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

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
301-345-0122
(fax) 301-441-4652
www.dwiattorneymaryland.com
www.marylandduilawyer-blog.com
marylandduilaw@gmail.com

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

Contact Us FREE CONSULTATION
800-256-8172
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 Maryland DUI Law
2013-2014 Edition
(Vol. 8, Maryland Practice Series)
By: Leonard R. Stamm Connect 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  

Continue Reading...

DUI Task Force Cop Admits Falsifying Breath Test Readings

The latest news fresh from the front lines of MADD’s "War on Drunk Driving":

DUI Cases in Jeopardy After Richmond County Deputy Admits Falsifying Readings

Richmond County, GA. Nov. 19 – The forced resignation of a deputy assigned to the DUI task force could affect the prosecution of hundreds of cases, according to those in the legal community.

Erik Norman faced mandatory resignation from the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office on Oct. 19 after a prosecutor reported that Norman told her he had falsified readings from a hand-held alcohol-testing device.

Norman told the department’s internal affairs division that he had done it only “once or twice” but couldn’t recall exactly which cases were involved. Norman’s credibility is gone now, no matter how many times he falsified readings, said Augusta attorney Robert “Bo” Hunter, who prosecuted drunken driving cases as the Richmond County State Court solicitor from 1988 to 1996… Even worse, Hunter said, is that there probably were people charged with driving under the influence who shouldn’t have been.

Norman, hired as a jailer in July 2002, was transferred to the DUI task force in March 2009. An accurate count of his DUI convictions cannot be made through court records, but during his time on the task force, he arrested an estimated 250 to 400 people.

State Court Solicitor Charles Evans said his office has 62 pending DUI cases in which Norman was the arresting officer. Each will have to be judged on its merits to determine whether to continue prosecuting them as DUIs. If necessary, the office will bring in Norman as a trial witness, Evans said.

The Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Coun­cil is investigating to determine whether Norman can keep his certification, said Ryan Powell, its director of operations. Unless he is arrested on felony charges or his certification is suspended, Norman is free to work as an officer, Powell said.

Falsifying evidence is a felony – making false statements – but prosecuting Norman for it would be difficult, District Attorney Ashley Wright said. A prosecutor would have to prove in which case Norman falsified the results, and there is no way to uncover those cases without Norman’s admission. He claimed he didn’t know which cases were falsified…

Do you really think this Georgia deputy is the only cop out there falsifying breathalyzer readings to justify his DUI arrest? And by the way, notice Deputy Norman’s sterling qualifications to investigate and arrest citizens for drunk driving:  He was hired in 2002 to be a jailor — and after seven years of guarding jail cells, he was transferred directly to the DUI task force.  Do you still think DUI cops are highly trained and qualified?

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 20th, 2011 at 9:37 am and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...