Welcome to Crime Lab Report

* * * * *
The Innocence Project has questions to answer.

September 24, 2007 by Crime Lab Report

Click here to view printer-friendly version of this month's editorial.

"Each wrongful conviction that has been overturned through DNA evidence could have been prevented if eyewitness procedures had been better, if interrogations had been recorded, if crime labs had been subjected to greater oversight, if the system had been more skeptical of jailhouse informants, or if other reforms had been in place."
- From an Innocence Project Report on the First 200 DNA Exonerations in the U.S.

The Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at New York's Yeshiva University has become a national phenomenon. Started by famed O.J. Simpson defense attorney, Barry Scheck, and cofounder, Peter Neufeld, in 1992, the organization has inspired the growth of an entire Innocence Network to include several state and regional chapters each seeking to exonerate prisoners whose innocence may be proven with more modern forensic science tests, particularly DNA analysis.

Any organization whose mission is to free innocent citizens from their prison cells deserves our full support and encouragement. Much good has been done by the Innocence Project to protect the civil liberties of individuals who were wronged by an imperfect and sometimes corrupt system of justice.

But when these activities expand into advocacy initiatives where strong political and media pressure is applied for the purpose of promoting a major public-policy agenda, then reasonable people have a right to question the basis for that agenda and the tactics being used to advance it.

A major component of this agenda has been the Innocence Project's push to establish external oversight commissions to "regulate" public crime laboratories, which according to Neufeld, "cannot police themselves." States such as Maryland, Texas, Virginia, and New York have established such commissions.

Holding public institutions accountable for their actions is a civic responsibility; however, the Innocence Project's claim that forensic science is an unregulated profession is patently dishonest and ignores the collective oversight provided by trial judges, opposing counselors, appellate courts, crime laboratory administrators, accreditation inspectors, and, in some cases, special prosecutors in protecting the integrity of the adjudicative process from junk science and corrupt witnesses.

Michele Nethercott, Chief Attorney for the Maryland Innocence Project, was quoted in an ACLU press release on December 12, 2006 as saying that “a cholesterol test is subject to more oversight than a DNA test used in a homicide or rape prosecution.”

Peter Neufeld expressed similar sentiments in a 1996 USA Today article about troubles in America's crime laboratories. "There's absolutely no reason that crime laboratories, which routinely make decisions that have life and death consequences for an accused person, should be less regulated than a clinical laboratory utilizing similar tests," he complained.

Crime Lab Report is not certain how often clinical lab technicians report their cholesterol-test results under oath, in a courtroom tightly controlled by a sitting judge and strict rules of evidence, and in anticipation of an aggressive cross-examination by a well-prepared opposing attorney. In fact, we're sure it never happens.

But the dishonesty and inconsistencies don't stop there.

In 2003, the Chicago Tribune reported that Edward Blake, a DNA expert with close ties to the Innocence Project "refuses to be accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors / Laboratory Accreditation Board." In the article written by Tribune reporter Maurice Possley, Blake claims that his "credentials should stand on their own."

Stand on their own? Isn't this the kind of bravado and egotism that the Innocence Project has condemned for more than a decade?

In fact, the rigorous accreditation program administered by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors / Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) has facilitated overwhelming progress in the forensic sciences over the last quarter-century. This progress has been so sweeping and so well-orchestrated that forensic science practiced in accredited labs can almost be considered a profession of its own - to be distinguished from the forensic practices of non-accredited facilities. While accreditation is not a promise of perfection (all human endeavors are subject to error) it is grossly irresponsible to dismiss it as an important and viable component to any reforms being considered for our criminal justice system.

And this progress continues today. Forensic science accreditation has now entered the ISO age where accrediting bodies such as ASCLD/LAB are subjected to international oversight to ensure standards are kept current and applied in a uniform and objective manner - a kind of oversight that is clearly more competent and organized than any politically-charged commission could ever provide.

Despite the refusal of Innocence Project representatives to publicly acknowledge accreditation as an important and intricate self-regulatory system for forensic science laboratories, when Crime Lab Report recently reviewed an Innocence Project press release, we found Virginia's Governor Mark Warner being congratulated for "adopting the remedies recommended by ASCLD/LAB" after an audit uncovered shoddy work performed in a capital case.

Apparently, forensic science and ASCLD/LAB accreditation are only trustworthy when they are useful to the Innocence Project.

Crime Lab Report suspects that some of the Innocence Project's recommendations would face a strenuous uphill climb if citizens and their elected representatives were better informed about forensic science accreditation. We also believe that the Innocence Project's tactics and increasing influence in the public-policy arena require that their rhetoric be subjected to careful and detailed scrutiny.

Therefore, Crime Lab Report is publicly urging journalists and elected officials to demand answers to the following ten questions before seriously considering reforms advocated by the Innocence Project.

1. What laboratories does the Innocence Project hire to conduct its post-conviction forensic testing?

2. What is the accreditation status of those laboratories*?

3. If the laboratories are accredited, what is the accrediting body?

4. For any laboratory that is not accredited, what steps did the Innocence Project follow to evaluate the lab's competency and adherence to professional quality-management standards before retaining its services?

5. For laboratories utilized by the Innocence Project, how often are they inspected by an external entity to check conformance to their own procedures? Are records kept of these inspections?

6. Would the Innocence Project be willing to open its case files to forensic science auditors for the purpose of reviewing laboratory data, procedures, and interpretations that served as the basis for subsequent exonerations?

7. Are post-conviction testing results , data, and observations subjected to any independent technical review before being presented as a basis for exoneration? Are the procedures for conducting such technical reviews documented?

8. Of all Innocence Project cases where a convicted offender was exonerated, in what percentage of those cases were incompetent or unethical forensic laboratory practices (crime scene processing excluded) identified as a factor contributing to a wrongful conviction?

9. How many of the above instances were associated with a crime laboratory accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors / Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB)?

10. Have any representatives of the Innocence Project ever witnessed an ASCLD/LAB accreditation inspection?

The Innocence Project now boasts over 200 documented exonerations, and it is likely that the frequent revelations of wrongful conviction continue to fuel a fierce kind of cynicism that pervades the organization. This is understandable. And if a consensus of good-intentioned and properly-informed legal, judicial, and law enforcement professionals carefully decide that governmental oversight of crime laboratories is necessary, then so be it. But they need to be properly and completely informed.

Unfortunately, this is not happening. When suggesting that forensic science misconduct and incompetence are significant factors contributing to wrongful convictions, the Innocence Project's generalized and foggy rhetoric masks a disturbing failure to disclose just how many of those instances were the fault of scientists or experts working in accredited forensic-testing laboratories.

If the record were to show that forensic science accreditation is, in fact, a powerful and useful tool for holding forensic science laboratories accountable for conformance to basic standards of quality, professionalism, and ethics, then the Innocence Project's momentum in advocating for the creation and funding of external oversight commissions would be weakened.

Crime Lab Report would hate to think that the Innocence Project and its supporters deliberately mislead the public about forensic science to advance their own agenda. After all, such behavior would be unbecoming of an organization that publicly condemns the tarnishing of our justice system with lies and mischaracterizations.

The Innocence Project has questions to answer.

Recent Quotes in the News

9/7/2007: Pete Marone, President, Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations
"Most people have learned about forensic science courtesy of the many popular, but not very accurate, television shows. In real life, crimes are solved and innocent people are set free not by the single-episode efforts of a CSI team but by thousands of dedicated scientists and technicians in understaffed and under-equipped forensic labs, examining a wide range of forensic evidence." (Source: Tuscaloosa News)

9/7/2007: Editorial, Mercury News, California
"Most wrongful convictions result from coerced confessions, false testimony by jailhouse informants or mistaken eyewitness identifications. Wrongful convictions lead to three significant injustices: an innocent person is incarcerated; criminal investigations end, leaving the real perpetrator free to commit more crimes; and victims' families suffer. In addition, police or the state may be sued for wrongful incarceration leading to large financial settlements." (Source: Mercury News)

8/22/2007: Mike Medler, Director, Indianapolis-Marion County Forensic Services Agency
"By investing efforts toward burglary investigation and the collection of physical evidence for DNA analysis or fingerprint identification, Denver not only solved numerous burglaries and stopped career burglars who may have committed over 200 burglaries a year, they also identified other convicted felons in the process. In other words, investigating burglaries has led to the identification of convicted violent offenders who escalated their offenses to sexual assault and other violent crimes." (Source: Government Technology)

8/20/2007: Kevin Bailey, Texas State Representative (D, Houston)
"No one really cared about the [Houston PD Crime Lab] until it became a public embarrassment." (Source: Houston Chronicle)

8/15/2007: Robert Perry, Legislative Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union
"DNA is promoted as the gold standard in forensic science but it is not infallible and is subject to human error." (Source: Reuters)

8/5/2007: Jonathan Blodgett, District Attorney of Essex County, MA
"As district attorneys, we want the public to feel safe and be safe, and we seek just results in all that we do. A critical component of our ability to make proper decisions about whether and how to prosecute thousands of criminal cases is the scientific work conducted by the state's crime lab." (Source: Boston Globe Editorial)

8/8/2007: Director Roger Koppl, Fairleigh Dickinson University
“Making forensic science services independent of the police and equally available to prosecution and defense would reduce the influence of the police on forensics. Random redundant testing would make it harder for crime labs to cheat.” (Source: International Herald Tribune)

8/4/2007: Professor Paul Wilson, Bond University, Australia
"It's very, very dangerous to convict purely on forensic science evidence...." (Source: The Courier Mail)

Here's what's been happening

Alabama
September 7, 2007
Pete Marone, President of the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations publicly thanked Senator Richard Shelby, R-Ala., for providing leadership that will likely result in a considerable increase in federal funding directed towards America's forensic science laboratories. Senator Shelby has emerged in recent years as a powerful advocate for forensic science laboratories.

New York
August 15, 2007
Governor Elliot Spitzer's efforts to boost the size and effectiveness of his state's DNA database is being met with resistance from civil liberties groups concerned about the reliability and monitoring of such an ambitious project. It is likely that the future of an expanded DNA database in New York will require compromise in the form of sweeping criminal justice reforms - all of which would likely have national implications for the profession of forensic science.

Massachusetts
August 4, 2007
The ongoing shake-up of the Massachusetts crime lab became more peculiar as a senior prosecutor was named the top forensic official in the state. An editorial in the Boston Globe on August 4, 2007 suggests that suspicions are up regarding the higher levels of state government and their approach to managing the state's forensic science and medial examiner services. Chief Medial Examiner Dr. Mark Flomenbaum was fired by Governor Patrick despite the fact that "Flomenbaum arrived [in Massachusetts] from the ME's office in New York City with a stellar reputation in the field of forensic pathology, a strong interest in training and developing staff, and national standing based on his painstaking work after the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center."

Washington, D.C.
July 25, 2007
Illinois representative Peter Roskam, who recently filled the U.S. congressional seat vacated by Henry Hyde, introduced the State and Local Criminal Forensic Laboratory Enhancement Act of 2007, "which authorizes $30 million to establish new criminal forensic laboratories, to expand existing criminal forensic laboratories, and to hire and train new forensic laboratory technicians."

Washington, D.C.
June 1, 2007
A National Academy of Sciences committee charged with identifying the needs of the forensic science community was convened by order of congress. A series of five meetings is planned, the first of which convened on January 25, 2007. The final meeting is scheduled for December 6, 2007. Click here to learn about this very important and influential committee, which will issue a final report sometime in 2008. Crime Lab Report will continue to follow this story.

Texas
May 26, 2007
An "Innocence Commission" created in Texas in 2005 was slow to gain momentum due to a lack of funding. But now, $500,000 has been allocated to allow this commission to investigate "wrongdoing or improper procedures in crime labs, which have been implicated in wrongful convictions."

A Message from our editors

Dear Subscribers:

We'd like to thank you again for your interest in Crime Lab Report.

We are excited to have added a third member to our editorial board. Dr. Garry Bombard is increasingly recognized as pioneering a new approach to analyzing the profession of forensic science in a public-policy context. With thirty-four years of extensive forensic laboratory experience and a Doctorate degree in public policy analysis, Dr. Bombard brings a fresh and authoritative perspective to the issues we examine.

We are continuing to expand our board so we welcome inquiries from criminal justice professionals interested in joining our team.

This month we focus on the Innocence Project and its own public policy agenda.

While Crime Lab Report takes an aggressive stance against what it perceives to be mischaracterizations of forensic science and other partners in our criminal justice system, we are very careful not to disparage or attack people and organizations in the news. Instead, we look to advance clearheaded thinking and accurate portrayals of contemporary issues.

We hope you will support and encourage our organization with your continued interest and attention. We also hope you will consider submitting commentaries and manuscripts of your own.

Thanks again for your interest.

The Editors