January 13, 2015

Forensic chemist gets 3-5 years in prison for falsifying test results

Share it Please
Forensic chemist gets 3-5 years in prison for falsifying test results - Maryland DUI Lawyer Blog Maryland DUI Lawyer Blog Published by Maryland DUI Attorneys :: Goldstein & Stamm, P.A. HomeWebsiteAttorneysPractice Areas Contact Us « Previous | Home | Next » Forensic chemist gets 3-5 years in prison for falsifying test results |Share November 28, 2013

Annie Dookhan, a former forensic chemist at a state forensic laboratory in Massachusetts, pleaded guilty to 27 counts of falsifying test results, misleading investigators, and tampering with evidence. She was sentenced this week to 3-5 years in prison. followed by 2 years of probation. In the course of her career she filed reports in approximately 40,000 criminal cases, which are now under review.

This is an extreme case, but it highlights the need for defense lawyers to carefully scrutinize state police laboratory results and methods to uncover mistakes resulting from incompetence, negligence, and fraud in criminal cases. Newpaper stories are replete with cases of laboratory mistakes that have resulted in erroneous convictions.

The amicus brief filed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National College for DUI defense in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, co-written by Leonard R. Stamm said:

"Forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation." Melendez-Diaz, 129 S. Ct. at 2536. The recent report by the National Research Council of the National Academies, Strengthening Forensic Sciences in the United States: a Path Forward (2009) (NAS Report), confirmed what defense lawyers have long known: because forensic analysis is a product of human discretion, it is vulnerable to incompetence, error and sometimes even fraud. See also Solomon Moore, Science Found Wanting in Nation's Crime Labs, N.Y. Times, Feb. 5, 2009, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/05forensics.html (last visited Dec. 1, 2010). As the NAS Report revealed, forensic analyses "are often handled by poorly trained technicians who then exaggerate the accuracy of their methods in court." Id. The NAS Report verifies that forensic science is anything but infallible, and is instead fraught by very human errors leading to problems such as sample contamination and inaccurate reports. Id.

The brief also listed some cases that made news in DUI cases:

A few recent incidents in DUI cases around the country show that blood analysis identical to the type used in Bullcoming is vulnerable to error or even fraud. For example, a recent investigation conducted by the Colorado Springs Police Department's Metro Crime Lab discovered 206 false high blood alcohol tests in 2007 and 2009 alone, all attributable to a single chemist. John Ensslin, Final tally on flawed DUI: 206 errors, 9 tossed or reduced, Colo. Springs Gazette, Apr. 19, 2010, available at www.gazette.com/articles/report-97354-police-discuss.html (last visited on Nov. 26, 2010). Nine DUI convictions were dismissed as a result, but it is impossible to know how many individuals were erroneously convicted. Id. The investigation revealed that a particular chemist had inserted low levels of n-propanol into many of her blood samples, resulting in a correspondingly higher calculation for the ethanol levels in the samples.Anthony Lane, Unsolved Mysteries in the CSPD's Crime Lab, Colo. Springs Indep., Apr. 19, 2010, available at http://www.csindy.com/colorado/unsolvedmysteries/content?oid=1699431 (last visited on Nov. 27, 2010). Yet "going back to 2002, supervisors consistently rated [the chemist] as 'effective' or 'excellent,' with no hint of problems." Id. The improper addition of the internal standard could have been discovered through cross-examination. Other instances of ethanol testing errors have been reported in the press. For example, in Tooele County, Utah, a driver who had consumed no alcohol was reported to have a 0.19 blood alcohol level. Retesting produced 0.00 results. Subsequent review showed that the analyst had improperly transposed numbers, resulting in the erroneous reading. Nicole Gonzales & Marc Giauque, Homicide Charge Dropped Following Blood Test Mistake, Jan. 28, 2009, available at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5442828 (last visited on Nov. 24, 2010).In Washington State, the supervisor of the State Police toxicology laboratory was found to have falsified certifications that she had tested solutions used to calibrate and test breath alcohol machines. Other individuals in the laboratory covered up the fraud. City of Seattle v. Holifield, No. 83277-3, 2010 WL 4008889 (Wash. Oct. 14, 2010); see also Tracy Johnson& Daniel Lathrop, Allegations May Cast Cloud Over DUI Cases: State lab manager quits after she is accused of signing false statements, Jul. 31, 2007, available at http://www.seattlepi.com/local/325706_dui31.html (last visited on Nov. 25, 2010). See alsoJaxon Van Derbeken, Lab Employee to Take the 5th in Alesia and Tim Evans, Toxicology gaffes likely to affect cases, Dec. 6, 2010, available at http://wap.indystar.com/detail.jsp?key=774876&rc=th&full=1 (last visited on Dec. 6, 2010).

Forensic lab errors have resulted in imprisonment in many serious criminal cases. The Innocence Project lists 311 DNA exonerations since 1989, about half of which are attributable to errors in forensic science. See http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/DNA_Exonerations_Nationwide.php.

If you are facing criminal or traffic charges in Maryland state or federal court, call Leonard R. Stamm of Goldstein & Stamm, P.A. at 301-345-0122 for a free consultation.

Leonard R. Stamm
Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.
6301 Ivy Lane, Suite 504
Greenbelt, MD 20770
(fax) 301-441-4652

Author: West's Maryland DUI Law


Categories: Blood testing, Breath testing, Constitutional rights, Criminal justice news, DUI Defense Strategies, Federal DUIs Posted by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A. | Permalink | Email This Post

301-345-0122 Name: Email: Phone: Comments: Enter text from the Image Above: Recent Entries

November 20, 2014Marijuana and DUI - DREs required - Carboxyl THC does not prove impairment With legalization and decriminalization of marijuana, and medical marijuana laws sweeping the country, police are...

October 19, 2014Stamm receives award from Maryland Bar Foundation for Advancement of Professional Competence On Thursday, October 16, 2014, Leonard Stamm received from the Maryland Bar Foundation, the prestigious...

July 25, 2014National College for DUI Defense Holds Its Summer Session The National College for DUI Defense is holding its summer session at the Charles Hotel...

June 8, 2014Stamm Goes On Al Jazeera News to Discuss Missouri v. McNeely On last Thursday, June 5, 2014, Leonard Stamm went on Al Jazeera America to...

May 21, 2014Chipping Away at Our Rights - Deering v. MVA The Court of Appeals announced its decision today in Deering v. MVA. When a driver...

April 24, 2014Navarette v. California - The Court Giveth in McNeely and Taketh in Navarette Just last term the United StatesSupreme Court held in McNeely v. Missouri, that a warrant...

Leonard R. Stamm View lawyer's profile NACDL Book coverMaryland DUI Law
2013-2014 Edition
(Vol. 8, Maryland Practice Series)
By: Leonard R. Stamm Connect facebook twitter Linked In Justia Profile Leonard R. Stamm Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed Topics DUI Defense Strategies (30) Right to Counsel (12) MVA (11) Commercial driver's license (CDL) (5) Sentencing in DUI cases (9) Federal DUIs (14) Constitutional rights (24) Criminal justice news (29) Continuing Legal Education (4) Breath testing (14) Alcohol/Drugs education and/or treatment (1) Fourth Amendment (12) Drug Recognition Experts (2) Blood testing (8) Minor traffic offenses (4) Search    Goldstein & Stamm, P. A.
Capital Office Park
6301 Ivy Lane
Suite 504
Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
Phone: 301-345-0122
Toll Free: 800-256-8172
Fax: 301-441-4652 Home Website Disclaimer Contact Us Website Map Blog Posts Copyright © Maryland DUI Lawyer Blog Justia Legal Website Design  


Developed in partnership with SanFran Coders.


The acronyms DUI, DWI, OMVI and OVI all refer to the same thing: operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The most commonly used terms are DUI, an acronym for Driving Under the Influence, and DWI, an acronym for Driving While Impaired.
© Copyright 2010 - 2015 MY OVI | Developed by San Fran Coders