The New Jersey Supreme Court ultimately determined in a
December 2018 opinion that the accuracy of those 20,000 breath tests results couldn’t be trusted. That’s 20,000 cases that have to be reviewed, many of which will likely be dismissed. But it’s not just in New Jersey. Around the nation, corruption and
misconduct by forensic experts have led to the reversal of thousands of
criminal convictions. In
Massachusetts,
Annie Dookhan, a forensic lab scientist, was arrested in 2012 after
admitting that she falsified drug tests in nearly 24,000 cases; most of
the Dookhan convictions were eventually dismissed. Months later, in a
different Massachusetts crime lab,
Sonya Farak,
a forensic scientist who both tested drugs and illegally used them,
falsified lab results in thousands of cases; 11,000 convictions were
dismissed after her misconduct was uncovered. Dookhan pleaded guilty to a
range of crimes relating to the falsification of tests. She was
sentenced to three to five years in prison. Farak also pleaded guilty
and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. In Oregon,
Nika Larsen altered drug evidence and stole controlled substances from her lab, requiring review of more than 2,500 cases. In 2018,
Ana Romero from El Paso, Texas, was accused of falsifying test results for alcohol samples, causing the wrongful conviction of 22 people.
John Salvador, a scientist who worked in a different lab in Texas, was accused of falsifying drug test results, impacting thousands of cases.
Lack of oversight: When
the people in charge of forensic testing engage in misconduct, the
integrity of the entire system is challenged. Our criminal justice
system relies on forensic scientists to tell the truth, because
laypeople rely on their testimony and lack the expertise to detect their
lies. When the system goes awry, guilty people go free, innocent people
are wrongly convicted, confidence in the criminal justice system is
shaken, and taxpayers carry the significant financial burden of cleaning
up the mess left behind. There are plenty of reasons for forensic misconduct: Career
advancement, laziness and greed are only part of the story. But there is
also the reality that many
crime labs lack proper oversight,
and that it is rare for misconduct to be uncovered. In the scandals
above, the science itself was not the issue – although the reliability
of various forensic science techniques, from fingerprint matching to
bite mark analysis have been challenged – but rather it was that so-called experts did not properly do their jobs. And no one initially noticed. The certification of scientists within crime labs varies widely, as
do the levels of active supervision. In Massachusetts, for instance,
Dookhan’s prodigious productivity went
unchecked,
even though the sheer volume of tests she claimed to have performed
should have raised red flags, had anyone been looking. In New Jersey,
Dennis’ failure to calibrate the Alocotest machines went undetected for
years. The absence of oversight in forensic science should be cause for alarm. In 2009, the U.S. National Research Council issued
a scathing report
calling into question forensic practices around the country. It noted
the lack of accreditation for crimes labs and the need for certification
of forensic scientists. It also called for crime labs to be removed
from the purview of law enforcement agencies into independent entities
to enable more objective testing outcomes. In a
2016 report,
the U.S. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
echoed these concerns and called for an independent oversight commission
for forensic laboratories around the country. Yet, in 2017, just as forensic reform was picking up momentum, then-U.S. Attorney General
Jeff Sessions shut down the National Commission on Forensic Science. A national independent oversight board has yet to be created. Misconduct may not ever be entirely preventable. But when life and
liberty are on the line, as they are in every criminal case, I’d argue
that states should be ever-diligent in adopting measures to identify and
prevent forensic misconduct, and in ensuring reliability of forensic
testing, analysis and results.
