QUOTER OF THE DAY: "CBI acknowledged finding 1,003 “anomalies” in the more than 10,700 cases she worked on dating back to 1994. But this never-before-disclosed allegation goes deeper, pointing to a larger systemic failure within the lab, involving not just Woods but others who, for years, appeared to have done little to double check results, said Adam Frank, Clark’s defense attorney, who unearthed the time-stamped technical reviews as part of his client’s appeal.
“CBI’s quality control process was nothing more than a rubber stamp,” he told The Denver Gazette."
—————————————————————————————
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In addition to the Clark case, from 2009 through the summer of 2011, there were at least six other instances in one case involving a lab analyst other than Woods where the technical review took two minutes or less. Frank said that alone seems to indicate that within the lab a lack of true oversight ran deeper than just Woods. While the attorney acknowledged in an interview Friday that there could be a possible explanation, and perhaps a more robust review of the lab work was done, he said there has not been any documentation of such in the information CBI has so far turned over. “There is nothing to suggest that a full technical review was done,” he said."
—————————————————————————————-----
STORY: Lawsuit targets CBI lab's quality control process, citing alleged one-minute reviews," by Reporter Jenny Deam, published by The Denver Gazette, on January 22, 2025. (Jenny Deam is a Senior Investigative Reporter who joined The Denver Gazette in October 2022. She attended Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas.
Her coverage focuses on investigations with an emphasis on health care. Deam previously worked for ProPublica, Houston Chronicle, Denver Post, Tampa Bay Times, Kansas City Star and was a special correspondent for Los Angeles Times.);
HIST: "Quality control within the Colorado Bureau of Investigation’s forensic lab was allegedly so lax that in at least eight instances it appeared the technical review of one scientist checking another’s work lasted just one minute, according to time-stamped documentation included in a new lawsuit filed on Friday.
The issue raises questions in the legal community about deeper, more systemic problems concerning oversight and procedures at the lab than those caused by one alleged rogue analyst.
The lawsuit filed in Jefferson County District Court is primarily a request for CBI officials to turn over additional DNA testing records on behalf of Michael Clark, who claims he was wrongly convicted and imprisoned for murder based on DNA analysis by former top CBI forensic scientist Yvonne Woods.
The technical review allegation is included in the suit to bolster the need for more transparency and information about the inner workings of the lab and how the ongoing CBI scandal was allowed to occur.
Woods, 64, who goes by "Missy," was charged on Wednesday in a 102-count felony indictment that includes 48 counts of attempt to influence a public servant, 52 counts of forgery, one count of first-degree perjury, and the most serious crime, one count of cybercrime. She was released on bail on Thursday and is due back in court next month.
The once go-to forensic DNA expert in Colorado has been at the center of the CBI crisis, now in its second year, which has thrown into question an undetermined number of criminal cases that she worked on during her nearly three-decade career at the agency.
She is accused of — and, in some instances, admitted to — deleting data, skipping steps, and manipulating or otherwise falsifying findings in her work to save time and avoid further testing.
CBI acknowledged finding 1,003 “anomalies” in the more than 10,700 cases she worked on dating back to 1994.
But this never-before-disclosed allegation goes deeper, pointing to a larger systemic failure within the lab, involving not just Woods but others who, for years, appeared to have done little to double check results, said Adam Frank, Clark’s defense attorney, who unearthed the time-stamped technical reviews as part of his client’s appeal.
“CBI’s quality control process was nothing more than a rubber stamp,” he told The Denver Gazette.
CBI declined to comment on pending litigation.
The state agency recently hired a small consulting Wisconsin firm to review its policies and procedures within the forensic lab during the past two years.
In the Clark case, Woods conducted her first DNA testing of evidence in early 2011. Although the Boulder murder occurred 17 years before and Clark was the main suspect, authorities did not have enough evidence to make an arrest at the time. But over the years DNA science improved, and the case was resurrected.
A small jar of Carmex lip balm found at the scene was sent to CBI lab for testing and it landed with Woods. She testified at Clark’s murder trial that, based on her scientific analysis, “the major component of the profile developed from inside of the Carmex container matches the Y chromosomal DNA profiled from Michael Clark.”
That analysis was challenged as far back as 2018, and Clark is now seeking to have his conviction overturned.
According to the new lawsuit, which includes screenshots of CBI computerized timestamps, Woods noted she completed her final report for the first testing in the case on Feb. 7, 2011 at 11:16 a.m.
At 4:27 p.m. the same day, a colleague in the lab documented that a technical review of Woods was “in progress.” One minute later, at 4:28 p.m., the lab analyst logged that the review was complete. “All necessary lab record material were reviewed and satisfactory,” the notation read.
A second round of testing in the Clark case was done by Woods in July and August 2011, according to the lawsuit and testimony at trial.
Woods completed her proposed final report on August 8, 2011, at 3:09 p.m.
On August 17, 2011, at 6:29 p.m., the lawsuit said, another CBI lab analyst logged he “accepted the review.” Within the same minute, it was noted the review was “completed.”
In addition to the Clark case, from 2009 through the summer of 2011, there were at least six other instances in one case involving a lab analyst other than Woods where the technical review took two minutes or less.
Frank said that alone seems to indicate that within the lab a lack of true oversight ran deeper than just Woods.
While the attorney acknowledged in an interview Friday that there could be a possible explanation, and perhaps a more robust review of the lab work was done, he said there has not been any documentation of such in the information CBI has so far turned over.
“There is nothing to suggest that a full technical review was done,” he said.
Phil Danielson, a professor in DNA science at the University of Denver who has disputed Woods’ conclusions and methodology in the Clark case, told The Denver Gazette that a fuller review may have been done offline but was not part of the computerized tracking system.
“You could not do it in one minute,” he said, adding that the process of one scientist reviewing another’s work for accuracy would take at least 45 minutes and more likely last several hours.
Frank is suing officials in the CBI’s records unit to gain access to all DNA testing conducted by the agency lab, including a “completion date,” between Aug. 31, 2010 and Aug 31, 2011. That is roughly the time in which his client’s testing was done, and he said he wants to see if the pattern he discovered represented the lab’s standard practice.
He said he has asked for the information numerous times, but CBI has denied his request, prompting the lawsuit.
“The public deserves to know how deep the rot at CBI goes,” the lawsuit said.
Frank is not the only defense attorney concerned about what appears to be a lack of oversight in DNA cases.
“I have seen examples of technical reviews beginning and ending on the same minute or the next one,” said Jud Lohnes, a staff attorney at the Korey Wise Innocence Project at the University of Colorado-Boulder. His organization investigates and provides legal counsel for people it believes have been wrongly convicted.
He added that even if there was a more thorough review that was not noted, it raises the question of why it was not reflected in case reports.
“Crime labs are supposed to have procedures and standards in place and detect misconduct,” said James Karbach, communications director for the state’s public defender's office. “As the scope of the known problems continue to grow, it is apparent that it took more than one rogue analyst for over a thousand cases to have been mishandled and tainted.”
Karbach speculated that a technical review should catch intentional manipulation of data.
“The only possibilities I can think of is that the technical review process has been inadequate for years or that multiple analysts were not actually doing technical reviews thoroughly and diligently. Or both,” Karbach said.
Problems within the lab apparently were present for years but either went unreported or were brushed aside.
Jan Girten, retired CBI forensic services deputy director, said during the agency’s internal investigation that, when she first arrived at the lab in 2009, she witnessed scientists “dry-labbing” casework, a slang term to describe fictional yet plausible results recorded by analysts instead of doing the work.
Also in CBI’s investigation report, obtained by The Denver Gazette, was testimony from employees who witnessed deletions by Woods and reported it but then nothing happened.
In another instance, an employee told investigators she saw Woods simply throw away fingernail clippings that presumably were evidence. That employee said she did not report it because Woods was considered a star, and she worried about reprisal.
Still, Woods’s work was flagged in 2014 and 2018 by some co-workers who reported it to supervisors. In 2014, no action was taken. After the 2018 incident, Woods was temporarily relieved of duty and sent for mental health counseling but quickly allowed to return to work.
It was not until after a lab intern raised concerns in the fall of 2023 and a full investigation was launched that the problems within the lab were revealed to the public. Woods was allowed to retire in November 2023 just before the scandal broke.'
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;
