SUB-HEADING: "Colorado public defenders demand more transparency in investigation into DNA scientists."
SUB-HEADING: "The Office of the State Public Defender says the Colorado Bureau of Investigation denied their request for a full list of cases that could be impacted."
GIST: "Public defenders believe the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) isn't being transparent enough about a former DNA scientist now under criminal investigation. CBI says Yvonne "Missy" Woods manipulated data in more than 600 cases.
District Attorneys have said CBI shared a list of cases in their area that could be impacted. The Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD) said they don't have a full list.
CBI denied their open records request for the list of cases, according to Chief Deputy Public Defender Zach Brown.
He said several district attorneys have shared case numbers with his office, but Brown said the list OSPD has compiled on their own is incomplete.
"[CBI] will not give us the list despite us asking in multiple different ways," Brown said. "We have gotten responses from them when we have asked, and they have decided they are not going to provide that to us."
OSPD usually denies interview requests from the media because they do not want to comment on specific cases.
This case against Woods, a star DNA scientist at CBI, is the exception.
"When that evidence is fraudulent and you make decisions in your trial case … when you are potentially looking at a life sentence … I don't know how that could be any more serious," Brown said.
In February, CBI said Woods manipulated data in at least 652 cases.
A review of her work from 1994 to 2008 is still underway. Her work over a 29-year career at CBI is in question.
An internal investigation found Woods cut corners, which called into question the reliability of the testing she conducted.
OSPD became even more concerned this month when media reported additional findings in an internal investigation.
Coworkers shared concerns about Woods' work years ago, according to the IA report.
In 2014, a coworker questioned Woods' testing of evidence in a case and reported concerns to a technical leader. In 2018, Woods was accused of data manipulation.
The accusation was reviewed but CBI said the results were not shared with the former CBI director. The agency has launched another investigation to look into how the accusations in 2018 were handled.
Woods continued working on cases after the report in 2018.
The current investigations into Woods' work didn't begin until late 2023. In September 2023, an intern was working on a research project and found missing data values in cases analyzed by Woods, the report said.
That led to a more thorough review of Woods' casework.
CBI said it is meticulously reviewing all of its testing protocols
. They are auditing the results of all current and previous DNA scientists to ensure the integrity.
The internal review of Woods' work did not find she falsified DNA matches or fabricated DNA profiles. Rather, the agency said she deviated from protocols and cut corners.
"It's abhorrent that there was something in 2014. There was something in 2018. Nothing happened to stop this analyst from handling cases," Brown said. "We are talking about human beings, and every day they spend in a cage facing a life sentence or long sentence is one day too many when you are prosecuted with unreliable evidence."
In a statement released in earlier this month, CBI Director Chris Schaefer said, "While the focus of the IA addressed Woods’ misconduct, we acknowledge that it took too long to detect ongoing intentional manipulation of our Lab system. We are in the process of identifying an external vendor to conduct an organizational review to ensure that our forensic services procedures and systems adhere to CBI’s high standards.”
The criminal investigation into Woods is still ongoing.
OSPD has said this scandal is about more than just one long-standing analyst; it is also about "systemic failures" of an accredited state crime lab.
"Were people convicted or charged with unreliable, unscientific evidence that was manipulated by a government agent?" Brown said.
This investigation into Woods will cost the state millions. State lawmakers have already approved about $7.5 million for retesting and reviews of convictions. None of that will be given to public defenders.
OSPD earlier this year estimated they may also need around $5 million. Brown says they will need to ask the state for financial resources to seek justice for their impacted clients."
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
———————————————————————--
