PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The court ruled that defense attorneys for Diamond should have been told about the suspension, which could have provided grounds for questioning Gooden’s testimony. Evidence that can help the defense is known as “Brady material,” named for a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, and must be divulged by prosecutors. The ruling makes it clear that the lab withheld Brady material, said Diamond’s attorney, Josh Schaffer. He said the case is test for district attorney Kim Ogg’s administration, and argued they should not challenge the court ruling and dismiss his client’s case. “(Former DA) Devon Anderson’s administration opposed this and was complicit in the ongoing attempt to cover up the wrongdoing at the crime lab,” he said. “With today’s decision, Kim Ogg’s administration has the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to transparency and criminal justice reform and improving forensic science.” Schaffer said the ruling could affect two other trials in which Gooden testified. He also said other defense attorneys may want to look at her work in an estimated 1,500 other cases that she had handled prior to her suspension, according to official records. She returned to labwork on July 28, 2014 and is currently an analyst in the toxicology section."
STORY: "Conviction reversed because Houston crime lab analyst, supervisor did not disclose evidence problems," by reporter Brian Rogers, published by The Houston Chronicle on September 12, 2018.
GIST: "A Harris County woman’s DWI conviction in
2014 was reversed Tuesday because a Houston crime lab analyst and her
supervisor did not report shoddy evidence labeling that was required to
be disclosed to defense lawyers, the court ruled. The reversal by the 14th Court of Appeals in
Houston is the latest in a series of missteps by the city-funded Houston
Forensic Science Center, which took over operations of the Houston
Police Department crime lab. The ruling involves the jury trial of
Lesley Esther Diamond, who was convicted of a Class A misdemeanor
largely on the testimony of city crime lab analyst Andrea Gooden. Gooden was suspended in April 2014 after
alerting her supervisor, William Arnold, that she mistakenly analyzed a
blood sample that had been submitted with label errors by a Houston
police officer. She was suspended from casework reports while the agency
investigated. Gooden continued to testify in three trials, including
Diamond’s, about other samples without informing prosecutors or the
defense about her suspension, the court found. “Arnold did not document
or disclose this
action to the Harris County District Attorney’s Office because he did
not want to damage Gooden’s career or subject her to harsh
cross-examination by a defense lawyer,” the appeals court ruled. “There
was no other testimony regarding (Diamond’s) blood alcohol level from
any other witness other than Gooden.” Diamond was convicted of driving
while
intoxicated and jurors agreed to a more severe conviction after Gooden
testified that Diamond had a blood alcohol level of .193, more than
twice the legal limit of .08. That enhancement allowed the jury to
convict Diamond for a more serious crime, subjecting her to the
possibility of a year in jail, double what her maximum sentence would be
on a Class B misdemeanor. The court ruled that defense attorneys for
Diamond should have been told about the suspension, which could have
provided grounds for questioning Gooden’s testimony. Evidence that can
help the defense is known
as “Brady material,” named for a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, and
must be divulged by prosecutors. The ruling makes it clear that the lab
withheld Brady material, said Diamond’s attorney, Josh Schaffer. He said
the case is test for district
attorney Kim Ogg’s administration, and argued they should not challenge
the court ruling and dismiss his client’s case. “(Former DA) Devon
Anderson’s administration
opposed this and was complicit in the ongoing attempt to cover up the
wrongdoing at the crime lab,” he said. “With today’s decision, Kim Ogg’s
administration has the opportunity to put their money where their mouth
is when it comes to transparency and criminal justice reform and
improving forensic science.” Schaffer said the ruling could affect two
other trials in which Gooden testified. He also said other defense
attorneys may want to look at her work in an estimated 1,500 other cases
that she had handled prior to her suspension, according to official
records. She returned to labwork on July 28, 2014 and is currently an
analyst in the toxicology section. The director of city lab noted
Tuesday that
Gooden reported the mislabeling herself, and the situation led to
improvements at the lab. “HFSC believes the analyst, Andrea Gooden,
did the right thing by coming forward with the error and believes we
have stronger systems in place now to help ensure errors are caught and a
culture that encourages transparency internally and externally,” said
Dr. Peter Stout, CEO and HFSC president in a written statement.
“Following this incident, HFSC implemented a policy to reject for
toxicology analysis any improperly labeled or packaged evidence. It also
took steps to simplify the submission process for requests for
toxicology testing.” He said the lab has invested time and money
to become more transparent and make information available on its
website. In addition, he said, changes and improvements have been made
to processes, training and personnel to ensure that similar mistakes do
not occur again. He noted that “any errors that occur and are
investigated and documented by HFSC are then made publicly accessible on
the website.” Stout’s comments come after a January 2015
report from the Texas Forensic Science Commission, which included harsh
criticism of the city’s forensic science lab that said Arnold, Gooden’s
supervisor, intentionally failed to document the suspension. The report
described the interim lab manager as “professionally negligent.” Arnold
is now the lab’s information technology director, a move Schaffer
questioned.
“I’ve consistently praised Ms. Gooden for her willingness to come forward and expose what happened,” he said. “It was Will Arnold’s role, who was at the time the director of toxicology, to keep it quiet and not tell the DA’s office about it because he wanted to protect her and their cases and their reputation.” Schaffer said Arnold was at the center of a system of withholding information from defendants. “He knew that if he told the DA’s office about it, everything could blow up,” Shaffer said. “That is a culture of corruption. A report from the city’s Office of Inspector General in December 2014 found that Arnold knew Gooden was scheduled to testify less than 10 days after being suspended and noted, like the appeals court did, that he wanted to protect her from cross examination. Late Tuesday, the Harris County District Attorney’s office filed an appeal to the ruling arguing that the 14th Court of Appeals did not address their argument that Diamond’s grounds for appeal changed midway through the process, and therefore her claims were not valid. Earlier, prosecutor Clint Morgan had noted the “procedural weirdness” of the Diamond case and argued that her appeal should be dismissed without comment. When she was originally convicted, in 2014, the jury agreed that Diamond was guilty of a Class A misdemeanor because Gooden testified her blood alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit. But the judge inaccurately wrote down that she was guilty of the less serious offense of a Class B misdemeanor. After the appeals court dismissed her first appeal, Diamond had the record changed to accurately show that she was convicted of a more serious crime. She then filed her appeal again, protesting the lack of disclosure which led the appeals court to rule that Gooden’s testimony was material to the conviction."
The entire story can be read at:
“I’ve consistently praised Ms. Gooden for her willingness to come forward and expose what happened,” he said. “It was Will Arnold’s role, who was at the time the director of toxicology, to keep it quiet and not tell the DA’s office about it because he wanted to protect her and their cases and their reputation.” Schaffer said Arnold was at the center of a system of withholding information from defendants. “He knew that if he told the DA’s office about it, everything could blow up,” Shaffer said. “That is a culture of corruption. A report from the city’s Office of Inspector General in December 2014 found that Arnold knew Gooden was scheduled to testify less than 10 days after being suspended and noted, like the appeals court did, that he wanted to protect her from cross examination. Late Tuesday, the Harris County District Attorney’s office filed an appeal to the ruling arguing that the 14th Court of Appeals did not address their argument that Diamond’s grounds for appeal changed midway through the process, and therefore her claims were not valid. Earlier, prosecutor Clint Morgan had noted the “procedural weirdness” of the Diamond case and argued that her appeal should be dismissed without comment. When she was originally convicted, in 2014, the jury agreed that Diamond was guilty of a Class A misdemeanor because Gooden testified her blood alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit. But the judge inaccurately wrote down that she was guilty of the less serious offense of a Class B misdemeanor. After the appeals court dismissed her first appeal, Diamond had the record changed to accurately show that she was convicted of a more serious crime. She then filed her appeal again, protesting the lack of disclosure which led the appeals court to rule that Gooden’s testimony was material to the conviction."
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/
| |||
