If you were to believe everything you saw on television, you would think a hair or a single microscopic fiber of clothing would be enough to solve any crime. While these can sometimes be useful pieces of evidence, they are rarely the sole crime-solver as they are sometimes portrayed on modern crime dramas.
The drug lab scandal involving chemist Annie Dookhan has made this fact abundantly clear—that crime labs are not always the high-tech, super-funded, and error proof labs on television. Instead, they are often under-funded and sometimes wrought with error.
“I screwed up big time, I messed up, I messed up bad, it’s my fault.” This isn’t the statement of some child who broke a window, but of a woman who put thousands of criminal cases in jeopardy and may have helped incarcerate innocent people.
In addition, her “mistakes” are ultimately costing taxpayers millions—with Governor Patrick asking for $15 million to supervise newly released inmates and $30 million for other expenses. The lab she worked in was shuttered and all new drug tests are being outsourced.
One chemist, accused of falsifying test results, forging other staff member signatures, and admitting it all, was the downfall of an entire lab. Dookhan provided clues to her unethical practices—while she was processing more than 500 samples each month, others in the same position were only processing between 50 and 150.
And errors like this are not easy to fix. Having handled thousands in her nine-year career at the lab, all of those cases will have to be reviewed. Some cases will be retried, some convictions overturned, and some inmates freed. This process has already begun.
Got a quick question?
Click to Shoot us a text. Our attorneys monitor this regularly.
Police work is not foolproof. The chemists working in crime labs are not always the sleuths we see on CSI. They are human, bound to make mistakes, and sometimes even deliberate unethical decisions as we’ve seen here.
But the general public isn’t the only group with misconceptions about forensics. As this report from Stateline points out, judges are often too trusting of the labs too.
This is a problem, says Judge Donald Shelton, a trial court judge in Michigan’s Washtenaw County and author of several books on forensic evidence. Many, if not most judges, lack the skill to evaluate forensic evidence properly.
“Many judges don’t have (flawed forensics) on their radar yet, and our judicial education is spotty from state to state,” says Shelton. “We, as judges, owe it to ourselves to become much better informed about the current state of forensic science.”
When you are charged with a crime, you should be able to trust that justice will be served in your favor—that if you are not guilty, the evidence will prove as such. But frequently, the evidence doesn’t have the final say. With the help of a local defense lawyer you may be able to change this. Contact my offices today to discuss your case and how I might be able to help.