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.