PREFACE: "The Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) scandal involving the state's most prolific and revered DNA analyst, Yvonne Woods, has led to the discovery of irregularities in procedures and manipulated or deleted data in over 1,000 past criminal cases. Despite the scandal breaking nearly 17 months ago, the true scope of the crisis remains mostly unknown, unclear or hidden. Critics allege it is intentional as those with potentially conflicting interests – including the state's attorney general whose office represents CBI – appear to be trying to limit the damage by finding ways to edit, delay, or outright block the release of needed information."
—————————————————————————————
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "This new disclosure now raises significant questions about the full scope of Woods’ misconduct and whether people have been wrongly imprisoned because of it – a fear at the heart of the scandal. (Defence Lawyer) Frank has contended since 2019 that Woods’ conclusions and testimony were deeply flawed after a University of Denver DNA expert disputed her findings and methods. But the judge in the case refused an evidentiary hearing and allegations of misconduct went unheard. That decision was overturned in December 2023 by the Colorado Court of Appeals and a hearing was ordered. By then the CBI scandal was just starting to break. By late last year the agency acknowledged that Woods, once considered its most prolific and esteemed forensic scientist, had skipped steps in testing, deleted data or otherwise compromised findings in 1,003 cases over the course of her 29-year career at CBI. Notably, the Clark case was not among those that CBI identified in its year-long internal investigation."
—————————————————————————
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Laura Schile, a national forensic science expert and DNA evidence consultant, reviewed Bode’s findings included in the court filing for The Denver Gazette and called them “very significant.” She cautioned, however, she had not seen the complete report or all the data. Still, she said, “it gives support for exclusion. The Bode report found there was DNA from three people in the Carmex container and that “it is more likely that it belongs to three unknown individuals than it belongs to Michael Clark and two others,” Schile said."
--------------------------------------------------------
STORY: by Reporter Jenny Deam, published by The Colorado Gazette, on March 24, 2025.
SUB-HEADING: "New revelation contradicts key testimony of former CBI forensic scientist Yvonne "Missy" Woods."
GIST: "An independent retest of DNA evidence used to arrest and convict Michael Clark for a murder he has long said he did not commit now excludes him, throwing into question the entire case, according to a new court document filed Monday.
The new revelation contradicts key testimony made by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation’s former star forensic scientist Yvonne Woods at Clark’s 2012 trial, which helped lead to his conviction.
At his trial, Woods, who goes by Missy, said that Michael Clark’s DNA matched genetic material she analyzed from inside a jar of Carmex lip balm that had been recovered at the scene of an unsolved 1994 murder.
But the recent retesting by Bode Technology in Lorton, VA, found that, in fact, “the DNA collected from its swab inside the Carmex container is not consistent with Michael Clark,” according to the new court filing.
“This is vindication and hope,” Adam Frank, Clark’s defense attorney who filed the motion, told The Denver Gazette on Monday.
“The interests of justice demand that the Court vacate Mr. Clark’s wrongful conviction,” his court motion said.
This new disclosure now raises significant questions about the full scope of Woods’ misconduct and whether people have been wrongly imprisoned because of it – a fear at the heart of the scandal.
Frank has contended since 2019 that Woods’ conclusions and testimony were deeply flawed after a University of Denver DNA expert disputed her findings and methods. But the judge in the case refused an evidentiary hearing and allegations of misconduct went unheard. That decision was overturned in December 2023 by the Colorado Court of Appeals and a hearing was ordered.
By then the CBI scandal was just starting to break. By late last year the agency acknowledged that Woods, once considered its most prolific and esteemed forensic scientist, had skipped steps in testing, deleted data or otherwise compromised findings in 1,003 cases over the course of her 29-year career at CBI.
Notably, the Clark case was not among those that CBI identified in its year-long internal investigation.
Woods now faces 102 felony counts including forgery, perjury, attempting to influence a public servant and cybercrime and is awaiting trial. Among the allegations are that she failed to fully test evidence.
In November 2024, the Boulder County district attorney’s office agreed to retest the Carmex container at an outside lab. The results were released to prosecutors and the defense earlier this month.
The Boulder County district attorney’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
District attorneys and law enforcement agencies are the only ones given full access to potentially tainted evidence and are the only ones who can ask for a retest, CBI has said.
So far, there have only been 14 requests out of the 1,003 cases CBI identified as having problems, or roughly 1.3%.
Defense attorneys have complained that they are left without full knowledge of which cases may need to be reopened.
Laura Schile, a national forensic science expert and DNA evidence consultant, reviewed Bode’s findings included in the court filing for The Denver Gazette and called them “very significant.”
She cautioned, however, she had not seen the complete report or all the data.
Still, she said, “it gives support for exclusion.
The Bode report found there was DNA from three people in the Carmex container and that “it is more likely that it belongs to three unknown individuals than it belongs to Michael Clark and two others,” Schile said.
Clark’s DNA swab was the only one Woods tested, according to court testimony.
Clark was an immediate and leading suspect in the Nov. 1, 1994, murder of Marty Grisham but no arrest was made at the time because there were no witnesses, no physical evidence and the gun used was never found. Back then Clark admitted stealing checks from the victim and once owning the same kind of common gun used in the killing but has said for more than 30 years he did not kill Grisham.
It was not until Boulder police revisited the case in 2009 that the jar of Carmex found outside Grisham’s apartment was sent to CBI and tested by Woods. Her conclusion that the DNA inside the container was a partial match to Clark led to his arrest and her testimony was considered key to his conviction.
“That was categorically false testimony,” Frank said on Monday.
However, the former Boulder police detective who led the reopened murder investigation previously told The Denver Gazette that the DNA evidence, while important, was not crucial to the conviction and that Clark was guilty.
In addition to the now suspect DNA evidence, there are also allegations of juror misconduct during the trial.
It is unclear what will happen now. A four-day hearing on both the DNA evidence and the alleged juror misconduct is scheduled for May 27. Frank has asked for either a new trial or for the conviction to be overturned.
“Every day he continues to be held in custody is a tragedy,” the new filing said.
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;
