False testimony, exaggerated statistics, and laboratory fraud have all led to wrongful convictions. Jurors often give forensic science more weight, because it is provided by “experts.” However, when misconduct occurs the added weight is damaging and can lead to wrongful convictions. In some cases, labs and their personnel are not impartial, because they are too closely tied to police and prosecutors. Other times, a criminologist who lacks necessary knowledge may exaggerate findings and does not have to worry about being caught because the lawyer, judge, and jury have no background in the relevant science. In many cases, critical evidence is destroyed making re-testing to uncover the misconduct is impossible.

The Facts

Many people deal with forensic evidence at different stages in the criminal process. Identification, collection, testing, storage, handling, and reporting of evidence can be deliberately or accidentally mishandled at any stage:

•  At the crime scene, evidence can be planted, destroyed, or mishandled.
• At the forensic lab, evidence can be contaminated, poorly tested, consumed or mislabeled.
• In the report, results can be misrepresented
  DNA exonerations have revealed a number of cases where results were reported on evidence when no test was actually done!

Here are some notorious cases of forensic misconduct by scientists, experts, and prosecutors that have lead to wrongful convictions:

• Fred Zain, the former director of the West Virginia state crime lab, testified for the prosecution in 12 states over his career (many in West Virginia and Texas) and has left a trail of fabricated results, false testimony on results, and has willfully omitted evidence from his reports.
• Pamela Fish, a Chicago lab technician, has testified for the prosecution about false matches and suspicious results in at least eight cases that secured convictions, but were later proven innocent by DNA testing.
• The Houston crime lab has been under an ongoing investigation for alleged mishandling of evidence and misreported results. 

Remedies

A number of reforms could limit the number of cases where forensic misconduct occurs. For example, the Innocence Project suggests states impose standards on the preservation and handling of evidence. In addition, when exonerations suggest misconduct of an analyst or that a facility lacked proper procedures or oversight, independent audits of their work in other cases should take place to uncover the possibility of other wrongful convictions.

Learn about other innocence related issues.

 

• 
• 
  • Donate
  • Stay Informed
  • Explore Issues
  • Volunteer
  • Join IPMN Facebook
  • Attend our Benefit
• 
  • Book A Speaker
• 
  • Take A Class
  • Adopt A Best Practice
  • Work With Us
• 
  • Submit A Case