Indiana:crime Lab Reports Over 200 False Polistives For Marijuana

[thanks2]

This is a huge problem across the U.S. Crime labs usually are not allowed to be audited, but when they are this is usually the outcome.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110203/NEWS14/102030409/1001/LIVING07/Errors-found-Indiana-state-lab-toxicology-tests?odyssey=nav|head

 

Errors found in Indiana state lab toxicology tests

Mistakes that audit uncovered could lead to overturned verdicts

12:04 AM, Feb. 3, 2011 |

 

The first major report from an audit of the Indiana State Department of Toxicology further brings into question the validity of potentially hundreds of drug and alcohol tests performed at the lab in recent years.

 

The findings from the audit, provided to The Indianapolis Star, showed errors in about 200 of 2,000 marijuana tests reported to law enforcement as having positive results. That includes about 50 described as "a conscious manipulation of results" by lab workers.

 

Star Watch Investigation: Previous coverage of the troubled state toxicology lab

 

"This is a potential mess," said former Marion County Prosecutor Scott Newman, who was hired to fix the agency. "The only thing that saves it is . . . the criminal justice system and the scientific community (being) brought together to try to make sense about how to go forward."

 

Newman acknowledged there is potential for numerous verdicts to be overturned and cases to be dismissed, although not every error is necessarily connected to a wrongful conviction. Some of the problems may not be significant enough to change the outcome of cases.

 

But Larry Landis, executive director of the Indiana Public Defender Council, called the revelations "shocking" and "inexcusable."

 

"If they're manipulating data, how can you rely on anything they do?" Landis said. "We're talking about people's lives."

 

He added that he appreciated Newman's integrity and said it "gives me hope there won't be a cover-up."

 

Newman said the agency is notifying lawyers involved in the 200 cases and preparing for an onslaught of inquiries, including those from defense attorneys who want their own expert to review test results.

 

The audit eventually will cover every case from 2007 to 2009 in which the lab reported a positive result -- more than 10,000 overall. But Newman said the initial findings are troubling enough that he probably will extend the audit back to 2006. The audit, conducted by outside scientists, is of paper records.

 

"We see a conscious manipulation of results to produce a desired result," Newman said, "and that is the exact opposite of what scientific inquiry should be about."

 

The most egregious errors, he said, likely were caused by laziness, incompetence, time pressure and a lack of established operating procedures, rather than criminal activity.

 

Newman said lab workers casually used a technique called "manual integration" to "correct" machine readings. The technique, for when the machine has obviously made a mistake, is supposed to be done very sparingly and under strict written procedures.

 

"Unacceptable, . . . especially in a law enforcement situation," said Dwain C. Fuller, a board-certified forensic toxicologist and consultant from Mansfield, Texas, who is not involved in the audit. Fuller said that, as an expert witness for a defense lawyer in such cases, "I can make hay with that."

 

Steve Johnson, executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, said it's too early to predict how many of the errors could have an impact on criminal cases. He said one ray of good news is that in Indiana there is no set level for marijuana intoxication, so any trace is enough for a conviction. But, he said, the scope of problems uncovered by the audit is much worse than he imagined.

 

"This is significant," Johnson said, "but I believe we are on the way to correcting it."

 

The Department of Toxicology is responsible for blood testing in criminal cases, usually impaired driving. The tested samples are not from cases in Marion County, which has its own lab. They are for law enforcement statewide, including some for the Indiana State Police.

 

In addition to notifying prosecutors and defense attorneys, Newman said there is also the complex task of working with lawyers on a plan for uniform standards for handling legal challenges. That plan, he said, should "ensure there's some fundamental fairness about what's going on statewide."

 

Newman said he has begun working on suggestions based on the degree of error by the lab and the seriousness of the crime. That would help determine what role a potentially flawed test result played and whether a case is dismissed outright or fought in court.

 

Johnson said that although it will be important for the legal community to work out basic guidelines for handling troubled cases, most will have to be sorted out individually.

Other questions remain

 

Another question is what to do about guilty pleas that might have been influenced by preliminary test results reported by the Department of Toxicology without the more detailed, and required, confirmatory testing.

 

Also unclear: the cost to taxpayers for fixing the errors by Indiana University and the department, and where the audit will lead.

 

"Everybody asks, 'How far back do you go to satisfy the urge for justice?' " Newman said. "There's really no legal answer to that question. Anybody who suffers a continuing legal disability because of a bad lab result deserves relief."

 

The lab's problems came to light last year with a Star investigation and a state probe. Those revealed a long backlog of cases that was impairing prosecution of crimes.

 

A day before The Star's first story on the issue in May, Michael Wagner resigned as director of the department.

 

Several sources described Wagner -- whose 21-month tenure as director began in August 2008 -- as a competent scientist but a poor administrator and communicator.

 

In the months after Wagner's resignation, The Star repeatedly raised questions about the accuracy of test results based on information from anonymous sources and from public records requests. In October, Newman and the IU Medical School publicly acknowledged the extent of their concerns and the existence of an audit.

 

Wagner is apparently the first to have identified a potential problem with test results and contracted for an outside audit. But that audit was suspended to work on a backlog of cases.

 

In the first public comments from Wagner's side since he resigned, Wagner's lawyer Michael Kendall said Wednesday night, "He's the first person to take affirmative action to try to fix the problem and identify the scope of the problem. And he discovered it shortly after he arrived in Indianapolis.

 

"I think he's an extremely competent scientist and an excellent administrator, and I think his skills as an administrator are reflected in the persistent and methodical way he addressed the problem as soon as he became aware of it."

 

Newman restarted and expanded the audit. He said lab results were noticeably worse under Wagner's predecessor, Peter Method. Method did not respond to e-mails requesting comment.

 

The supervisor in charge of the Department of Toxicology is Michael Vasko, chairman of the IU Medical School's Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology. The state committee report on problems at the toxicology agency said Vasko "was unable to answer most of the (committee's) questions and stated his surprise to learn that there were any problems."

 

Vasko has referred requests for comment to IU's media relations department.

A host of problems at the lab

 

In an extensive interview with The Star this week, Newman gave his most detailed and candid assessment of problems that plagued the lab when he was hired last year:

 

There were turnaround times of eight to 10 months for alcohol tests and 12 to 18 months for drug tests, which Newman called "just outrageous." Even the current response time of two to four months is "still ridiculous," Newman said.

 

Aspects of state law have been ignored -- and then used by defense attorneys in court. State law, for example, requires the Department of Toxicology to inspect state, city and hospital labs whose results might be used in criminal cases. It also says the department must test the competence of people conducting those tests. Newman said that has "never been done since 1957, that I know of."

 

A former toxicology lab manager "didn't really speak English," Newman said.

 

Lab results were reported to law enforcement based only on a preliminary screen, not the more rigorous confirmatory tests.

 

No "blind samples" were used, a common practice where a known sample is submitted to the lab as if it were part of a criminal case. Such procedure is common for assessing a lab's performance.

 

Only within the past two years were there any standard operating procedures in writing, and then only a smattering, including some that didn't conform to industry standards.

 

The lab had a structure heavy on managers, many of them secretive and doing work their own way, leaving younger lab workers to fend for themselves.

 

Those findings come as lawmakers consider a bill to take the Department of Toxicology out of the IU School of Medicine, which has run the agency by state statute since 1957. A hearing on the bill was scheduled for today but has been postponed. IU will be represented at the hearing by Newman and a school vice president.

[svandyke09]

Wow our justice system at its best! Would love to share this but the link is broken, Got another one?

[Grow Thread]

http://content.usato...=35708497.story

 

shorter version.... but the link seems to work.

[TajMahal]

Try this link for full story.

 

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110203/NEWS14/102030409/Errors-found-Indiana-state-lab-toxicology-tests?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com

 

 

And this one for

 

Indiana senators look at legalizing marijuana

 

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110203/NEWS05/102030455/Indiana-senators-look-legalizing-marijuana

[LITLJON]

This is a huge problem across the U.S. Crime labs usually are not allowed to be audited, but when they are this is usually the outcome.

 

"Everybody asks, 'How far back do you go to satisfy the urge for justice?' " Newman said. "There's really no legal answer to that question. Anybody who suffers a continuing legal disability because of a bad lab result deserves relief."

Nice statements.