Crime Lab Scandal

III. Potential Problems and Solutions

The Houston Police Department Crime Lab scandal is a tragic sample of the systematic failure of the whole criminal justice system. For decades, intentional/unintentional DNA evidence abuse in criminal cases was either overlooked or undetected by the forensic crime lab supervisors, prosecutors, defense attorneys, court judges and city officials.

In 2009, the National Research Council issued a congressional report which called for major reforms of the entire forensic science system around the country.39 The report called for mandatory training and certifications for forensic analysts, tougher laboratory standards, improved protocols for investigating evidence, and more scientifically reliable and established forensic methods for analysis. Furthermore, the report recommended appropriate funding, staff and proper management of the forensic science labaratories.40 According to Harry Edwards, Chief Judge Emeritus of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a judicial review by it self would not be enough to fix the widespread problems prevalent in the crime labs. A much stronger and resilient governance is necessary to promote superior administration in the forensic science community and to repair the county’s fractured forensic system.41 The congressional report strongly

recommended the United States Congress to create an independent National Institute of Forensic Science, which would create, implement and oversee educational and laboratory standards for the forensic science experts and crime laboratories around the country.42

A. Independent Publicly Funded Accreditation System

The audit at the Houston Police Department crime lab exposed an unsanitary lab environment, with unqualified forensic analysts, incomplete or forged evidence logs/documentations, biased testimonies, and contaminated/improperly tested scientific evidence. The presentation of empirical evidence in courts during trial can either exonerate or incarcerate an innocent individual. In particular, jurors significantly rely on DNA analysis, scientific evidence, and testimonies by forensic experts to help decide the outcome of most criminal cases. As previously stated, justice and freedom for an individual can depend on the proficiency, reliability and efficiency of a forensic laboratory and their forensic analysts. It is growing increasingly essential to ensure the professionalism, ethical and moral behavior of the individuals and agencies involved in the field of law and forensics through additional safety measure. Suitable punishments such as monetary fines and prison time for DNA evidence abuse by crime lab analysts and prosecutors should be implemented.
Since 2005, the Houston Police Department crime lab has been accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) and the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). All of their departments except Toxicology are accredited under the ASCLD/LAB; whereas, Toxicology maintains the ASCLD/LAB international accreditation.43
However, opponents of the accreditation system argue that the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) is a professional association funded by annual fees from lab members and inspections.

It is not a powerful independent self-regulating entity.44 According to Ralph Keaton, the executive director of American Society of Criminal Lab Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB), accreditation of a crime lab is only the first step in a long list of problems.45 He accepted that in the past twenty-one years ASCLD/LAB has never rescinded an accreditation and only suspended two.

46
William Thompson, one of the academic professionals instrumental in exposing the errors in HPD's crime lab and a professor at University of California implored the need for independence. He stressed that there only two professional organizations in the United States offering accreditation of crime laboratories and both are voluntary.47 Marvin Schechter, a defense attorney and a former adviser to the National Academy of Sciences Forensics, revealed that ASCLD/LAB informs the crime laboratory before they arrive for an inspection, hence; the laboratory has an opportunity to clean up. Furthermore, ASCLD/LAB is not obligated to inform the public of any violations by the crime lab.48
A nationwide independent publicly funded accreditation system will help regulate the quality, management, protocols, security and scientific integrity of the crime labs at the federal, state and local level in a comprehensive manner. Reliable forensic analysts and a properly structured system of checks and balances in the forensic community will increase the capability of law enforcement officers and agencies to identify culprits.