Ray Krone, Phoenix, AZ (1991)
Ray Krone was wrongfully convicted of kidnapping and murdering Kim Ancona in the CBS Lounge, where he was an occasional customer. As a result, he spent more than ten years incarcerated in Arizona prisons, including approximately three years on death row before a DNA analysis in 2002 cleared his name. In that period, he was subjected to two trials, in which the case against him on both occasions was entirely dependent on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of an “expert witness”. His wrongful conviction was attributed to several investigative errors, and the gravely misleading application of junk science that was overlooked (Cooley & Oberfield, 2007).
In the first trial, the prosecution emphasized two pieces of evidence: the bite marks left by the murderer on Ancona’s left breast and the other various scientific findings regarding the blood and hairs obtained from the victim’s body. Furthermore, since only presumptive tests were performed (blood type and hair analyses), the results obtained were not sufficient to be used to give a death sentence in a criminal court. This is because presumptive tests do not prove beyond unreasonable doubt (standard of proof in criminal court) that Krone committed the murder (Wodage, 2014).
On the one hand, the blood found on Ancona’s jeans and panties was a match to Krone’s blood type, a common blood type; hence, it could not sufficiently conclude that it was Krone’s. On the other hand, the seventeen single hairs collected from Ancona’s body were found to be consistent with both the victim’s and Krone’s head and pubic hair. However, Krone had supported this by stating that he had been once “in the company” of Ancona.
Moreover, what the court failed to know was that the hair analyst did not test all the 17 hair strands. Failing to analyze all the collected physical evidence is a serious matter, particularly when the court seeking to take a suspect’s life. Finally, with regards to the primary premise of the trial, the bite-mark on Ancona’s left breast, Dr. John – an expert witness-proclaimed that the bite-mark on the victim matched Krone’s dentition. Moreover, his findings were further supported by Dr. Raymond Rownson, a renowned forensic odontologist in the state of Nevada, who submitted a videotape. The findings of the two expert witnesses were later found to be flawed by the defense in the second trial. For instance, Dr. John by then had not been a certified forensic odontologist, and the videoed testimony was found to be edited with several parts deleted.
Joyce Gilchrist, Oklahoma City Crime Laboratory
Unethical and incompetent experts adversely impact the validity and reliability of forensic findings to aid convictions. A textbook example of such an instance in the case of Joyce Gilchrist. She served as a forensic analyst in the Oklahoma City Police Department crime laboratory (Giannelli, 2007). Gilchrist was a treasured prosecution expert witness because most of her testimonies led to convictions. However, what the court was unaware of is that she fabricated analytical results in numerous cases that she was presented with. In 2001, a review of Gilchrist’s job performance illustrated the presence of flawed case analysis and incompetent laboratory management (Giannelli, 2007).
The Curtis McCarty prosecution is a famous case in which Gilchrist portrayed incompetent laboratory management. Initially, the findings of a microscopic hair analysis she conducted excluded Curtis as the prime suspect in the rape murder investigation (Giannelli, 2007). However, later on, her conclusion changed – she determined a match – after another suspect pinpointed Curtis as the perpetrator. The variation in the findings was caused by the omission of vital information in the initial analysis. To defend her erroneous act, she testified that the defense’s forensic examiner could not have competently examined the hair slides within the limited time frame.
The second is the flawed casework analysis. In 1985, Gilchrist was presented with the Jeffrey Pierce prosecution – a case in which the victim had been raped in her home (Giannelli, 2007). Both the victim and two other witnesses had ascertained that Pierce was not the rapist; however, he was still arrested and convicted based on a microscopic hair comparison performed by Gilchrist. Gilchrist had testified that Pierce’s head and pubic hair exemplars matched to the hair strands collected at the scene.
Furthermore, Pierce was given a 65-year prison sentence, although Gilchrist had failed to submit the evidence to the defense, and she had also filed an incomplete report. A later investigation by the FBI revealed that none of the hairs obtained from that scene possessed microscopic properties that were similar to Pierce’s samples.
The third is the falsification of results. In 1992, in the Alfred Mitchell rape-murder case, Gilchrist testified that Alfred’s sperm was presented in the vaginal and anal swabs obtained from the victim (Giannelli, 2007). She made this testimony even though a pre-trial DNA analysis conducted by the FBI on her request ascertained the non-existence of sperms in the swabs. Moreover, the sperm on the victim’s clothing matched her boyfriend’s DNA.
These three before-mentioned cases are not the only ones where Gilchrist’s integrity and competency were questioned. Others include the Malcolm Rent Johnson Prosecution, the Fox v. State death penalty case, the Miller v. State rape case, and so on (Giannelli, 2007). Furthermore, other issues that led to her dismissal included the absence of peer review in numerous instances, and the lack of proficiency testing even though they had been paid for (Giannelli, 2007).
Detroit Police Department Crime Laboratory
Dating back to 1927, the Detroit Police Crime Laboratory was among the oldest city forensic laboratories in the U.S. (Michigan State Police, 2008). Until 2008, Detroit was supporting the crime lab separate from the state system, and this was primarily because of the nature of its caseloads and unique size. Over the years, the lab took approximately 200,000 cases per year in which it provided the following forensic services: toxicology and alcohol analysis, firearms investigations, serological, and latent print analysis (Michigan State Police, 2008).
In 2008, the State Police conducted a five-month audit in response to questions raised regarding evidence handling in one of the state’s most famous cold cases – the 2003 murder of an exotic dancer. By then, the laboratory staff was comprised of eight firearms experts, ten drug analysts, three latent prints analysts, thirty crime scene technicians, and two technicians in the Integrated Ballistics Identification System (IBIS).
However, the audit was mainly centered on the firearms department in the Detroit crime lab. In the 2003 murder, the lab had concluded that the 42 shell casings obtained from the crime scene were from a single firearm, but the State Police later negated this as it was established that the bullets came from at least two firearms (de Stuler, 2015).
The format of the audit was based on the accreditation criteria cataloged in the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board’s (ASCLD/LAB) legacy accreditation program. This constituted of a review of the Procedures and Training manuals, and Laboratory Quality manual for the firearms department. Furthermore, 30 sampled completed cases dating back to 2006 (each from the forensic ballistics experts), were selected for re-evaluation. According to the Michigan State Police (2008), the findings of the inspection showed that:
- The firearms lab was non-conformant in 66 of the 101 applicable criteria upon which the audit was conducted.
- The firearms unit complied with 29% of the desired criteria, 42% of the essential criteria, and 26% of the important criteria. To put this into perspective, accreditation requires 100% compliance.
- About 10% of the 250 ballistics cases that were re-analyzed had significant errors. Averagely, the lab attends to approximately 1,800 firearms cases annually, and if the 10% error holds, this suggests a possible significant adverse influence on the overall criminal justice system.
- The firearms examiners were found not to analyze every item in many cases that involved several items were involved, and instead, assumptions were made.
The guidelines of the ASCLD/LAB legacy program are used to measure the efficiency of a lab’s quality system. Therefore, if the quality system of a single forensic discipline fails, then there is a high probability that there is a systematic problem affecting other forensic disciplines in the lab as well (Bunkley, 2008). When applying this line of reasoning, it was recommendable to shut down the entire Detroit lab. Moreover, according to Baker (2009), some of the factors that might have contributed to the problems include the presence of insufficient funds to cater to the increasing cost of personnel, training, and technology.
References
de Stuler, A. (2015). The cold case of Tamara Greene. Web.
Baker, B. (2009). Detroit Police crime lab closure: Impact on State Police forensic science division backlog. Web.
Bunkley, N. (2008). Detroit Police lab is closed after audit finds serious errors in many cases. The New York Times. Web.
Cooley, C., & Oberfield, B. (2007). Increasing forensic evidence’s reliability and minimizing wrongful convictions: Applying Daubert isn’t the only problem. Tusla Law Review, 43(2), 285-380.
Giannelli, P. (2007). Wrongful convictions and forensic science: The need to regulate crime labs. North Carolina Law Review, 86(11), 164-235.
Michigan State Police. (2008). Audit of the Detroit Police Department: Forensic services laboratory firearms unit. Web.
Wodage, W. Y. (2014). Burdens of proof, presumptions and standards of proof in criminal cases. Mizan Law Review, 8(1), 252-270. Web.