Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Balko has a disturbing article about a crime lab in North Carolina where corruption may have sent innocent men to their death.
Greg Taylor served 16 years in prison after he was falsely convicted of murdering a prostitute in Raleigh, North Carolina. He was released in February by a special three-judge panel after it was discovered the blood police claimed to have found in his SUV wasn't blood at all. In the wake of that debacle, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper ordered two retired FBI agents to conduct an investigation on the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) crime lab. The report came out last week, and it is damning.The report found that SBI agents withheld exculpatory evidence or distorted evidence in more than 230 cases over a 16-year period. Three of those cases resulted in execution. There was widespread lying, corruption, and pressure from prosecutors and other law enforcement officials on crime lab analysts to produce results that would help secure convictions. And the pressure worked.
This is the most disturbing part:
A stunning accompanying investigation by the Raleigh News & Observer found that though the crime lab's results were presented to juries with the authoritativeness of science, laboratory procedures were geared toward just one outcome: putting as many people in prison as possible. The paper discovered an astonishingly frank 2007 training manual for analysts, still in use as of last week, instructing researchers that "A good reputation and calm demeanor also enhances an analyst's conviction rate." Defense attorneys, the manual warned, often "put words into the analyst's mouth to try and raise inaccuracies." The guide also instructs analysts to beware of "defense whores"--analysts hired by defense attorneys to challenge their testimony.
This focus on conviction rate by anyone but prosecutors is incredibly destructive. I've actually seen judges running for reelection on the grounds of their conviction rate. But the job of a judge is not to convict, it is to see that justice is done -- and in many cases, justice means acquittal.
The same is true of a crime lab. Their job is not to convict people, it is to do good science and get accurate results. Whether those results help convict someone or help acquit them has nothing at all to do with the quality of their work.
Even for prosecutors to focus so much on conviction rate is problematic, but at least with them a high conviction rate can -- even if it often doesn't -- indicate a careful prosecutor who doesn't bring charges without a strong case grounded in the evidence. But for judges and crime labs, a focus on conviction rates is a primary cause of injustice.
The relationships between SBI crime lab researchers and North Carolina prosecutors aren't just cozy, they're downright cuddly. The News & Observer reports that in one case two blood-spatter specialists ran through multiple experiments in order to produce even one that would make the blood patterns on a defendant's shorts support the prosecution's case. The two analysts are seen on video high-fiving after finally producing the desired result.For those clinging to the notion that analysis in a law enforcement-managed laboratory can be independent, the newspaper uncovered prosecutor reviews of crime lab analysts indicating the contrary. In 2003, for example, prosecutor Ann Kirby, wrote in a review of a drug analyst, "If Lisa Edwards gets any better on the witness stand, the Johnston County defense bar is going to try and have her banned from the county!"
These weren't a few rogue analysts; the crime lab's problems extend across a wide array of forensic disciplines. Until 1997, the lab's serology unit didn't release negative test results as a matter of policy. If tests showed that a substance that police claimed was blood wasn't in fact blood, analysts simply kept those results to themselves.
Greg Taylor was wrongly convicted precisely because of this policy. A substance that police falsely identified as blood was found in Taylor's truck. But the field tests that police use to find blood at a crime scene have a high margin for error. More sophisticated lab tests showed that the substance wasn't blood, but a SBI analyst testified at Taylor's innocence hearing that technicians were told to ignore these tests if they contradicted the field-test results.
In another case, an attorney for a woman accused of killing her mother was shocked to learn that the lab's DNA tests on blood found at the crime scene matched his client. He called the lab and asked them to retest. They refused. He was finally able to obtain a court order for a new test. It was negative. It turned out that a lab technician had swapped the sample provided by his client with blood taken from the crime scene.
This pattern has played itself out all over the country, in state after state. We need a fundamental restructuring of our criminal justice system, from top to bottom.
Politics
Comments
This is downright horrifying. Being falsely accused and convicted by these clowns is a true nightmare. How any civilized nation can continue with a justice system like this is beyond me.
Posted by: Rover | August 28, 2010 10:40 AM
Agree with your final sentence wholeheartedly. Seems like the motivations for this kind of zealotry ought to be investigated, too. Does running on their conviction rate really work? Or is the prison industrial complex lining some pockets? That's the convicted criminal's ultimate destination, after all, and the more damning the "evidence" the longer time they serve and the more money goes toward the prison's bottom line. Maybe it's time to "follow the money" in addition to other investigation.
Posted by: Strider | August 28, 2010 10:47 AM
Here's an idea: Anyone guilty of manipulating/withholding evidence that results in innocent persons being convicted has to serve the total sentences of all persons unjustly convicted. Seems only right to me.
Posted by: Equisetum | August 28, 2010 10:50 AM
Have the prisons in North Carolina by any chance been privatized? I can't see any reason other than financial gain for willingly dumping innocent people in prison!
That this would include murdering them (knowingly killing an innocent person is not 'execution' but cold blooded murder)* makes it more appalling, monetary profit or not.
*I am against state-sponsored killing by any name. But it continues because the legal right to kill is the ultimate form of power, which political aspirants crave. California's recent Republican governors have proven this.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | August 28, 2010 10:57 AM
Whoa, I hadn't completed my thoughts when I clicked "post" for the above. Of course numbers of convictions is a motive for scumbag prosecutors and judges. That also relates to exercising power.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | August 28, 2010 11:02 AM
No, we don't need a restructuring of a justice system, we need the formation of one. This country has never had a justice system, it has a legal system. Totally different animals that only occasionally appear to mimic one another...
Posted by: Mystyk | August 28, 2010 11:31 AM
Convicting innocent people is not harm? Oh, he means the potential for harm to the state. This guy's 'reasoning' is scary. It's like he believes the state can do no wrong, even if they lie.
Posted by: Equisetum | August 28, 2010 11:36 AM
If, through crime lab malfeasance, a person is executed, then those in the lab responsible should be charged with murder.
Posted by: a different phil | August 28, 2010 11:40 AM
Isn't it actually intended to a degree that any "bad person" accused will be convicted? And why would you tolerate it for prosecutors?
I would prefer a more careful review which isn't possible in a direct election. That's a job for representatives.
Posted by: Chris From Europe | August 28, 2010 11:49 AM
I can't help but wonder if some of the public complacency regarding this (besides ignorance of it, of course) is this mentality that if you were arrested and put on trial, you're bound to be guilty of something - even if it wasn't the original charge. I've heard my mother say quite often that these draconian laws and procedures don't matter much because good folks don't get tangled up with the law.
Posted by: Skepticat | August 28, 2010 12:09 PM
Phil - that seems a bit harsh. I think manslaughter would be more appropriate.
Posted by: BobApril | August 28, 2010 12:14 PM
The job of the judge, the prosecution, the police, the defense, and corrections is to get convictions: this strategy maximizes revenue for all five parties. (Corrections always needs more slave labor, and always needs more money for new prisons.)
Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | August 28, 2010 1:04 PM
No Bob, murder is appropriate. A death occurring as a result of a felony (perjury).
Posted by: daedalus2u | August 28, 2010 1:09 PM
It's very sad when the justice system becomes little better than a lynch mob.
Posted by: Paen | August 28, 2010 2:45 PM
I can assure you that this is not only a US problem. North of the border, we have our own set of scoundrels that run throughout the so-called `justice system`.
Posted by: Canadian Curmudgeon | August 28, 2010 3:51 PM
Wow. That lab technician risked some serious prison time in order to put a criminal behind bars. I admire his or her courage.
Posted by: mad the swine | August 28, 2010 4:47 PM
I think my sarcasm detector is on the fritz.
That was sarcasm, right mad?
I mean, it has to either be sarcasm or trolling. No one could read that paragraph and seriously come up with that response, right?
Posted by: Foster Disbelief | August 28, 2010 5:20 PM
"I can assure you that this is not only a US problem. North of the border, we have our own set of scoundrels that run throughout the so-called `justice system`."
I really dispute that our problems are on the same scale at all. I think they are not even on the same continent... And - we don't have a death penalty that makes restitution impossible.
The worst - for every wrongly convicted there still is the real perpetrator out there...
Posted by: peter | August 28, 2010 5:54 PM
This is what you get when your district attorneys and your judges are elected officials.
Posted by: Bob Loblaw | August 28, 2010 6:16 PM
The blood spatter analyst example i dont think was a good example to show alleged corruption. isnt that their job to go through all the possible ways blood can splatter in order to match what was on the clothing? using this as a prime example of the alleged corruption makes me doubt the rest of this report.
Posted by: Renolds | August 28, 2010 8:08 PM
The labs should not ever be associated with the police or the district attorneys. It is a conflict of interest. It should be independent of both and open to submission of materials for testing from the defense as well as the prosecution.
Posted by: Childermass | August 28, 2010 11:52 PM
Sure conviction rates get people reelected. You haven't noticed the mass hysteria that erupts at the mere mention of the word "pedophile"? Or that anyone who rumour has it might not be gung ho to execute as many criminals as possible cant get elected in Texas? Or that people don't even let their kids run around outside anymore? To paraphrase the queen of hearts, it's verdict first trial afterwords! If you get arrested, it must be because you did something wrong...or were the type of person who would eventually do something wrong anyway. I'm a bit shocked at how many seemingly intelligent people think this way and also live in fear of being the victim of events that are less probable than winning the lotto. Guess I shouldn't be.
Posted by: Tamakazura | August 29, 2010 12:04 AM
Sad thing is, there are folks who will argue that these people were "convicted" and even executed. The argument runs along the lines of "if they weren't guilty of something then they wouldn't have been charged in the first place." I've had students make this argument without batting an eye. The coldness in their eyes and lack of empathy is disturbing.
Posted by: dogmeat | August 29, 2010 12:21 AM
No. Their job is to figure out whether the observed blood patterns support the claim that a crime was committed. If innocent mechanisms could produce the given splatter 1 time in 10, and you have to try the suspicious/criminal actions 20 or 30 times to get the same splatter, then the analysis supports innocence.
The real issue is that forensic analysis isn't normally held to be adversarial; if it were, the harm would be minimised to a degree as judges/jurors would at least be aware that the state crime lab has an axe to grind. The issue is that it's supposed to be impartial and it isn't.
Posted by: Jonathan Lee | August 29, 2010 6:47 AM
Madtheswine is slipping. I was drinking coffee and didn't even snort that time.
The prosecutors and technicians who colluded to falsify or hide evidence to get convictions were engaged in conspiracy. When that conspiracy resulted in death, they are guilty of murder. All of them should be up on murder charges, and if convicted they should be eligible for death just like their victims.
Posted by: Cynical | August 30, 2010 11:14 AM
Wait, wait wait wait a damn minute!
External pressures can cause scientists to produce biased results?
Certainly not to.. to lead to.. a politically favorable conclusion?
How.. how.. could that be possible? I thought all science was perfect?
You mean we could make BAD DECISIONS based on biased science..
But at the same time feel like we were making GOOD DECISIONS..
Because the scientists involved were crime lab scientists and obviously only looking out for our well-being?
Holy. F**k.
I thought all those "crime-conviction skeptics" were crazy. Who did they think they were, questioning the crime lab results? Obviously the crime lab results have only the best intentions. It's funny though, how they turned out to be correct. Thank god nobody got killed though.
Holy. F**k.
Posted by: Buffoon | August 31, 2010 11:26 AM
Bah. This is an old post so I suppose the.. irony, or whatever it is, will be lost on the available global warming alarmist population of the commenters.
Posted by: Buffoon | August 31, 2010 2:32 PM
Buffoon (once again living up to your self-applied moniker). It might have been "lost", had there been any. But since you're too simple minded to understand the difference between good science and pseudo-science (which is what was being done in the police lab but not by the climate scientists) I don't have much hope that you can work out the differences between the two cases.
Posted by: Don't Panic | August 31, 2010 5:14 PM