It’s often said that it’s better for a guilty person to go free than for the innocent to be wrongfully convicted. Recently, the state of Massachusetts released over 300 criminal defendants from prison and hundreds have had their charges dismissed amid a crime lab scandal spanning almost a decade. Last week, Annie Dookhan, a former crime lab chemist, began serving a 3 to 5 year sentence for falsifying tests of drug evidence that was used in many of these convictions. Over a nine year period, Ms. Dookhan’s misconduct ranged from failing to test drug evidence and falsifying co-workers signatures, all in an effort to be the most prolific analyst in the lab.
An estimated 40,000 criminal cases relied upon Ms. Dookhan’s testing. Sifting through the growing number of cases that she worked on could eventually cost the state millions of dollars. The Massachusetts branch of the ACLU suggested systemic failures in the entire lab based on a complete lack of accountability. The state lab’s failures could impact up to 190,000 criminal cases.
This is, however, only the latest in a long string of crime lab misconduct around the country. This begs the question: is there an underlying systemic problem? This latest saga highlights the near universal reliance on forensic science and technology for processing evidence in criminal cases. Only in the last few decades has forensic science seen dramatic improvement, increasing accuracy and efficiency, especially with DNA evidence. Accuracy, however, still relies on tests that are performed by people, vulnerable to human error. When it comes to the Annie Dookhans around the country who are ready to commit flagrant and willful misconduct, error-checking procedures may be an insufficient safeguard.
As it stands, the system cannot continue to function according to the whim of whoever is conducting the tests. As suggested by the National Academy of Sciences, the increased reliance on scientific testing in court calls for stronger national oversight, the kind that will stop this type of willful misconduct, supporting fairness in the criminal justice system.
Although the control of criminal procedures is typically left to the states, national oversight may ensure fairness to all criminal defendants with an independent body enforcing adherence to the national standards. However, while this may create neutral independence, these guidelines would still be limited by their actual enforcement. Ideally, these procedures would also limit ex parte communications by prosecutors with the lab technicians which creates incentives that influence to what is supposed to be a neutral body.
Another issue is that any increase in regulations and oversight would tax an already burdened system. Legislators may call for reform, but they may choose not to provide the necessary funding for these reforms. Both sides of the system must strike a balance, on one hand supporting the rights of criminal defendants by ensuring accountability of lab personnel in testing procedures; and on the other hand allowing for streamlining and efficient processing of what is often dispositive evidence. The first step requires both parties to step to the table and be willing to engage in discussion. The legitimacy of our criminal justice system depends on it.