Proposed NC Crime Lab Changes Head to Legislature
After widely covered NC SBI crime lab shake up in 2010, the state lawmakers are getting around to making some progressive changes. These changes include ensuring the lab isn’t just the long hand of law enforcement, but a true fact finding and scientifically credible body.
The problems with the State Bureau of Investigation crime labs became apparent with last year’s exoneration of Greg Taylor and the subsequent audit of the lab. Taylor served 17 years for a crime he didn’t commit based in part on faulty crime lab procedures. In an audit ordered by Attorney General Roy Cooper, the serology lab was found to have erred in 229 cases.
The story was covered in national news and was a hot topic. The NC lab was blasted for a variety of problems, including because of the seeming motivation behind lab analysts work. The SBI lab was seen as a branch of law enforcement, a pawn of the prosecutor—hardly the recipe for unbiased fact-finding and true justice.
In an effort to correct harm already done and prevent future problems, lawmakers are poised to pass a series of reforms beginning with a symbolic name change to the labs, calling it the North Carolina Crime Laboratory as opposed to the current title which includes the name of the state police force.
Among other proposed changes are requiring the lab disclose all results, data, and notes in a case. Failing to do so would constitute obstruction of justice. Part of the problem with the 229 tainted cases was withheld evidence when analysts didn’t share conflicting test results, instead only sharing those results that showed one side of the story.
Lab analysts would also be required to undergo regular training and testing on their knowledge and proficiency of lab protocol and practices. Previously, little to no formal training was required and testing simply was nonexistent.
Perhaps one of the most significant changes, though they are all important, is removing the current accreditation body, ASCLD-LAB, as the sole agency tasked with accreditation. This agency is based in Garner and is ran by former SBI agents, creating a questionable conflict of interest.
With all of the heat the state got for the crime lab shakeup, there’s little doubt these reforms and many others will pass the legislature. Officials want the public to see that this is the “people’s crime lab” not a long arm of the police. As well it should be.
A crime lab shouldn’t have any ulterior motives – it exists only to collect, process, and provide unbiased evidence used in prosecuting criminal charges. They need to be independent of influence by law enforcement and instead be fact-finders with methodology based in sound science instead of tradition or any sort of good-ol’-boys loyalty.
Related posts: