"I ALWAYS LOVE IT WHEN A PROSECUTOR STATES “NO ONE WAS WRONGFULLY CONVICTED”. FIRST OF ALL, MOST PROSECUTORS THINK EVERYONE CHARGED SHOULD BE CONVICTED, REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY GO ABOUT OBTAINING THAT CONVICTION. IT’S ALL VERY MACHIAVELLIAN (THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS). SECONDLY, HOW DO THE PROSECUTORS KNOW HOW THE JURY WOULD HAVE RULED, HAD THEY NOT HAD THE FALSE TESTIMONY/LAB REPORT TO USE AS PART OF DELIBERATION."
FROM "A REAL FORENSIC SCIENTIST;"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: It's not every day that an issue involving the work of forensic scientists in the criminal courts comes under scrutiny in the Supreme Court of the United States; Nor is it every day that the Supreme Court issues a searing indictment of the forensic science system in the country and faces head-on the abuses such as manipulation, prosecutorial pressure, outright fraud, bias, error and incompetence. Canadians are well aware of this through the many miscarriages of justice caused in Ontario by Dr. Charles Smith. Americans, who haven't received this message yet, will learn it from the blunt words of Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority. The Supreme Court ruled that a state forensic analyst’s laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is “testimonial” evidence and therefore subject to "confrontation" through cross-examination of the analyst - but not before Justice Scalia told Americans how vulnerable they are to wrongful convictions as a result of American forensic science as it is practiced today. They need all of the protection of the law that they can get.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A forensic laboratory analyst dry-labs cases," "a real forensic scientist" begins his post under the heading "Laboratory Analyst Falsifies Lab Report." (I really enjoy his hard-hitting Blog. It's called "Bench Notes: Forensic Science News and CSI Reviews by a Real Forensic Scientist." HL)
"That is, they didn’t actually perform the forensic testing they are supposed to, and instead just simply authors reports that indicate a crime has occurred," the post continues.
"A former chemist with Erie County’s crime laboratory admitted she failed to conduct the proper forensic tests in a local drug case, but authorities say they don’t believe what was described as “sloppy” lab work had influenced the outcome of criminal cases.
Kelly McHugh, 36, of Hamburg, pleaded guilty last week in Buffalo City Court to second-degree attempted tampering with public records, a Class B misdemeanor, which carries a maximum of 90 days in jail, according to the Erie County district attorney’s office.
McHugh was fired from the Erie County forensic laboratory after issues with her work came to a head in February, triggering investigations by lab officials, the district attorney and state inspector general to determine the scope of the problem.
“I wanted to make sure no one was sitting in jail because of a false report she gave,” said Erie County District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III. “That was a top priority for me.”
It’s rather impressive she was fired. Usually it takes an act of congress to get an government employee fired!
Lab officials, meanwhile, examined a sampling of 564 of McHugh’s 1,420 cases from 2007 and 2009.
The lengthy investigation didn’t reveal any major discrepancies that would affect a pending or past criminal charge, Sedita said.
“We looked at all the cases and found no one was wrongfully convicted,” Sedita said.
But the investigation did uncover other incidents of lab misconduct, the state report pointed out.
In the most blatant example, McHugh examined a substance that tested positive for cocaine but failed to report that a retest showed no cocaine. In the end, the test didn’t have an impact on the case, but authorities called her action “inexcusable.”
McHugh wasn’t trying to falsely convict anyone, Sedita said, but she cut corners in her lab work.
I always LOVE it when a prosecutor states “no one was wrongfully convicted”. First of all, most prosecutors think everyone charged should be convicted, regardless of how they go about obtaining that conviction. It’s all very Machiavellian (the ends justify the means). Secondly, how do the prosecutors know how the jury would have ruled, had they not had the false testimony/lab report to use as part of deliberation.
Next time somewhere like Virginia complains about the Melendez-Diaz ruling, requiring the laboratory analyst to testify and be subject to cross-examination, due to the extra “costs”, remind them the defense needs this right, so that charlatans like this can be weeded out early."
http://www.forensicsguy.com/benchnotes/laboratory-analyst-falsifies-lab-report/
http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/906331.html
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
