ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

Junk-science crisis in crime labs

| Sunday, July 16, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
Annie Dookhan tested more than 60,000 drug samples involving 34,000 defendants during her nine years at Hinton State Laboratory Institute in Boston, according to Massachusetts State Police. (AP Photo)
Annie Dookhan tested more than 60,000 drug samples involving 34,000 defendants during her nine years at Hinton State Laboratory Institute in Boston, according to Massachusetts State Police. (AP Photo)

Junk science endangers lives. Forensic junk science threatens liberty.

There is a long-festering and systemic crisis in America's government-run crime labs, not just a few rogue operators. In April, Massachusetts state crime lab chemist Annie Dookhan made national headlines after investigations and lawsuits over her misconduct prompted that state's Supreme Judicial Court to order the largest dismissal of criminal convictions in U.S. history — 21,000-plus drug cases. Dookhan pleaded guilty to dozens of charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and tampering with evidence. Hundreds of convictions were tossed on appeal. Dookhan served a measly three years in prison.

Another Massachusetts state crime lab worker, Sonja Farak, pilfered and ingested drugs she was supposed to test over an eight-year period. Two former assistant attorney generals covered up for Farak and misled a judge, who last month dismissed several cases tainted by her. Upwards of 10,000 prosecutions may eventually be overturned. Farak received a mere 18-month jail sentence, plus five years' probation. The two assistant AGs left their jobs for higher-paying government positions.

Similar horror stories have spread from the New York City medical examiner's office and the Nassau County, N.Y., police department forensic evidence bureau to the crime labs of West Virginia; Harris County, Texas; North Carolina; and jurisdictions in nearly 20 other states.

Many state crime labs and police departments are ill-equipped and inadequately trained to interpret DNA evidence, especially “touch” or “trace” DNA — minute amounts of unknown origin, often transferred through incidental contact — which has resulted in miscarriages of justice against innocent people. The aura of infallibility conferred by “CSI”-style TV shows exacerbates the problem when juries place undue weight on indeterminate DNA evidence.

Dark history seems to be repeating itself at the Oklahoma City Police Department, home of the late forensic faker Joyce Gilchrist, who conjured mountains of phony DNA evidence out of whole cloth in collaboration with an out-of-control district attorney over two ruinous decades. Gilchrist, whose tainted testimony sent 11 inmates to their deaths, passed away two years ago, unpunished and unrepentant.

Now, nearly a quarter-century after Gilchrist's misconduct was exposed, Oklahoma City has been rocked by secret hearings held a few weeks ago in the case of former Oklahoma City policeman Daniel Holtzclaw, convicted in 2015 of multiple sexual assaults after being railroaded by incompetent and biased detectives, a crime lab analyst's sloppy testimony and a DA's office more concerned about social justice than seeking the truth. Jurors were misled with false assertions about trace skin-cell DNA tied to one accuser and found on Holtzclaw's pants. At least two jurors publicly stated that the shoddy DNA evidence persuaded them of Holtzclaw's guilt.

Secrecy about the crime lab crisis is a toxic recipe for more wrongful convictions. The solution lies in greater transparency, external scrutiny, stiffer criminal penalties and real financial consequences for forensic fraudsters and fakers. It's time to incentivize more whistleblowers instead of more destructive witch hunts.

Michelle Malkin is host of “Michelle Malkin Investigates” on

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me