment and facilities, and the latest document provides an itemized list of purchases and training programs that Police Department officials say are essential in order to upgrade the lab and protect it from future challenges by defense attorneys.

Included on the department’s wish list: new microscopes and metal detectors, a new crime scene truck and a new refrigerator for storing blood and other evidence samples.

Although they have not had the time to review it in detail, city officials quickly blanched at the price tag.

“The figure of $7 million is a lollapalooza,” said Councilwoman Laura Chick, who chairs the Public Safety Committee. “It kind of makes me step back.”

In addition to identifying equipment and other needs, the report strongly recommends bringing in an outside group of experts to study the laboratory and make its own recommendations.

“To the extent that such review vindicates the performance and competence of our personnel, and we expect that it will, it would contribute substantially to restoring our credibility,” the report said. “Any professional review is also likely to identify improvements that can be made through policy or procedural changes and the allocation of additional resources.”

The report recommends requesting that the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors convene a special committee to conduct that review. It does not propose a timeline for such a study, nor does it spell out how such a review would be funded.

It does, however, provide a detailed--albeit preliminary--analysis of the laboratory’s staffing and equipment needs. And it goes through allegations raised by the Simpson defense team one at a time, rejecting most of the defense assertions about laboratory errors but conceding that some procedures made the lab and its personnel vulnerable to challenges.

The report acknowledges, for example, that some of the lab facilities are too small to handle the caseload. In addition, staff members are admittedly overworked, handicapped by the lack of a field manual and hampered by a lack of computers and other equipment.

The lab has never been accredited, and the report acknowledges that the failure to do so “gives the perception the laboratory is incapable of meeting . . . minimum standards.”

Winning accreditation means paying a fee, and the report notes that changes would have to be made before the lab could expect to pass certain tests. Each would cost money, and some would require changes in the layout of the lab, according to the report.

City officials who received the report Tuesday afternoon said it was too soon to know whether the council and mayor would agree to pay for the improvements identified by the Police Department. But Chick lamented that the extent of the problems reflects the city government’s long neglect of the department’s infrastructure needs, an issue to which she has devoted considerable time.

Simpson defense team member Carl E. Douglas, meanwhile, said the report was at least a step in the right direction.

“Certainly, it’s long overdue,” he said. “The people of this great city deserve more from their Police Department. . . . It is ironic, though, that the defense team was continually lambasted for pointing out these problems, and now they seem to be acknowledging them.”