The criminal convictions of three people who have since been executed in North Carolina, and 4 more cases in which the defendants are now on death row, are in doubt because of faulty lab work by the SBI, according to a new, scathing report written by former FBI agents who examined the troubled agency's blood work.
The questionable work is the result of "poorly crafted policy; lack of objectivity; the absence of clear report writing guidance; inattention to reporting methods that left too much discretion to the individual Analyst; lack of transparency; and ineffective management and oversight..." the report says.
The new report outlines "serious issues" with the SBI's blood analysis unit's work between 1987 and 2003 in cases involving 269 people.
According to the new review, the cases involved SBI lab reports that were overstated, misleading or omitted important information about negative test results that would have been favorable to the defendants. The SBI's lab work is often powerful evidence in criminal cases, shaping decisions at the heart of a defense that include decisions about plea bargaining or how to cross examine witnesses.
Of the questioned cases, 80 of the defendants are still in prison, the report says.
3 of the defendants have been executed.
4 are on death row.
5 died in prison.
The report says the SBI blood lab work in those cases is similar to that in the case of Gregory Taylor, a Wake County man who was recently declared innocent and set free after spending 17 years in prison for a murder he did not commit.
The review was completed by two former FBI agents, Chris Swecker and Mike Wolf, who were hired in March by Attorney General Roy Cooper to review policies, procedures and cases involving the work of the serology section of the SBI crime lab.
The SBI has followed more updated procedures on blood analysis since 2003, and more recent work is not under scrutiny. "The tests that are examined in the bulk of this report are no longer in use," the agents wrote.
The serology unit has been under intense scrutiny since February when, in the case of Taylor, it was shown that SBI agent Duane Deaver reported to prosecutors that the fender of Taylor's SUV gave chemical indications for the presence of blood.
But according to lab notes discovered in 2009, Deaver had performed more specific tests, which registered negative results for the presence of blood. He never mentioned those results or the additional tests; at Taylor's hearing in February, Deaver testified that his superiors taught him to write his reports like that.
The new report says that Deaver gave "inaccurate" testimony before the Innocence Commission in the hearings that resulted in Taylor's exoneration when he testified that he was following policies. There were no such policies then, the report says, though it was the SBI's practice at the time to omit negative results in some cases. It became the agency's actual policy in 1997.
One of the defandants who has been executed is Desmond Keith Carter, who had confessed to a March 1992 murder. The report says Deaver in that case "confirmed the presence of blood despite a negative confirmatory test." The questionable evidence wasn't introduced at the trial, according to the report.
Preliminary, or presumptive, blood tests can give false reads; those tests often give positive results for substances such as metals, plants and animal matter. More sensitive tests are seen as confirmatory.
Swecker and Wolf examined more than 15,000 old cases involving serology work to identify the cases similar to the Taylor case.
They wrote that in those cases, which involve 269 people, the lab did 1 of 4 things:
* Failed to report that a confirmatory test was conducted and had negative results.
* Failed to mention 1 or more negative or inconclusive confirmatory test(s) and are thus incomplete.
* Filed misleading reports that said no further tests were conducted when, in fact, one or more confirmatory tests were conducted and there were negative or inconclusive results.
* Overstated lab results or had unreported lab notes that contradict the reported result.
The former agents said they could not conclude that each case has a wrongful conviction, but said each will need to be reviewed by defendants, prosecutors and, in some cases, the courts.
"This will require an in depth review of investigative case ... files that are located in the records of law enforcement departments across the state, court records, trial transcripts, laboratory files, appellate records, records of the Administrative Office of the Courts and any other relevant material," they wrote.
Source: News & Observer, August 18, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment