The North Carolina Crime Lab Scandal
![handle is hein.journals/cjust27 and id is 45 raw text is: The North Carolina Crime
Lab Scanal]
BY PAUL C. GIANNELLI
.regory Taylor was the first person freed
by the North Carolina Innocence Inqui-
ry Commission. North Carolina Gen-
eral Statutes Section 15A-1461 (2010) establishes
an innocence commission as. an extraordinary
procedure to investigate and determine credible
claims of factual innocence. North Carolina is
the only state that has an agency specifically dedi-
cated to reviewing innocence claims. (See gener-
ally David Wolitz, Innocence.Commissions and
the Future of Post-Conviction Review, 52 ARIZ. L.
REv. 1027 (2010).)
The case against Taylor was circumstantial, and
he always proclaimed his innocence. Indeed, he re-
fused to make a deal to inculpate an acquaintance
who was with him on the night of the crime. In
the course of the innocence commission's investi-
gation, the bench notes of the serologist, Duane
Deaver, who examined evidence for Taylor's origi-
nal trial, surfaced.. He had prepared a lab report
that was used at trial to connect the victim to
Taylor's car. The lab report noted that there were
chemical indications for the presence of blood.'
However, this report revealed only the results of a
preliminary test for blood. In contrast, the bench
notes -showed that a subsequent confirmatory test
was negative, but these results were not disclosed
to the prosecution or the defense at trial.
Surprisingly, during the inquiry the serologist
claimed that lab procedure did not require the
reporting of negative confirmatory tests, And
this was corroborated by the lab director: SBI
Director Robin Pendergraft defended Deaver's
work in Taylor's case, saying he violated no SBI
policies. She explained that SBI forensic analyst
report positive test results indicating a substance
is blood, even if more specific tests call that result
P'AUL. C. GIANNfLU is a Distinguished
University .Professor and Weatherhwad
Pro~fessor of Law at. Case Western..Reserve
University School of Law in Clevelan4 Ohio,
and the coauthor of Scientific.Evidence (4th
..... .......ce, Lexis 2007:). He is also a contributing
editor to Criminal. Justice magazinea
CR>M NAL JUSUVCE S PRIN:G 20:12
into question. (Mandy Locke & Anne Blythe,
SBI to Review Old Lab Cases, NEWS & OBSERVER
(Raleigh, N.C.), Feb. 28, 2010.)
The Investigation of the Lab
As a result of this: disclosure, the state attorney
general commissioned an investigation into the
lab's practices. The: two former FBI officials, who
conducted the review, concluded:
This report raises serious issues about labo-
ratory reporting practices from 1987-2003
and the potential that information that was
material and even favorable to the defense of
criminal charges filed was withheld or misrep-
resented. The factors that contributed. to these
issues range from poorly crafted policy; lack of
objectivity[;] the absence of clear report writ-
ing guidance;inattention to reporting methods
that left too much discretion to the individual
Analyst[;] lack of transparency; and ineffective
management and oversight of the Forensic Bi-
ology Section from 1987 through 2003.
.(CHRIS..SWECKER & MICHAEL WOLF,.AN INDEPEN-
DENT REVIEW OF THE SBI FORENsic LABORATORY
4 .(2010.).)
In particular, the investigation identified four
.different..types of improper reporting. These in-
cluded reports that (1) mentioned that tests for the
presence of blood were not conclusive but failed
to report a confirmatory negative test; (2) failed
to mention one or more negative or inconclusive
confirmatory tests; (3) stated that no further tests
were conducted when, in. fact, one or more con-
firmatory tests were conducted with negative or
inconclusive results; and (4) overstated laboratory
test results or where lab notes contradicted the re-
ported restilt. (Id. at 3.)
This failure of the North Carolina criminal
justice system is breathtaking. The experts, the
laboratory, the prosecutors, and the defense at-
torneys in these cases did not do their jobs.
taboratory .iscordoct ...'. .
The failure, to present accurate information in
the lab report is inexcusable. Crime labs serve the
criminal justice system. Thus,. incomplete reports
containing, misleading information undermine
this purpose.: The National Academy :of ScienceS
landmark 2009 .report on forensic science ad-
dressed the issue:
43](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/cjust27&div=12&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
The North Carolina Crime Lab Scandal
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most