TheAgitator.com
More Problems at the Houston Crime Lab
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010An independent audit of 548 fingerprint analyses done by the Houston crime lab found “irregularities” in more than half of them. Two analysts have been put on leave, one has resigned. The three had worked cases in the lab for a combined 84 years.
This is the third forensics scandal to hit Houston in the last several years. In 2006, another independent audit found that…
Houston crime lab analysts skewed reports to fit police theories in several cases, ignoring results that conflicted with police expectations because of a lack of confidence in their own skills or a conscious effort to secure convictions, an independent investigator says in his latest report on the scandal.
In more than 20 cases reviewed in this stage of the ongoing probe, the investigative team concluded that analysts at the Houston Police Department crime lab failed to report the results of blood-typing and DNA tests that did not implicate the suspects police had identified.
That came a few years after local media exposed other problems with the credibility of the lab’s experts and its shoddy handling of forensic evidence. In 2004, the Houston Chronicle reported a number a number of questionable autopsies done by Harris County Medical Examiner Patricia Moore, who colleagues accused of tailoring her findings to please prosecutors.
Seems like a good time to note another forensics-related story this week: On Monday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Briscoe v. Virginia, a case many court watchers say could undo or limit last term’s decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, which established the right of criminal defendants to cross-examine crime lab experts (as opposed to having experts submit signed lab reports).
The court’s membership has changed since the 5-to-4 decision in June in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, which said that the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause, which gives a criminal defendant the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” does not allow the mere presentation of a lab report to prove, say, that white powder found with a defendant was cocaine.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Melendez-Diaz, said there was only one reason to revisit the issue so quickly.
“Why is this case here except as an opportunity to upset Melendez-Diaz?” he asked. After a lawyer tried to answer what was a rhetorical question, Justice Scalia made his meaning plain: “I’m criticizing us for taking the case.”
I wrote about Melendez-Diaz last August. Ideas on how to reform the forensics system here.
CORRECTION: A spokesman from Houston PD called to say that the while fingerprint unit is part of the Houston Police Department, it is separate from the Houston Crime Lab. Apologies for the error.
In regards to Scalia, I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.
A little off-topic:
I worked as an assistant district attorney for a year. In my state the lab tech was required to show up (at least at the felony level), unless the right is waived by the defendant. To me, it’s unfathomable that there wouldn’t be a right to confrontation on this. How do you even admit the substance as being the one tested without the technician there? Does anyone who is in a state affected by Melendez-Diaz mind enlightening me as to how lab evidence operated there? Admittedly, I didn’t read the case because I was about to quit when the decision came out anyway, so maybe I’m missing something.
Jon#1: You get it admitted the same way police officers are automatically considered to be expert witnesses.
@EH
Where I was practicing we had to show some level of expertise on the part of the police officer. Maybe it was just the judges I was in front of.
“Does anyone who is in a state affected by Melendez-Diaz mind enlightening me as to how lab evidence operated there?”
They write a note to the court stating that it’s good evidence. Do you really think they would write such a note if they botched the test, or skipped doing it in order to download internet porn, do you?
@Duncan
I should have been more specific, by “them” I meant the state’s attorney–there normally has to be some chain of evidence and such. I’m just really confused by how states might even function under some system where Melendez-Diaz doesn’t apply.
How does Scalia play both sides of the fence so well? Wasn’t he the guy who introduced us to “the new professionalism”?
Jon,
I never worked in one of those states (we had a state version of Melendez-Diaz before I started doing criminal work) but as I understand it, it’s just an exception to the hearsay rule. The officer testifies that he sent it off to the lab and the lab results came back X, Y and Z.
@hattio
Thanks. That’s odd that it would function that way–and seems absolutely untenable.
Sorry for being the pessimistic prick that I am, but I think it’s a lost cause. I think there’s no doubt that they took the case because Sotomayor is likely to vote the other way. States are complaining about the burden of having to put technicians on the stand.
Of course, you can hardly blame them given the spotless reputations crime labs have in terms of their impeccable integrity, absolute dedication to impartiality, and religious adherence to scientifically irrefutable procedure.
The major difficulty here is a special case of a broader problem: a defendant should be able to introduce almost any sort of evidence that might persuade a jury to find in his favor for any reason. Allowing judges final say over what evidence is “relevant” will frequently result in juries being denied information with which they would give a just verdict (in many cases judges exclude evidence not because it isn’t relevant, but because it IS and they know it), but allowing defendants to introduce without restriction any and all evidence they want would make it impossible to conduct trials in any sort of timely fashion.
If I had my druthers, a defendant could ask that certain issues of “relevance” be put before the jury. If the jury feels that a line of defense questioning might yield something interesting, it should proceed regardless of whether the judge likes it. If, however, the jury is falling asleep and doesn’t care what a witness has to say, why waste everyone’s time?
With regard to questioning people involved in the handling of evidence, the prosecutor should be required to go first in asking questions (as it would with its own witness) but I would allow the prosecutor to inform the jury that the witness was testifying (instead of merely submitting a report) at the demand of the defense. If the jury finds that questioning the witness added nothing of significance, they could ‘blame’ the defense, but the defense would not have to deal with the tactical hurdles of calling its own witness.
Judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement are all part of the same team. They idea that they can act together and still be impartial is so far from the truth as to be in a different galaxy. It fails common sense on its face.
@supercat
So you know, the prosecution does have to ask questions first as part of the burden of proof that is put on the state. A good prosecutor will talk about the procedures and safety precautions taken by the lab technician. Of course, I say this with the assumption that Melendez-Diaz applies.
I agree it’d be nice for juries to decide what’s relevant at times, but the mess it would lead to would be impractical. Further, relevance is statutory, so knowledge of the law is important in determining the relevance.
Knowledge that one has the moral imperative to judge the law itself is tantamount to all.
So…CSI: Houston will be all about how badly the CSIs actually fuck up every case?
//I agree it’d be nice for juries to decide what’s relevant at times, but the mess it would lead to would be impractical. Further, relevance is statutory, so knowledge of the law is important in determining the relevance.//
With relatively few exceptions, if a jury would have acquitted someone if allowed certain information, but is denied that information and thus convicts the person, such a conviction is fundamentally unjust; withholding such information undermines the whole purpose of the jury system.
As a couple of simple examples:
(1) Defendants are often very restricted in the types of questions they may ask cops about seemingly-unrelated cases, even if (or in many cases–IMHO–because) such questioning would cause the jury to question the cops’ credibility. While it would be impractical to allow a defense attorney to question a cop about every previous case, the rules as they are now serve to protect many cops who really shouldn’t be regarded as credible witnesses.
(2) Juries are often prevented from finding out the sentence that would be associated with a crime, even if (again, because) such information would enter into their judgment of /mens rea/. A jury which determines that a person did perform a certain illegal action somewhat negligently but not deliberately should likely convict the person of that action if the penalty would be a $150 fine, but should acquit if the penalty would be ten years in prison.
As for the difficulties of letting the jury determine relevance, I agree that in the general case it would be difficult, but there are cases where I would think it helpful. For example, suppose the prosecution introduces a witness whose testimony strongly inculpates the defendant, but the witness’ credibility is dubious. The defense has a mountain of evidence which would prove the witness is not credible. If the jury doesn’t believe a word the witness has to say, for the defense to produce evidence that the witness isn’t credible would be useless if not counter-productive (the jury would find the evidence boring, and juries tend to side against parties that bore them). On the other hand, if the jury happened to believe the witness, the evidence against the witness’ credibility might be vital. Having a means for resolving such questions could help to expedite trials.