In California, this lack of lab oversight was highlighted when San Diego County sheriff’s deputies began questioning test results. The errors they found eventually led to a review of hundreds of toxicology tests done by a private lab. A total of eleven people were released from jail, and at least seven of them saw their criminal cases dismissed. Mistakes such as these threaten to seriously undermine confidence in the criminal justice system.
A report released in late 2009 by the California Crime Lab Review Task Force, An Examination of Forensic Science in California, made some recommendations for improvements. For example, The Task Force highlighted the importance of requiring accreditation of forensic labs, as well as the need for forensic analysts to be certified by relevant professional organizations. The perennial need for additional funding was also emphasized. By mandating both employee certification and lab accreditation and by increasing funding, the state will improve forensic practice in the state. But the integrity of forensic evidence is too important to outsource oversight and quality standards entirely to professional trade organizations. Accreditation and professional certification are important first steps, but the responsibility for setting and ensuring quality standards, objectivity and independence ultimately resides with the state itself. A full solution will need to include more structural reform.
One of these crucial steps is the creation of an independent oversight commission, staffed and funded to more closely supervise the work of forensic labs. This type of commission could set statewide quality standards that could build on the baseline afforded by professional associations, and could provide more rigorous, ongoing oversight to ensure that labs actually operate in a way that is consistent with the standards that exist on paper. Shifting forensic labs out from under the control of law enforcement agencies would address the subtle biases that can emerge when forensic workers see themselves on the law enforcement "team" instead of dispassionate and objective scientists. These safeguards and others are outlined in The Justice Project’s policy review Improving the Practices and Use of Forensic Science, and will help to ensure the objectivity and reliability of forensic testing and analysis.
Reliable forensic science is vital, and by making sure that the evidence is objective and valid, we will have a more efficient criminal justice system. Fixing these problems on the front end will reduce the chances that the state will have to spend more money and resources to correct the mistakes and injustices caused by forensic errors. At a time when California, along with the rest of the nation, is dealing with financial restraints, it is all the more imperative that legislators in all states make these improvements a priority. Forensic science can be a powerful tool, and meaningful structural reform is the only way to ensure that the best science is used in our courts.
John F. Terzano is President of The Justice Project, a nonpartisan organization that works to increase fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.
Follow John Terzano on Twitter: TheJusticeProj
Find The Justice Project on Facebook



3 Comments




You are absolutely right as laboratory fraud continues unabated in so many places. The Houston Crime Lab proves it. The FBI proves it. The Washington State Crime Lab proves it.
Fraud is everywhere and always will be as long as forensic labs are part of police departments and forensic scientists think of their jobs as helping get convictions instead of doing the science and letting the chips fall where they may.
Interesting… Mr. Terzano’s article points towards questionable toxicology results reported by Pacific Toxicologies, which is a private laboratory, but Mason’s comments point towards the Houston Police Department Crime Lab, the FBI Laboratory, and the Washington State Patrol Crime Lab – which are all public laboratories. Juvenal asked, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (idiomatic translation: “Who will watch the watchers?”) – but will any kind of oversight help, whether it is independent, or meaningful, or just simply more? What if the whole system is corrupt? What then? As with the state of New York, the mere existence of a state oversight committee on forensic science did little to stop Garry Veeder, Linda Teague, and Kelly McHugh from sending out reports, did it? Maybe we should try something old instead of something new: checks and balances. That’s what a defense expert is for, people. If you want to talk about a real solution, let’s talk about a REAL solution: licensing. You need a license from the state to practice medicine, to practice law, to sell alcohol, to get married, and to drive. In several states, even medical technicians have to be licensed. But, you don’t need a license to work in a crime lab where, if you’re clever enough, you can mess with the lives of complete strangers, from life in prison to execution. That’s where your answer is. Crime labs get accredited, but accreditation is voluntary. Analysts get certified, but certification is voluntary. Analysts also join professional organizations, but membership is voluntary. Both certification and membership can carry a Code of Professional Conduct, but since certification and membership are both voluntary, then the application of the Code as well as its enforcement are also both voluntary. No, no, no. Pass legislation that requires that people be licensed to work as a forensic scientist, and attach a Code of Professional Conduct to it. Violations of that Code can mean revocation of your license (so you might want to think twice about the “I was just following procedure” excuse). NOW try getting a job at another crime lab. I think that Mr. Terzano shows great restraint this time by saying that *meaningful* oversight is needed, but that’s like saying “I want a pony for Christmas” – it’s just wishful thinking. The founding fathers hammered out a document that would be the groundwork of a great nation; what is it that we, their 21st century descendants, have done?
Shocked yet? No? Try these articles:
http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/feb/22/dna-deception/#
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.bobelian.html
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/183203_crimelab23.html
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/defenseupdates/virginia039
http://www.ig.state.ny.us [pdf]
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-te.md.lab21aug21,0,5612027.story
“Meaningful” oversight has to mean more than words. Even mine.