Time to stop FBI?
Part 3 in a series from NPR, which reports that that FBI does indeed have a longstanding policy of protecting drug informants as well as letting crime go unpunished.
Yes, remember the original story. Katie was abducted because she saw drug activity. And then the story abruptly changed. Remember the presence of the FBI in Crothersville during that time?
Wake up, residents of Jackson County.
Legislator Aims To Regulate FBI Behavior
by Dina Temple-Raston
Listen Now [6 min 10 sec] add to playlist
Last in a three-part series.
Chip Somodevilla
Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) plans to introduce a bill that would essentially hold FBI agents criminally responsible if they fail to share criminal activity of a confidential informant with other law enforcement agencies. Getty Images
More In This Series
Sep. 2, 2008Some FBI Agents Pay High Price For Using Snitches
Sep. 1, 2008Bulger Case Changed FBI's Role With Informants
Morning Edition, September 3, 2008 · The FBI has been repeatedly accused of standing by while its confidential informants commit crimes. One legislator is considering introducing a bill that aims to fix that.
The bill — as envisioned by Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) — would subject FBI agents to criminal prosecution if they don't alert local law enforcement when one of their informants has committed a crime.
Agents say that if the bill becomes law, the informant program as we know it will end.
An Uncooperative Institution
The FBI's detractors have long seen the bureau as an institution with its own agenda. They worry that the bureau is more concerned about building a successful case than upholding the law. Delahunt is one of those people.
"I have had a long-term concern about the sharing of information by, specifically, the FBI with local and state law enforcement," he says.
Delahunt says the FBI has developed into a model of arrogant uncooperativeness when it comes to helping local police fight crime. Nowhere is this problem as evident, in his view, than in the FBI's confidential informant program.
Time and again, he says, FBI agents neglect to tell local police when they know their informants have broken the law because agents arbitrarily decide that their cases are more important than local ones.
"What is totally unacceptable is having violent criminals out on the street, preying on American citizens everywhere, while there is information that isn't being disclosed to local and state law enforcement authorities that have the primary responsibility in this country to protect us from violent crime," Delahunt says.
A New Bill
Delahunt's solution is to introduce a bill that would essentially hold agents criminally responsible if they keep quiet.
"If an average citizen should lie to an FBI agent, there is a criminal penalty involved," Delahunt says. "Compare that to a situation where an FBI agent has information and fails to disclose it to appropriate local and state law enforcement officials. Should there be a penalty?"
Delahunt says there should and points to the Whitey Bulger case in Boston as an example. "There have been cases, here in the greater Boston area, where the high standards of the FBI have not been honored," he says.
FBI's Unholy Alliance
Whitey Bulger was the godfather of the Irish mob and a confidential informant for the FBI. He gave an agent named John Connolly information that helped the FBI wipe out the Italian mob in Boston. During that time, it seemed that no matter what state and local law enforcement did to gather evidence against Bulger, he remained one step ahead of them. It was revealed later that Connolly was tipping him off. Delahunt was district attorney in neighboring Norfolk County at the time, and the case still rankles.
"Serious crimes went unsolved, while at the same time the FBI had significant information that, in my judgment, could very well have led to a successful prosecution," Delahunt says.
Delahunt is certainly not the only person to cry foul about the FBI's informant program. The Justice Department's inspector general is concerned, too. He came out with a 301-page report saying that in nearly nine out of every 10 cases he reviewed, agents mishandled informants. They allowed informants to engage in criminal activities without approval, they failed to report it when informants broke the law, or they approved illegal activity after the crime had already been committed.
Interfering With Agents' Jobs?
Jack Weinstein has been a sitting judge for 40 years. He is a federal judge in the Eastern District of New York and has probably heard more mob cases — using confidential informants — than any other judge in the country. He's worried about Delahunt's bill.
"I do think that to tie the hands of the FBI unduly is something that ought to be seriously considered before it is done," Weinstein says, adding, "My experience with the FBI over the past 40 years has been very good."
Valerie Caproni, the general counsel for the FBI, is also worried. "I don't think if it was passed we could get agents to run informants."
She said that the way the bill is drafted, an agent would have to inform local law enforcement if they obtain information that a confidential informant has committed a crime. What happens, she asks, if they aren't sure the information they obtain is reliable?
"You would put the agent in a situation in which they would have to choose between criminal liability on their own part and disclosing information they may believe in their heart of hearts — and everyone objectively believes — isn't reliable," Caproni says. "But they risk criminal exposure if they don't disclose that to local law enforcement."
Caproni says that if that was the law of the land, the FBI couldn't put their agents in that kind of position. It would effectively end the informant program.
"I think that's baloney," says Delahunt. He says he simply is requiring FBI agents to comply with guidelines that already exist.
"My role is one of oversight, monitoring and ensuring that the FBI achieves the high standards that we all believe the FBI aspires to," he says.
The attorney general is expected to release revised guidelines for FBI investigative procedures in the next couple of weeks. Delahunt says he'd like to see those provisions before he moves ahead with his bill. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) has been working with Delahunt on the bill.
Yes, remember the original story. Katie was abducted because she saw drug activity. And then the story abruptly changed. Remember the presence of the FBI in Crothersville during that time?
Wake up, residents of Jackson County.
Legislator Aims To Regulate FBI Behavior
by Dina Temple-Raston
Listen Now [6 min 10 sec] add to playlist
Last in a three-part series.
Chip Somodevilla
Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) plans to introduce a bill that would essentially hold FBI agents criminally responsible if they fail to share criminal activity of a confidential informant with other law enforcement agencies. Getty Images
More In This Series
Sep. 2, 2008Some FBI Agents Pay High Price For Using Snitches
Sep. 1, 2008Bulger Case Changed FBI's Role With Informants
Morning Edition, September 3, 2008 · The FBI has been repeatedly accused of standing by while its confidential informants commit crimes. One legislator is considering introducing a bill that aims to fix that.
The bill — as envisioned by Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) — would subject FBI agents to criminal prosecution if they don't alert local law enforcement when one of their informants has committed a crime.
Agents say that if the bill becomes law, the informant program as we know it will end.
An Uncooperative Institution
The FBI's detractors have long seen the bureau as an institution with its own agenda. They worry that the bureau is more concerned about building a successful case than upholding the law. Delahunt is one of those people.
"I have had a long-term concern about the sharing of information by, specifically, the FBI with local and state law enforcement," he says.
Delahunt says the FBI has developed into a model of arrogant uncooperativeness when it comes to helping local police fight crime. Nowhere is this problem as evident, in his view, than in the FBI's confidential informant program.
Time and again, he says, FBI agents neglect to tell local police when they know their informants have broken the law because agents arbitrarily decide that their cases are more important than local ones.
"What is totally unacceptable is having violent criminals out on the street, preying on American citizens everywhere, while there is information that isn't being disclosed to local and state law enforcement authorities that have the primary responsibility in this country to protect us from violent crime," Delahunt says.
A New Bill
Delahunt's solution is to introduce a bill that would essentially hold agents criminally responsible if they keep quiet.
"If an average citizen should lie to an FBI agent, there is a criminal penalty involved," Delahunt says. "Compare that to a situation where an FBI agent has information and fails to disclose it to appropriate local and state law enforcement officials. Should there be a penalty?"
Delahunt says there should and points to the Whitey Bulger case in Boston as an example. "There have been cases, here in the greater Boston area, where the high standards of the FBI have not been honored," he says.
FBI's Unholy Alliance
Whitey Bulger was the godfather of the Irish mob and a confidential informant for the FBI. He gave an agent named John Connolly information that helped the FBI wipe out the Italian mob in Boston. During that time, it seemed that no matter what state and local law enforcement did to gather evidence against Bulger, he remained one step ahead of them. It was revealed later that Connolly was tipping him off. Delahunt was district attorney in neighboring Norfolk County at the time, and the case still rankles.
"Serious crimes went unsolved, while at the same time the FBI had significant information that, in my judgment, could very well have led to a successful prosecution," Delahunt says.
Delahunt is certainly not the only person to cry foul about the FBI's informant program. The Justice Department's inspector general is concerned, too. He came out with a 301-page report saying that in nearly nine out of every 10 cases he reviewed, agents mishandled informants. They allowed informants to engage in criminal activities without approval, they failed to report it when informants broke the law, or they approved illegal activity after the crime had already been committed.
Interfering With Agents' Jobs?
Jack Weinstein has been a sitting judge for 40 years. He is a federal judge in the Eastern District of New York and has probably heard more mob cases — using confidential informants — than any other judge in the country. He's worried about Delahunt's bill.
"I do think that to tie the hands of the FBI unduly is something that ought to be seriously considered before it is done," Weinstein says, adding, "My experience with the FBI over the past 40 years has been very good."
Valerie Caproni, the general counsel for the FBI, is also worried. "I don't think if it was passed we could get agents to run informants."
She said that the way the bill is drafted, an agent would have to inform local law enforcement if they obtain information that a confidential informant has committed a crime. What happens, she asks, if they aren't sure the information they obtain is reliable?
"You would put the agent in a situation in which they would have to choose between criminal liability on their own part and disclosing information they may believe in their heart of hearts — and everyone objectively believes — isn't reliable," Caproni says. "But they risk criminal exposure if they don't disclose that to local law enforcement."
Caproni says that if that was the law of the land, the FBI couldn't put their agents in that kind of position. It would effectively end the informant program.
"I think that's baloney," says Delahunt. He says he simply is requiring FBI agents to comply with guidelines that already exist.
"My role is one of oversight, monitoring and ensuring that the FBI achieves the high standards that we all believe the FBI aspires to," he says.
The attorney general is expected to release revised guidelines for FBI investigative procedures in the next couple of weeks. Delahunt says he'd like to see those provisions before he moves ahead with his bill. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) has been working with Delahunt on the bill.
False matches of DNA and plea bargaining
If you are still not convinced that DNA is not accurate all of the time, please read the article below taken from the Innocent Project's Innocence Blog. Now there have been other posts on this blog showing how the alleged dna evidence against Stockelman could have been tainted.
Read the words in bold very very carefully, looks like whoever wrote this article hit the nail on the head as far as Tony's case goes.
Innocence BlogToday's Innocence Blog From gold standard to fool's gold? Posted: 09 Sep 2008 01:55 PM CDTAs DNA is used in more criminal cases and crime lab budgets are stretched thin, will DNA testing become a less-reliable form of evidence? A defense attorney told the Washington Post this week that he's worried false matches and plea bargains will increase in the next era of DNA testing, raising the possibility of wrongful conviction.Laura Chase, a deputy state's attorney (in Maryland), said defense lawyers have feared challenging DNA evidence before a jury. As DNA evidence moves to less-violent crimes, she said, "I think it will encourage pleas. It always has encouraged pleas, and that will make the system more efficient."Defense lawyers, the article says, fear that innocent defendants will be persuaded to plead guilty when confronted with DNA evidence - even if that evidence doesn't necessarily connect the defendant to the crime scene. And as law enforcement agencies call for DNA testing in more minor cases - like burglaries and robberies - crime lab budgets could be stretched too far, increasing the possibility of mistakes."It runs the risk of turning the gold standard of evidence into fool's gold," said Stephen Mercer, a Montgomery lawyer.Read the full article here. (Washington Post, 09/08/08)The Innocence Project supports the establishment of state forensic oversight commissions and advisory boards to ensure that crime labs are properly managed and funded. When analysts are overburdened, underpaid or poorly trained, the risk of forensic error - and wrongful conviction - are increased.
Read the words in bold very very carefully, looks like whoever wrote this article hit the nail on the head as far as Tony's case goes.
Innocence BlogToday's Innocence Blog From gold standard to fool's gold? Posted: 09 Sep 2008 01:55 PM CDTAs DNA is used in more criminal cases and crime lab budgets are stretched thin, will DNA testing become a less-reliable form of evidence? A defense attorney told the Washington Post this week that he's worried false matches and plea bargains will increase in the next era of DNA testing, raising the possibility of wrongful conviction.Laura Chase, a deputy state's attorney (in Maryland), said defense lawyers have feared challenging DNA evidence before a jury. As DNA evidence moves to less-violent crimes, she said, "I think it will encourage pleas. It always has encouraged pleas, and that will make the system more efficient."Defense lawyers, the article says, fear that innocent defendants will be persuaded to plead guilty when confronted with DNA evidence - even if that evidence doesn't necessarily connect the defendant to the crime scene. And as law enforcement agencies call for DNA testing in more minor cases - like burglaries and robberies - crime lab budgets could be stretched too far, increasing the possibility of mistakes."It runs the risk of turning the gold standard of evidence into fool's gold," said Stephen Mercer, a Montgomery lawyer.Read the full article here. (Washington Post, 09/08/08)The Innocence Project supports the establishment of state forensic oversight commissions and advisory boards to ensure that crime labs are properly managed and funded. When analysts are overburdened, underpaid or poorly trained, the risk of forensic error - and wrongful conviction - are increased.
Amendment V
In recently reading the first ten amendments of the US Constitution, one amendment in particular stood out. It was the fifth amendment. We commonly think of it as the right not to testify against oneself in court, however it is more detailed than that. The fifth amendment of the US Constitution reads as follows: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except, in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against h imself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without dur process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
So we read within this amendment provisions against double jeopardy and due process of law. But the thing that I found most interesting was the beginning statement " No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." The exceptions to this rule are reserved for the military.
You may remember that originally this case was a death penalty case. But it was never presented to a Grand Jury. Then-prosecutor Stephen Pierson stated that Grand Jury consideration in this case would not be necessary. So not only did this case not be tried before a Grand Jury, it was never tried before a jury either. Was this a violation of Mr. Stockelman's constitutional rights? I am not an attorney and do not know the answer, but would appreciate it if an attorney could post more insight into this. Unless you are James "Ricky" Kilburn. Kilburn was the defense "attorney" Stockelman chose to defend him in this matter because he was a deacon of the church he attended. Kilburn should never be allowed to practice any type of law, much less a death penalty case. More on that to follow.
So we read within this amendment provisions against double jeopardy and due process of law. But the thing that I found most interesting was the beginning statement " No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." The exceptions to this rule are reserved for the military.
You may remember that originally this case was a death penalty case. But it was never presented to a Grand Jury. Then-prosecutor Stephen Pierson stated that Grand Jury consideration in this case would not be necessary. So not only did this case not be tried before a Grand Jury, it was never tried before a jury either. Was this a violation of Mr. Stockelman's constitutional rights? I am not an attorney and do not know the answer, but would appreciate it if an attorney could post more insight into this. Unless you are James "Ricky" Kilburn. Kilburn was the defense "attorney" Stockelman chose to defend him in this matter because he was a deacon of the church he attended. Kilburn should never be allowed to practice any type of law, much less a death penalty case. More on that to follow.
Labels:
amendments,
attorney,
constitution,
defense,
double jeopardy,
grand jury,
indictment,
kilburn,
law,
rights
Are Crime Labs really unbiased?
This article from the whyfiles shows more evidence that crime laboratories feel pressure to "find" the guilty party. Can we really trust DNA evidence to be accurate when there is pressure to have the forensic evidence match?
http://whyfiles.org/133crime_lab/5.html
Don't give that girl a gunBehind the debate over the proper role of crime labs is this question: Are labs tools of the prosecution, or of justice? Certainly, crime labs are touted as impartial, scientific means of finding the truth. But the truth is that most exist in a prosecutorial milieu -- as branches of the department of justice or the state police.
Geurts, of the Wisconsin lab, acknowledges that he works for the Department of Justice, but says, "Once you become an advocate, you lose your status as a scientist. We try to avoid that, but in general we work for the prosecution, and there's a small chance an individual analyst could become more prosecution oriented. In general, we get equal satisfaction from eliminating someone from suspicion, even though police usually respond, 'How can that be? We know this is the guy.'"
Evidence expert Jennifer Mnookin sees merit in the proposal -- raised in Oklahoma among other places -- to make labs independent of the prosecution. Although it would not solve everything, she adds, "Closely tying the forensic scientist to the prosecutorial apparatus may increase the likelihood of some of these problems. People may feel that to get promoted, they need to provide the evidence that makes a conviction; they may turn into cops in lab coats."
Mnookin describes the challenge thusly: "How do you create an incentive structure that does not encourage scientists and technicians to err on the side of the prosecution?"
Somebody bad stole de wedding bell We've heard other suggestions for improving labs:
Faigman suggests creating a "firewall" to reduce contact with police." Examinations should be as blind as possible, he says, "so the officer does not walk in and say, 'We found the guy who has these prints with the stereo equipment, and we want you to match them.'" The expectation of guilt, he says, "will intrude on the analysis."
Confirm the theory with basic scientific techniques -- and confirm the examiner's practice with blind tests. The Wisconsin State Crime Lab, says Geurts, tests employee proficiency at least annually. When drug examiners test proficiency samples, he says, they think they are working on actual cases.
Use peer review. Geurts says that having more than one examiner handle subjective analyses, such as handwriting, can reduce errors.
Subterranean homesick blues A final means to make sure that crime labs do their work honestly and intelligently is accreditation from the American Society of Crime Lab Directors. To date, 196 U.S. crime labs have attained certification, that's about half of the full-function scientific crime labs in the United States. That's the estimate of Robert Conley, director of the American Society of Crime Lab Directors Accreditation Board -- a separate group established by the Society. Accreditation, he says, requires "100 percent compliance" to a long list of standards affecting the "quality of the work product."
Covered areas include:
Minimum education for various disciplines -- typically at least a bachelor's degree -- with a concentration in science.
Annual proficiency testing for all employees.
Written procedures covering, according to Conley, "literally everything the lab does." Procedures must be validated in the lab, so "the method works in their lab, with their equipment and their personnel."
The standards are tough enough, he says, that almost all labs fail the first inspection. They then have a year to get up to snuff.
Could certification have helped at the Oklahoma City police lab, whose misconduct apparently doomed Jeffrey Pierce to spend 15 years in prison for another person's crime? Perhaps, Conley says, noting that the lab was not accredited.
"Without being specific or concluding about what happened in Oklahoma, because I only read about it in the papers, our process requires external review of all procedures used in the lab. If we were looking at microscopic analysis of hair, certainly the kind of results we have been hearing about would not be acceptable scientific practice."
However, accreditation does not address the issue of independence of the prosecution, or the overall question raised by the Supreme Court -- whether the forensic sciences are actually science.
While DNA profiling has been proven to be science after years of hard work and intense argument, that remains the exception. As Professor Faigman says, "Courts are wondering, scratching their heads, about why the other forensic sciences don't look like DNA profiling."
http://whyfiles.org/133crime_lab/5.html
Don't give that girl a gunBehind the debate over the proper role of crime labs is this question: Are labs tools of the prosecution, or of justice? Certainly, crime labs are touted as impartial, scientific means of finding the truth. But the truth is that most exist in a prosecutorial milieu -- as branches of the department of justice or the state police.
Geurts, of the Wisconsin lab, acknowledges that he works for the Department of Justice, but says, "Once you become an advocate, you lose your status as a scientist. We try to avoid that, but in general we work for the prosecution, and there's a small chance an individual analyst could become more prosecution oriented. In general, we get equal satisfaction from eliminating someone from suspicion, even though police usually respond, 'How can that be? We know this is the guy.'"
Evidence expert Jennifer Mnookin sees merit in the proposal -- raised in Oklahoma among other places -- to make labs independent of the prosecution. Although it would not solve everything, she adds, "Closely tying the forensic scientist to the prosecutorial apparatus may increase the likelihood of some of these problems. People may feel that to get promoted, they need to provide the evidence that makes a conviction; they may turn into cops in lab coats."
Mnookin describes the challenge thusly: "How do you create an incentive structure that does not encourage scientists and technicians to err on the side of the prosecution?"
Somebody bad stole de wedding bell We've heard other suggestions for improving labs:
Faigman suggests creating a "firewall" to reduce contact with police." Examinations should be as blind as possible, he says, "so the officer does not walk in and say, 'We found the guy who has these prints with the stereo equipment, and we want you to match them.'" The expectation of guilt, he says, "will intrude on the analysis."
Confirm the theory with basic scientific techniques -- and confirm the examiner's practice with blind tests. The Wisconsin State Crime Lab, says Geurts, tests employee proficiency at least annually. When drug examiners test proficiency samples, he says, they think they are working on actual cases.
Use peer review. Geurts says that having more than one examiner handle subjective analyses, such as handwriting, can reduce errors.
Subterranean homesick blues A final means to make sure that crime labs do their work honestly and intelligently is accreditation from the American Society of Crime Lab Directors. To date, 196 U.S. crime labs have attained certification, that's about half of the full-function scientific crime labs in the United States. That's the estimate of Robert Conley, director of the American Society of Crime Lab Directors Accreditation Board -- a separate group established by the Society. Accreditation, he says, requires "100 percent compliance" to a long list of standards affecting the "quality of the work product."
Covered areas include:
Minimum education for various disciplines -- typically at least a bachelor's degree -- with a concentration in science.
Annual proficiency testing for all employees.
Written procedures covering, according to Conley, "literally everything the lab does." Procedures must be validated in the lab, so "the method works in their lab, with their equipment and their personnel."
The standards are tough enough, he says, that almost all labs fail the first inspection. They then have a year to get up to snuff.
Could certification have helped at the Oklahoma City police lab, whose misconduct apparently doomed Jeffrey Pierce to spend 15 years in prison for another person's crime? Perhaps, Conley says, noting that the lab was not accredited.
"Without being specific or concluding about what happened in Oklahoma, because I only read about it in the papers, our process requires external review of all procedures used in the lab. If we were looking at microscopic analysis of hair, certainly the kind of results we have been hearing about would not be acceptable scientific practice."
However, accreditation does not address the issue of independence of the prosecution, or the overall question raised by the Supreme Court -- whether the forensic sciences are actually science.
While DNA profiling has been proven to be science after years of hard work and intense argument, that remains the exception. As Professor Faigman says, "Courts are wondering, scratching their heads, about why the other forensic sciences don't look like DNA profiling."
Faulty Forensic Evidence
It would seem that what has convinced the public most of Anthony Stockelman's guilt is the fact that the prosecution claims to have DNA evidence. Shows like CSI and Cold Case Files have promoted the idea that forensic evidence is infallible and cannot be disputed. However, this article from the Innocence Project reveals that often DNA is mishandled and DNA experts have been known to fabricate evidence, or as this article also reveals plant evidence.
Al Roker of Court TV produced a documentary on the Collman murder titled "Meth, Murder and Madness." A few weeks later another documentary aired by Roker titled "Faulty Forensics". It detailed how crime labs often placed a rubber stamp so to speak on the forensic evidence turned over to them by prosecutors and police.
Here is the full article from the Innocence Project. More can be found on their website at www.innocenceproject.com
Fix The System: Crime Lab Oversight
Forensic Science Misconduct
Because forensic science results can mean the difference between life and death in many cases, fraud and other types of misconduct in the field are particularly troubling. False testimony, exaggerated statistics and laboratory fraud have led to wrongful conviction in several states.Since forensic evidence is offered by "experts," jurors routinely give it much more weight than other evidence. But when misconduct occurs, the weight is misplaced. In some instances, labs or their personnel are too closely tied to police and prosecutors, and therefore not impartial. Other times, a criminalist lacking the requisite knowledge embellishes findings, confident that he will not be caught since the lawyer, judge and jury have no background in the relevant science.
In some cases, critical evidence is consumed or destroyed, so that re-testing to uncover the misconduct is impossible. Evidence in these cases can never be tested again. Those wrongful convictions will never be overturned.
One weak linkThe identification, collection, testing, storage, handling and reporting of any piece of forensic evidence involves a number of people. Evidence can be deliberately or accidentally mishandled at any stage of this process.The risk of misconduct starts at the crime scene, where evidence can be planted, destroyed or mishandled. Then the evidence is sent by police to a state forensic lab or independent contractor, where it can be contaminated, poorly tested, consumed unnecessarily or mislabeled. The next step is a report, in which technicians and their superiors sometimes misrepresent results. DNA exonerations have revealed numerous instances of “drylabbing” evidence – reporting results when no test was actually performed. It's cheaper and faster – but fraudulent.
All over the mapThe Innocence Project has seen forensic misconduct by scientists, experts and prosecutors lead to wrongful conviction in many states. The following are among the more notorious:
A former director of the West Virginia state crime lab, Fred Zain, testified for the prosecution in 12 states over his career, including dozens of cases in West Virginia and Texas. DNA exonerations and new evidence in other cases have shown that Zain fabricated results, lied on the stand about results and willfully omitted evidence from this reports.
Pamela Fish, a Chicago lab technician, testified for the prosecution about false matches and suspicious results in the trials of at least eight defendants who were convicted, then proven innocent years later by DNA testing.
A two-year investigation of the Houston crime lab, completed in 2007, showed that evidence in that lab was mishandled and results were misreported.
Ending forensic fraudThe Innocence Project has uncovered these abuses since 1992 and has developed recommendations for crime labs, law enforcement agencies and courts to ensure that forensic science misconduct is prevented whenever possible. The Innocence Project calls for state to impose standards on the preservation and handling of evidence. When exonerations suggest that an analyst engaged in misconduct or that a facility lacked proper procedures or oversight, the Innocence Project advocates for independent audits of their work in other cases that may have also resulted in wrongful convictions.
Visit our Fix The System: Crime Lab Oversight page for more information.
Featured Case: George Rodriguez
George Rodriguez was exonerated in 2005 after serving 17 years for a sexual assault he didn't commit. Rodriguez's case helped to reveal a pattern of error and fraud in the Houston Police Department Crime Lab that is still being investigated and corrected today. In Rodriguez's case, lab director Jim Bolding testified that a hair found in the victim's underwear could have belonged to Rodriguez. He also testified that blood type evidence showed that Rodriguez – and not a co-defendant – could have deposited biological fluids. This was false – later tests showed that the co-defendant could have been a contributor. DNA testing also showed that the hair used against Rodriguez could not have been his. Audits of the Houston lab since Rodriguez's exoneration have revealed a wide range of misconduct.
Al Roker of Court TV produced a documentary on the Collman murder titled "Meth, Murder and Madness." A few weeks later another documentary aired by Roker titled "Faulty Forensics". It detailed how crime labs often placed a rubber stamp so to speak on the forensic evidence turned over to them by prosecutors and police.
Here is the full article from the Innocence Project. More can be found on their website at www.innocenceproject.com
Fix The System: Crime Lab Oversight
Forensic Science Misconduct
Because forensic science results can mean the difference between life and death in many cases, fraud and other types of misconduct in the field are particularly troubling. False testimony, exaggerated statistics and laboratory fraud have led to wrongful conviction in several states.Since forensic evidence is offered by "experts," jurors routinely give it much more weight than other evidence. But when misconduct occurs, the weight is misplaced. In some instances, labs or their personnel are too closely tied to police and prosecutors, and therefore not impartial. Other times, a criminalist lacking the requisite knowledge embellishes findings, confident that he will not be caught since the lawyer, judge and jury have no background in the relevant science.
In some cases, critical evidence is consumed or destroyed, so that re-testing to uncover the misconduct is impossible. Evidence in these cases can never be tested again. Those wrongful convictions will never be overturned.
One weak linkThe identification, collection, testing, storage, handling and reporting of any piece of forensic evidence involves a number of people. Evidence can be deliberately or accidentally mishandled at any stage of this process.The risk of misconduct starts at the crime scene, where evidence can be planted, destroyed or mishandled. Then the evidence is sent by police to a state forensic lab or independent contractor, where it can be contaminated, poorly tested, consumed unnecessarily or mislabeled. The next step is a report, in which technicians and their superiors sometimes misrepresent results. DNA exonerations have revealed numerous instances of “drylabbing” evidence – reporting results when no test was actually performed. It's cheaper and faster – but fraudulent.
All over the mapThe Innocence Project has seen forensic misconduct by scientists, experts and prosecutors lead to wrongful conviction in many states. The following are among the more notorious:
A former director of the West Virginia state crime lab, Fred Zain, testified for the prosecution in 12 states over his career, including dozens of cases in West Virginia and Texas. DNA exonerations and new evidence in other cases have shown that Zain fabricated results, lied on the stand about results and willfully omitted evidence from this reports.
Pamela Fish, a Chicago lab technician, testified for the prosecution about false matches and suspicious results in the trials of at least eight defendants who were convicted, then proven innocent years later by DNA testing.
A two-year investigation of the Houston crime lab, completed in 2007, showed that evidence in that lab was mishandled and results were misreported.
Ending forensic fraudThe Innocence Project has uncovered these abuses since 1992 and has developed recommendations for crime labs, law enforcement agencies and courts to ensure that forensic science misconduct is prevented whenever possible. The Innocence Project calls for state to impose standards on the preservation and handling of evidence. When exonerations suggest that an analyst engaged in misconduct or that a facility lacked proper procedures or oversight, the Innocence Project advocates for independent audits of their work in other cases that may have also resulted in wrongful convictions.
Visit our Fix The System: Crime Lab Oversight page for more information.
Featured Case: George Rodriguez
George Rodriguez was exonerated in 2005 after serving 17 years for a sexual assault he didn't commit. Rodriguez's case helped to reveal a pattern of error and fraud in the Houston Police Department Crime Lab that is still being investigated and corrected today. In Rodriguez's case, lab director Jim Bolding testified that a hair found in the victim's underwear could have belonged to Rodriguez. He also testified that blood type evidence showed that Rodriguez – and not a co-defendant – could have deposited biological fluids. This was false – later tests showed that the co-defendant could have been a contributor. DNA testing also showed that the hair used against Rodriguez could not have been his. Audits of the Houston lab since Rodriguez's exoneration have revealed a wide range of misconduct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)