PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Until five years ago, Hong had been working for decades as the DNA specialist for the Orange County Crime Lab. She now is a laboratory director for the California Department of Justice. D.A. officials say they are unsure how many cases Hong has worked on. But a review by Assistant Public Defender Scott Sanders showed that Hong has been involved in at least 16 major Orange County cases that are active or under appeal, with 10 defendants who were sentenced to death."
--------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "ACLU wades in: The American Civil Liberties Union was not placated. “Orange County residents are collectively harmed by prosecutions based on unreliable evidence,” said Jennifer Rojas, senior policy advocate and organizer at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. “These new allegations further highlight the need for increased transparency and an OC Crime Lab that is accountable to the public and not to the will of the Sheriff-Coroner’s or District Attorney’s Office.”
---------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Orange County prosecutors allegedly knew months ago of flaws in DNA expert's analysis," by Reporter Tony Saavedra, published by The Orange County Register, on April 6, 2022. *Tony Saavedra is an investigative reporter specializing in legal affairs for the Orange County Register.)
SUB-HEADING: "DA Todd Spitzer denied his office was put on notice about allegedly dishonest analysis."
PHOTO CAPTION: Former Orange County Crime Lab DNA specialist Mary Hong, who is accused by a defense attorney of altering the evidence to benefit prosecutors.
GIST: A defense attorney said this week he warned the Orange County District Attorney’s Office in August that DNA expert Mary Hong had given the prosecution an untruthful analysis in a murder case, but the office took no action until Monday, April 4, after the case fell apart midtrial.
District Attorney Todd Spitzer denied Wednesday that Assistant Public Defender Chuck Hasse put his office on notice.
Spitzer this week launched a probe into the work of forensic specialist Mary Hong after she would not support her earlier analysis linking defendant Daniel McDermott’s DNA to a sample from the victim’s arm.
Hong had testified about the link in 2016 during a first trial that ended in a hung jury. However, she was reticent to take the witness stand and repeat that testimony last week during a second trial.
Because of Hong’s flip-flop, prosecutors were forced to offer McDermott a plea deal to voluntary manslaughter for the killing of a 17-year-old Buena Park girl in 1988.
The deal allowed McDermott, 52, to be released early Saturday after serving nine years in jail while awaiting the resolution of his case. McDermott would have faced a prison term of life without parole if convicted of murder with a special circumstance of rape.
Hasse said Spitzer’s office had itself to blame for the debacle because he warned prosecutors that Hong had fudged the analysis.
“There’s no way to say (Hong) dropped the bomb on you. You had ample opportunity to defuse this bomb,” Hasse said. “Short of putting on sock puppets and acting it out for them, they were put on notice.”
Spitzer: ‘Differing opinions’
Spitzer said in a statement Wednesday that Hasse never shared his contention that Hong “cooked the books.”
“The public defender never brought up any issue of Ms. Hong being unable to testify the same way she did in 2016,” he said. “His argument was that his DNA expert contradicted Ms. Hong’s analysis regarding a DNA wrist swab. That is very different than accusing a witness of having been untruthful on the stand.
“Any allegation that the public defender notified any prosecutor regarding Ms. Hong’s inability to testify consistent with her 2016 testimony is patently false. It is not unusual for experts to have differing opinions.”
Hasse said he had no idea whether Hong would stand by her testimony in the first trial. “I fully expected her to be dishonest again in her analysis,” he said. “I didn’t expect her to come clean at the last minute. … They’re completely wrong and way off base, I did put them on notice.”
Now working for state
Until five years ago, Hong had been working for decades as the DNA specialist for the Orange County Crime Lab. She now is a laboratory director for the California Department of Justice.
D.A. officials say they are unsure how many cases Hong has worked on. But a review by Assistant Public Defender Scott Sanders showed that Hong has been involved in at least 16 major Orange County cases that are active or under appeal, with 10 defendants who were sentenced to death.
Hasse, McDermott’s defense attorney, said he spent 10 hours over three days in August explaining to former prosecutor Elise Hatcher the problems with Hong’s DNA work in that case. He also outlined his allegations in a legal brief for the trial that started in December, he said.
Disregarded genetic markers
Hong, during her analysis of DNA left on victim Gehmine Chandler’s wrist, deliberately disregarded genetic markers that would have shown the sample did not match McDermott or was, at least, inconclusive, Hasse said.
Without those markers, Hong concluded in 2012 that the sample came from McDermott — a conclusion she was not willing to repeat last week on the witness stand.
Hasse said his evidence against Hong was uncovered by his own forensic specialist.
A worksheet done by Hong before McDermott’s arrest, obtained by the Southern California News Group, showed that she included certain genetic markers that would have excluded McDermott. But on a second worksheet completed after his arrest, those markers were left out.
Hasse said Hong explained she had reinterpreted the data, but he accused her of cooking the books.
Despite his warning, Hasse said, the District Attorney’s Office still went to trial based primarily on Hong’s pending testimony, with a new prosecutor at the helm after Hatcher retired.
“This was not a bombshell, it was their complete ignorance that created this problem,” Hasse said.
Issues with previous cold cases
While the district attorney’s review of Hong began this week because of the McDermott case, red flags began to appear years earlier in Hong’s analyses on two other murder cases. Both were cold cases from the mid-1980s that were believed to have been solved in the late 2000s.
But those cases were appealed based on allegations that Hong and other lab workers tailored their testimony to benefit the prosecution.
The Hong controversy bled Wednesday onto the campaign trail, with district attorney candidate Pete Hardin criticizing Spitzer for not moving sooner on Hong.
“Todd Spitzer should have proactively reviewed every case touched by Mary Hong long ago,” Hardin said.
With the renewed attention on the Orange County Crime Lab, which is operated by the Sheriff’s Department, sheriff’s officials remained steadfast in their support of the forensics operation.
“We stand behind the integrity of the Orange County Crime Lab. It is an accredited and nationally recognized forensic lab processing more than 55,000 pieces of evidence for about 35,000 cases every year,” said department spokesperson Carrie Braun. “Forensic evidence findings are subjected to multiple layers of review in accordance with standard operating procedure. It’s important to keep in mind that innocence or guilt is determined by a court of law,”
ACLU weighs in
The American Civil Liberties Union was not placated.
“Orange County residents are collectively harmed by prosecutions based on unreliable evidence,” said Jennifer Rojas, senior policy advocate and organizer at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. “These new allegations further highlight the need for increased transparency and an OC Crime Lab that is accountable to the public and not to the will of the Sheriff-Coroner’s or District Attorney’s Office.”
The California Attorney General’s Office, which now employ’s Hong, declined to comment because it was a “personnel matter,” referring all questions to Orange County authorities.
Assistant Public Defender Sanders, a longtime critic of Hong, accused the state of deflecting.
“For the California DOJ to tell the the defendant I represent and so many others that this is simply a problem for local authorities to address is outrageous,” Sanders said. “It is the DOJ that fought on appeal to preserve convictions in each of the cases where Mary Hong testified. It is the DOJ that has employed Hong for five years, even though four years ago they knew about the serious issues with her conduct.”
Hong did not reply to an email and phone message seeking comment. Hatcher did not respond to a telephone message seeking comment."
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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
