Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept.
By Spencer S. Hsu, Monday, April 16, 2012, Washington Post
Justice Department officials have known for years that flawed forensic work might have led to the convictions of potentially innocent people, but prosecutors failed to notify defendants or their attorneys even in many cases they knew were troubled.
Officials started reviewing the cases in the 1990s after
reports that sloppy work by examiners at the FBI lab was
producing unreliable forensic evidence in court trials. Instead
of releasing those findings, they made them available only to
the prosecutors in the affected cases, according to documents
and interviews with dozens of officials.
As a result, hundreds of defendants nationwide remain in prison or on parole for crimes that might merit exoneration, a retrial or a retesting of evidence using DNA because FBI hair and fiber experts may have misidentified them as suspects.
In one Texas case, Benjamin Herbert Boyle was executed in 1997, more than a year after the Justice Department began its review. Boyle would not have been eligible for the death penalty without the FBI’s flawed work, according to a prosecutor’s memo.
The case of a Maryland man serving a life sentence for a 1981 double killing is another in which federal and local law enforcement officials knew of forensic problems but never told the defendant. Attorneys for the man, John Norman Huffington, say they learned of potentially exculpatory Justice Department findings from The Washington Post. They are seeking a new trial.
Justice Department officials said that they met their legal and constitutional obligations when they learned of specific errors, that they alerted prosecutors and were not required to inform defendants directly.
The review was performed by a task force created during an inspector general’s investigation of misconduct at the FBI crime lab in the 1990s. The inquiry took nine years, ending in 2004, records show, but the findings were never made public.
In the discipline of hair and fiber analysis, only the work of FBI Special Agent Michael P. Malone was questioned. Even though Justice Department and FBI officials knew that the discipline had weaknesses and that the lab lacked protocols — and learned that examiners’ “matches” were often wrong — they kept their reviews limited to Malone.
But two cases in D.C. Superior Court show the inadequacy of the government’s response.
Santae A. Tribble, now 51, was convicted of killing a taxi driver in 1978, and Kirk L. Odom, now 49, was convicted of a sexual assault in 1981.
Key evidence at each of their trials came from separate FBI
experts — not Malone — who swore that their scientific analysis
proved with near certainty that Tribble’s and Odom’s hair was at
the respective crime scenes.
Neither case was part of the Justice Department task force’s review.
A third D.C. case shows how the lack of Justice Department notification has forced people to stay in prison longer than they should have.
Donald E. Gates, 60, served 28 years for the rape and murder
of a Georgetown University student based on Malone’s testimony
that his hair was found on the victim’s body. He was exonerated
by DNA testing in 2009. But for 12 years before that,
prosecutors never told him about the inspector general’s report
about Malone, that Malone’s work was key to his conviction or
that Malone’s findings were flawed, leaving him in prison the
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Page Updated: Tuesday April 17, 2012 12:23 AM Pacific
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2001 - 2012, All Rights Reserved