San Francisco's top public defender, Jeff Adachi, recently called for the city's crime lab to become independent of the police department. This announcement comes on the heels of a series of scandals in the San Francisco Police Department's forensic laboratory initiated by the discovery that a criminalist was stealing cocaine from evidence storage facilities. What initially seemed to be a problem with one unethical employee has led to the unearthing of myriad problems within the lab, including two cases of tainted DNA samples. Moreover, a troubling audit was released showing an improper maintenance of chain of custody of evidence, inadequate record keeping, and a lack of cleanliness in the overall facility. Multiple legal challenges raised in the aftermath of the scandal, including a murder case, have pointed to the possibility that police and prosecutors withheld vital information about the drug thefts from defendants' attorneys.
After seventeen years, Gregory Taylor was finally freed on February 17th when the three judge panel of the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission unanimously ruled to exonerate him. North Carolina created the commission to investigate and evaluate post-conviction claims of innocence in 2006 and is the first of its kind in the United States. Taylor, wrongfully convicted of first degree murder in 1993, is the first person to be exonerated by the commission.
Concerns about the validity of forensic evidence have come to the fore in recent years following a series of wrongful convictions and other scandals across the country. The National Academies of Science (NAS) identified a number of systemic flaws that demand attention in their 2009 report Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Yet today, hardly any states have laws providing meaningful oversight of the forensic laboratories that analyze crucial evidence upon which many criminal cases depend.
A spate of recent news reports has called into question the objectivity of some forensic evidence and highlighted the need for effective oversight mechanisms for the nation’s crime labs. Fingerprint analysts told The Missouri Lawyer that when police officers have access to the labs, they often pressure the fingerprint examiners to secure arrests. In December, the New York State Inspector General released a report revealing that forensic analyst Gary Veeder falsified hundreds of results over a fifteen year period. The Phoenix, Arizona Police Department announced plans to investigate claims that lab technicians in the crime lab undermine the integrity of criminal investigations by leaving evidence behind at scenes and disposing of fingerprint evidence. In December, Donald Gates walked free from prison after his exoneration for a rape and murder he did not commit when it was revealed that FBI lab technician Michael Malone provided false testimony and inaccurate testing results.
Texas has seen more than its share of controversy surrounding forensic science in recent months.
Most recently, the Houston Chronicle reported that an audit of the Houston Crime Lab’s fingerprint division identified problems in more than half of the 548 cases selected for review.The problems discovered were serious enough to lead the authorities to require that more than 4000 violent crime cases from the past six years be reanalyzed—a process that no doubt will be very costly for the city of Houston. According to the Chronicle, the Latent Prints Comparison Unit suffers from “significant deficiencies with staffing, a lack of proper supervisory review, inadequate quality control, technical competence inconsistent with industry standards, insufficient training and inadequate standard operating procedures.”The Houston Police have confirmed that a criminal investigation into misconduct by at least one employee of the fingerprint unit has been opened.In addition to the shoddy work that was done, the unit faces a backlog of some 6000 cases.
Shoddy forensic science has led to a major setback in a murder investigation that could close the door on efforts to bring the killer to justice. The family of murder victim Suzanne Jovin was recently informed that the DNA evidence in her case was useless because it was contaminated by a lab technician. A DNA sample collected from under Jovin's fingernails after her 1998 murder was found to match that of the lab worker that processed the evidence, not her killer as was previously assumed.
In recent years, forensic science has become a staple of criminal prosecutions. Jurors increasingly expect trials to include conclusive forensic evidence pointing to the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Although forensic testing has a reputation for producing accurate and objective evidence, it is not flawless. In fact, a lack of quality standards in forensics labs and of adequate training for technicians has resulted in potentially important evidence being rendered worthless or just plain wrong far too often. Moreover, since most states lack any type of meaningful oversight of its crime labs, mistakes continue to occur and problems remain uncorrected.
Governor Perry's removal of these three members from this commission has drawn national attention and sharp criticism because there is concern that his appointed replacement of the commission chair, John Bradley, may slow or stifle the investigation. Bradley has already cancelled a scheduled meeting on October 2, where the commission's retained fire expert, Craig Beyler, was to present and discuss his report. Beyler's report, released to the media under public information laws, confirms findings from three other expert reviews: that the arson evidence in the Willingham case was without scientific validity.
The canceled meeting is not the only casualty of this drastic change. Commission members have also decided to postpone a series of important roundtable discussions focused on a recent report of the National Academies of Science (NAS) about serious weaknesses in the nation's forensic systems because of the distractions caused by the shakeup.
Another innocent man is free in Texas. Ernest Sonnier was released from custody on Friday after DNA testing implicated two different men in the 1986 rape for which Sonnier was convicted. Sonnier has spent twenty-three years in prison, always maintaining his innocence.
The release of Ernest Sonnier is just the latest case that highlights the ongoing problem of wrongful convictions in Texas. In May, Jerry Lee Evans was freed after DNA testing proved another man committed the crime. He spent twenty-two years in prison. And in March, The Justice Project published Convicting the Innocent: Texas Justice Derailed, which highlights thirty-nine other cases of wrongful conviction in Texas.
George Rodriguez is seeking justice. In 2004, DNA testing exonerated Rodriguez for the 1987 abduction and sexual assault he had been convicted of seventeen years earlier. During his trial, a Houston Police forensic analyst testified that biological evidence pointed to Rodriguez's guilt; it was later discovered that the analyst lied. Rodriguez is one of forty individuals exonerated by DNA in Texas, and one of six exonerated in Harris County. Read more about DNA exonerations in Texas.
A trial is now underway in Rodriguez's civil lawsuit against the City of Houston, and the city is claiming that there was nothing it could have done to prevent the misconduct of their lab analyst, whose lie led to Rodriguez's wrongful conviction. Houston city attorney Arturo Michel stated:
"I think what you have here is a person who was simply not honest and it doesn't matter how many funds you put into something, how good a program you have, that cannot guard against a person's dishonesty."
(This is a really big deal. DNA testing has revealed a tremendous amount of procedural error in the practice of forensic science. Now we have a systematic study of it, done at the bequest of Congress. NAS report here. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Earlier this week, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a prestigious research organization that advises Congress, released a long-awaited report detailing comprehensive recommendations to improve the practice and use of forensic science in the American criminal justice system. The report concludes that forensic labs and the system of oversight of forensic science are in dire need of broad structural changes to ensure reliability, and put forensic evidence on a sound scientific footing. This report was the culmination of an ambitious two year study, conducted by a NAS committee at the direction of Congress, of the current state of forensic science. This committee was charged with, among other tasks, assessing the accuracy and reliability of forensic testing and evidence used in criminal trials and investigations; identifying systemic problems with the practice and use of forensic science; and recommending best practices and solutions to improve the reliability of forensic evidence utilized in the criminal justice system.
Given the critical importance of forensic testing and evidence in the investigation, apprehension, and conviction of criminals, as well as the exoneration of the innocent, the task assigned to the National Academy of Sciences was a critical one. The use of forensic evidence in the criminal justice system has skyrocketed in recent decades, and unfortunately, so have the instances in which faulty forensic evidence contributed to the wrongful convictions of innocent people. Despite the reputation of forensic science as being a reliable and accurate means of excluding certain suspects and identifying others, often fostered by popular shows such as CSI, forensic science is often deeply flawed and inaccurate-unreliable or false forensic evidence led to the wrongful conviction of over half of the first two hundred people exonerated by DNA evidence in the United States.
STATE BLOGS
