Annie Dookhan is Not the Point

March 25th, 2014

It’s been almost three weeks since the release of the Office of the Inspector General’s report on the Hinton drug lab scandal: Investigation of the Drug Laboratory at the William A. Hinton State Laboratory Institute (OIG Report). The report, for the first time, focuses attention on the problems with the Hinton Lab’s systems instead of the “rogue chemist” that has so captivated the media’s attention.

The OIG report simplest finding is perhaps its most important: Management Failed. And because there was no feedback loop independent of management, the problems at the lab were invisible to the outside world.

Stafford Beer coined the phrase: “The purpose of a system is what it does.” (POSIWID) The systems at the Hinton Laboratory produced unreliable results that nonetheless resulted in convictions, imprisonments and foreclosure of opportunities (for jobs and housing among other things) for large numbers of people.

This situation persisted for years despite complaints by staff and obvious discrepancies in drug tests. The system pulled for productivity, not correct results. Given the limited resources that state and federal government have allocated to the criminal justice system, while at the same time exponentially increasing the number of prosecutions, it was entirely predictable that the Hinton Lab scandal would happen.

The New England Innocence Project and our partners across the nation have focused on flawed science, corruption and attorney ineptitude as the drivers behind wrongful convictions. The Hinton Lab scandal illustrates another cause. Overworked bureaucracies measure outcomes in numbers and do not self-correct. They require external structures such as accreditation and protections for whistle-blowers to impose quality assurance. Without them, the system that produces the greatest numbers will continue until an external force (here the take-over of the Hinton Lab by the Massachusetts State Police) forces reforms.

It is tempting to call the Hinton Lab scandal a unique anomaly, to believe that these problems do not exist in other labs across the country. But it wasn’t five years ago that everyone in Massachusetts would have said that such problems didn’t exist here either.

Think about it.

Denise McWilliams, Esq.
NEIP Executive Director

Mass Statute Intended to Facilitate Claims of Actual Innocence

March 18th, 2014

On Friday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its first decision interpreting M.G.L. ch. 278A- the important law that provides access to forensic and scientific analysis. This ruling strongly confirms that the legislative purpose of the Act was to create a new pathway for access to evidence for those claiming actual innocence.

Relying on legislative findings, the court determined that the act’s purpose was to “remedy the injustice of wrongful convictions of factually innocent persons by allowing access to analyses of biological material with newer forensic and scientific techniques” and the Court declined to adopt the more stringent interpretation urged by the District Attorney of Plymouth County.

Instead, the SJC held that the legislature, cognizant of the problem of wrongful convictions, intended to create a new procedure for the factually innocent to utilize the advancements in science and technology in re-examining evidence used to convict them.

Specifically, the SJC held that at the threshold stage of 278A motion, the judge is to determine only that the requirements of §3 have been met.  If the moving party has done so , a hearing shall be held. In order to be successful at the hearing,, the moving party must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that s/he is entitled to have access to the evidence and have it tested with the “newer forensic and scientific techniques” all the information required by statute.

This is a significant recognition by the SJC that wrongful convictions do occur and that the traditional post-conviction procedures are inadequate to correct them.

278A creates a two-step procedure .  The first step is the submission of a Motion. Once submitted, the court must determine that the contents of the  Motion meets the preliminary criteria set out in §3 of the Act, namely:

name and description of the requested forensic or scientific analysis;
information demonstrating admissibility of the requested analysis;
description of the requested evidence or biological material including its location and chain of custody;
information demonstrating that the analysis could produce evidence material to the moving party’s identification as the perpetrator; and
information showing that the requested analysis hadn’t been utilized:
i.             because it wasn’t available at the time of conviction;

ii.            the analysis wasn’t admissible in the Commonwealth at the time of conviction;

iii.            the moving party and his/her attorney did not have reason to be aware of the biological material at the time of the conviction

iv.            that although a reasonably effective attorney would have sought the analysis, the trial attorney either failed to seek the analysis or the judge denied the request; or

v.            information demonstrating that the evidence was otherwise unavailable at the time of the conviction.

Additionally, the moving party must file an affidavit averring factual innocence.

Once a determination is made that the above requirements has been met, a hearing is held affording parties the opportunity to present evidence and argue their case.

278A provides a crucial tool for attorneys litigating post-conviction claims and today’s SJC decision is an acknowledgement that new procedures are necessary to provide relief to the wrongfully convicted.  It’s now up to the defense bar to ensure its use.

–Denise McWilliams, Esq.

NEIP Executive Director

Political Doublespeak

March 4th, 2014

The government shutdown this past October was enough to show that Americans are right to be distrustful of politicians. But this latest opinion piece from the Attorney General of New York is a real doozy.  In the piece, Mr. Schneiderman, highlights the case of Fernando Bermudez, a Danbury, CT resident and friend of the NEIP family. For those of you unfamiliar with Fernando’s case, he was imprisoned for 18 years for a crime he did not commit. He had an alibi, and several alibi witnesses, but was convicted on the snitch testimony of an individual who was actually responsible for the murder.Read more about his story here.

Back to the op-ed. Mr. Schneiderman starts out saying that Fernando’s case is an example of the injustice exonerees face. Fernando’s case certainly is filled with injustice, and should be used as an example to prevent future miscarriages of justice. Our disagreement is with the truth behind the article.  The truth is that in the article, Mr. Schneiderman is hiding the role he plays in making sure Fernando’s suffering and fight continues for as long as possible. Because Fernando’s attorney signed the wrongful conviction claim in his case seeking restitution, Mr. Schneiderman claims that this forces the Attorney General’s office to fight the compensation case, stating “So, because his claim did not comply with this strict and highly technical requirement, my office must challenge his case in court.” What Mr. Schneiderman fails to note is that because of something called prosecutorial discretion, he could actually refuse to challenge the case in court; it’s well within his power to refuse to challenge, and help to rectify this injustice. However, for political and financial reasons, not having anything to do with a mistaken signature, his office is fighting this case, denying their financial obligations to the Bermudez family, while writing an article claiming to want the opposite, which would be fine, if it weren’t completely within his control to right this wrong.

Time and time again we see exonerees treated this way. They are wronged by the system, fight to prove that wrong, and when that wrong is finally recognized (in Fernando’s case, the judge declared him actually innocent – a first in NY history) they are given NOTHING. They then have to fight to get money owed to them under compensation statutes, which means going back to court. Prosecutors on behalf of the state, look for whatever reason, like say a supposedly invalid signature (though lawyers sign documents for their clients all the time when filing, so it’s a bit unclear as to why this should be any different) to fight the state’s obligation.  We have a person who has spent 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, who is seeking what the state owes him for this grave injustice, and the state is pointing fingers to avoid paying the bill. The Attorney General wants us to believe it’s because there’s a wrong signature somewhere, when really he just doesn’t want to be the one to sign the check.

Vermont Passes NEIP Authored Legislation

February 12th, 2014

Last week, the Vermont State Senate voted to pass two bills co-authored by the New England and National Innocence Projects. The two bills aim to mandate law enforcement’s use of best practices when conducting eyewitness identification procedures and false confessions. As research has shown, these are the leading contributing factors of wrongful convictions nationwide. In a study of the first 312 DNA exonerations, eyewitness misidentification was a factor in almost 75% of cases and false confessions were given in about 25%. These bills aim to reduce the prevalence of these factors by ensuring that their causes are addressed.

The eyewitness identification bill requires that every police department in the state of Vermont adopt a policy to conduct such identifications that includes a set of best practices such as giving instructions to the witness, administering the procedure blindly (where the administrator does not know the identity of the suspect), and using an adequate number of fillers.

The bill mandating the recording of custodial interrogations applies only to murder and sexual assault cases. Under the new law, police will be required to make an audio and video recording of the interrogation beginning after a suspect’s Miranda rights are read. In the case of both bills, the failure of the police to conduct the procedure in accordance with the statue will give defendants a way to fight the accuracy of that procedure in court.

NEIP is extremely happy that these bills have progressed this far and hope they will pass through the Vermont House of Representatives quickly and smoothly. We thank our partners in the Vermont legislature and our colleagues in New York for their immense support of this important work. We’d also like to recognize the amazing contributions to this work made by Chief William Brooks of Norwood and NEIP Exoneree Dennis Maher. Both traveled to Vermont with NEIP Staff Attorney, Andrew Pappone, on January 16 and testified brilliantly. Additional thanks to Jennifer Thompson who joined us by phone, and our colleagues in New York who provided an amazing amount of support and guidance throughout the process.

To learn more, read Attorney Pappone’s testimony delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of the bills or positive local media coverage in the Vermont Digger.

Report on Wrongful Convictions by NEIP Board Member David Meier

October 18th, 2013

In 2009, New England Innocence Project Board Member David Meier was asked to co-chair a task force to investigate the causes of Wrongful Conviction, and to provide recommendations to prevent the incarceration of the innocent. The report was featured and summarized in this month’s American College of Trial Lawyers bulletin, available here.

MA SJC Study Group Releases Reccomendations on Eyewitness Identification

October 8th, 2013

In late summer, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Study Group on Eyewitness Evidence released its report and recommendations to the justices. The long-awaited report includes five progressive recommendations to the SJC for improving eyewitness identification procedures and evidence. As recent research has indicated, eyewitness misidentification plays a role in approximately 79% of wrongful convictions, making this report a vital step forward as we work to prevent these convictions from occurring.

NEIP has contributed to the report over the last two years by collecting, collating, and analyzing every eyewitness identification policy from each city and town police department in Massachusetts that had one. NEIP gave this data to Norwood Police Chief Bill Brooks who sat on the Study Group and the Police Practices Subcommittee.

The mission of the Study Group and goal of the report was to “offer guidance as to how our courts can most effectively deter unnecessarily suggestive identification procedures and minimize the risk of wrongful conviction.” Made up of judges, prosecutors, defenders, law enforcement, and academics, the Study Group formed three subcommittees to examine police practices, pretrial hearings, and jury instructions.

The five recommendations provide an important way to minimize inaccurate identifications from investigative stages to trial proceedings:

Recommendation 1: Acknowledge Variables Affecting Identification Accuracy

The Study Group recommended that the SJC take judicial notice of legislative facts concerning the impact on accuracy of certain variables present in any identification. The report recommends that the SJC take notice of the important principles of modern psychology outlined in order to fully implement the other four recommendations. The study group argues that psychological research strongly indicates that stress, presence of a weapon, and certain poor police practices during investigation can, alongside other variables, contribute to misidentifications.

Recommendation 2: Develop a Model Policy and Implement Best Practices for Police Departments

The practices of police investigators in the early stages of eyewitness identification present the most easily controlled variables. The report recommends that all police departments across Massachusetts adopt a policy that is consistent with identified best practices and provides a model policy that departments can use. In addition, the study group stresses that police departments and the Commonwealth must commit to training officers in the new procedures. Finally, if there is a “substantial failure” to conduct the eyewitness identification procedure in accordance with the nine specific best practices laid out in the report, the group recommends that that failure trigger a pre-trial hearing to determine what, if any, remedy should be available to the defense up to and including suppression of the tainted identification.

Recommendation 3: Pre-Trial Hearings

One Year After Release, Case Against John Grega Dismissed

August 22nd, 2013

NEIP congratulates John Grega in a victory that has been nearly 20 years in the making; the state of Vermont has dismissed the charges against Mr. Grega in the case of his wife’s murder, a crime he has always maintained that he did not commit. On August 22, 2012, Mr. Grega was released from prison when DNA evidence excluded him as the source of the major contributor of DNA in the most relevant sample. Now, almost exactly a year later, Mr. Grega can breathe a sigh of relief as the state has dismissed the charges against him.

Mr. Grega was convicted in 1995 of killing his wife while they were on a family vacation with their 2 ½ year old son in West Dover, Vermont. Mr. Grega had no criminal record and no history of violence or mental illness, but police soon focused on him as a suspect in his wife’s murder. There were no witnesses to the crime and no physical evidence introduced at trial; Mr. Grega was convicted on circumstantial evidence alone and was the first person in Vermont’s history to receive a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. He now also has the distinction of being the first person in Vermont’s history to be released based on DNA evidence obtained under Vermont’s DNA access law.

Read the Notice of Dismissal here. The state is retesting existing evidence that had previously excluded John Grega, and hopes to enter the results into CODIS, the national DNA database, in an effort to find Christine Grega’s true killer. It’s important to note that while this is a huge victory for John Grega, his family, and supporters, the state has dismissed the case without prejudice, leaving the possibility of future litigation against Mr. Grega. It is an unfortunate reminder that in wrongful convictions, DNA exclusions and dismissals are rarely the end of the road.

Thanks to the efforts of Goodwin Procter LLP and local Vermont counsel, Ian Carleton, Mr. Grega is one step closer to enjoying his hard fought for freedom. Goodwin Procter took on the case as a member of NEIP’s pro bono network, and we are proud to call the firm one of our biggest continual supporters.

NEIP Holds 3rd Successful Innocence Training!

July 24th, 2013

The New England Innocence Project was so excited to host our third annual Innocence Training on Friday, July 12 at the Goodwin Procter Conference Center. The event was a huge success, with over 100 attorneys, prosecutors and members of law enforcement from all six New England states in attendance. Panelist member’s presentations included: Lessons Learned from the Wrongful Convictions Project, Best Practices in Crime Labs, DNA in Complex Cases, and Fingerprint Evidence in Transition. NEIP has received an overwhelming amount of positive feedback and plans to hold a similar program next year. Thanks to everyone who attended, and a special thanks to the presenters, Jon Gould, Michael Bromwich, Mary Kate McGilvray, Keith Inman, and Simon Cole who all donated their time and gave such wonderful presentations.

FBI Conducts Review of Hair Microscopy Cases

July 23rd, 2013

The FBI, in partnership with the Innocence Project and the National Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), has agreed to review over 2,000 criminal cases in which the microscopic analysis of hair samples may have been a deciding factor in a conviction. This is the next step in an ongoing investigation of over 20,000 cases from between 1985 and 2000 that were referred to the hair microscopy unit of the FBI labs. The date range was chosen in order to examine cases with computerized records and where DNA testing was unlikely to have already been completed. By 2000, DNA testing was routinely used instead or in conjunction with hair microscopy to provide more definitive results. Cases in this review involve individuals on death row who currently have set execution dates, as well as people who have already died in prison.

Hair microscopy is simply a qualitative analysis by forensic experts of multiple known and unknown hair samples at a very high magnification (40x-400x) under a microscope. According to Special Agent Ann Todd, a spokesperson for the FBI, they maintain that hair microscopy is “…a valid forensic technique and one that is still conducted at the lab,” but their willingness to undergo this unprecedented review process, as well as the history of wrongful convictions based on hair analysis, shows that the value of these types of observations may have been overstated in many cases. The review has already identified as many as 27 people on death row who were falsely implicated based on the exaggerated veracity of hair microscopy during trial.

While this review is a great victory for the cause of eliminating wrongful conviction in our justice system, it is only the tip of the iceberg. The cases under review by the FBI are limited to federal cases, but 95% of violent crimes are handled by state and local authorities and up to 1,000 state and local investigators have been trained by FBI investigators to apply the same standards. Undaunted by the scale of the problem, the co-director of the Innocence project, Peter Neufeld, is optimistic about the implications of the FBI’s cooperation in this review, saying that it “…signals a new era in this country that values science and recognizes that truth and justice should triumph over procedural obstacles.” Results from the review are expected by the end of the summer.

Read more:
McClatchy
FBI

Dennis Maher’s Freedomversary

June 14th, 2013

On Sunday, April 28 The New England Innocence Project celebrated the 10th anniversary of Dennis Maher’s exoneration. The gathering took place at the Tewksbury Wilmington Elks Club in Tewksbury, Massachusetts. The event was a huge success with over 50 guests attending, including the NEIP staff, Dennis Maher’s friends and family, and other individuals involved in his exoneration including Jay Carney, the prosecuting attorney who originally convicted him. The celebration included games and raffles for the children in attendance as well as a silent auction to raise proceeds for The New England Innocence Project and The Children’s Glaucoma Foundation.

In 1983, Dennis, a former sergeant in the U.S. Army was wrongfully sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Ten years ago he was exonerated through DNA evidence after serving 19 years of his sentence for crime he did not commit. Currently Dennis is happily married with two children and works full time. He is dedicated to promoting awareness about wrongful convictions by sharing his own story.

We would like to thank everyone who helped made the celebration a success and to Dennis and his family for allowing us to celebrate with them.

NEIP Team Attends Network Conference

May 3rd, 2013

Seven current and former NEIP staff members attended the Innocence Network Conference in Charlotte, North Carolina April 19-21. The Innocence Network is comprised of 63 independent organizations around the world who work to free the wrongfully convicted. Member Projects cover different geographical areas and have different case criteria. Some Projects will only take cases with DNA evidence, while others will accept cases where there is no DNA. NEIP will examine cases with no DNA where scientific testing or other investigative leads could establish a strong likelihood that an individual is factually innocent. Learn more about the Innocence Network here: http://www.innocencenetwork.org/

It was wonderful to meet so many inspiring people and to hear their stories. There were over 500 attendees, including 100 exonerees, at this year’s conference. The Network Conference provides an opportunity to foster community among exonerees and those who work on innocence issues. NEIP case assistant Cassie Macaione reflects on the weekend: “This year’s Innocence Network Conference was a great opportunity to meet people from all over the world who share the same passion as we do here at NEIP. The skills that I learned over the course of the weekend will truly help me throughout the course of my academic and professional years to come. I am so glad to be part of such an amazing community of people.” The Network Conference is the largest gathering of its kind and allows different Projects to come together and learn from one another. Local radio station WUNC 91.5 was at the conference and spoke with exonerees Audrey Edmonds and Bennie Starks about the struggles they have faced to clear their names. Joining them were Innocence Netowork President Keith Findley and Innocence Project attorney Vanessa Potkin. Listen to the piece here.

NEIP was also excited to honor Norwood Police Chief Bill Brooks, this year’s winner of the Innocence Network’s Champion of Justice Award. The award is given to public servants who go above and beyond in their efforts to free the wrongly convicted or reform the criminal justice system to prevent wrongful convictions. Chief Brooks has been a police academy instructor for over 25 years and a presenter on eyewitness identification for five years. He has partnered with many members of the Innocence Network and made a tremendous impact on eyewitness identification and other innocence-related reforms. He has traveled the country speaking to a range of criminal justice stakeholders and has trained thousands of members of law enforcement personnel on scientifically supported best practices related to eyewitness identification. NEIP is partnering with Bill Brooks and the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police to collect and analyze eyewitness identification procedures from police departments across the state. In conjunction with a SJC Study Group on Eyewitness Identification, the project aims to understand the prevalence of reform based policies containing best practices for eyewitness identification in the state of Massachusetts and explore ways to expand their use. This work will be used to help influence a new model policy regarding eyewitness identification that will be issued later in 2013.

Aidan’s Pub Fundraiser Big Success

April 11th, 2013

Monday, April 1 marked the first annual fundraiser at Aidan’s Pub in Bristol, Rhode Island to benefit the New England Innocence Project. We want to thank everyone who helped us to make the fundraiser such a big success! Betty Anne Waters spoke about her efforts to clear her brother Kenny’s name and secure his freedom. In an emotional talk, Dennis Maher spoke about the 19 years he spent in prison for a crime he did not commit before being cleared by DNA evidence. April 1, the date of the fundraiser, was the 10-year anniversary of when Dennis received the call from his attorney telling him that he would be going home.

We want to thank the law students at Roger Williams University Law School who helped to make the event a reality. The night was a huge success that we hope to make an annual tradition!

Exoneree Fernando Bermudez to Speak at Princeton University

March 1st, 2013

Exoneree Fernando Bermudez will be speaking at Princeton University on Wednesday, March 6 at 4:30. Fernando was exonerated in 2009 after spending 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Despite the lack of any physical evidence tying him to the scene of the crime, Fernando was convicted based on eyewitness identification and sentenced to 23 years-life. After five of the original eyewitnesses recanted their statements, a judge vacated the conviction on grounds of actual innocence. Fernando now lives in Connecticut with his family and speaks regularly about his experiences.

Read a 2007 NYT in-depth investigation of the case here.

NEIP Bids Goodbye to Executive Director Gretchen Bennett

January 14th, 2013

After nearly four years with NEIP, Executive Director Gretchen Bennett has resigned to pursue other opportunities. Gretchen began with NEIP in March 2009 as a part-time Project Coordinator, and became its first full-time Project Coordinator in February 2010. In November 2010, recognizing the scope of responsibilities the Project Coordinator held, NEIP’s Board formally designated her NEIP’s first Executive Director. Gretchen led NEIP into securing its first grant, expanding its mission beyond DNA cases and into a key partnership with the Committee for Public Counsel Services’ Innocence Litigation Unit. NEIP’s Board and supporters thank her for her valuable work on behalf of NEIP.

Staff Attorney Criselda Ruiz will be serving as Interim Executive Director.

NEIP Notes- Winter Updates from the New England Innocence Project

December 27th, 2012

Read an online version of our Winter Newsletter!

NEIP Board Member Profiled in Boston Globe Magazine

December 12th, 2012

The Boston Globe’s Sunday Magazine profiled NEIP Board of Trustee member David Meier for his work on the Massachusetts drug lab scandal. Meier was appointed by Governor Deval Patrick to oversee the review of thousands of cases that may be called into question by the scandal. As of late November, Meier’s team had identified 10,000 of the 34,000 people who may have had drug evidence in their cases analyzed by Dookhan. Of those 10,000, the priority is the 2,000 people who are currently in incarcerated on potentially faulty evidence.

Throughout his career, Meier has shown a strong desire to see justice achieved. During his time as a prosecutor, he helped to free several people who had been wrongfully convicted, in addition to putting criminals behind bars.

Read the full article about David Meier here.

Marvin Schechter appears on NPR

December 5th, 2012

Marvin Schechter was a guest on NPR’s “The Take Away” Monday morning to discuss the situation with Annie Dookhan at the Hinton Crime Lab. Marvin was a co-author of 2009’s groundbreaking National Academies of Science report critiquing the current state of forensic science in the United States. He has also presented at NEIP trainings about the NAS Report and forensic science.

Major problems have emerged at the Hinton State Crime Lab located in Jamaica Plain after evidence emerged that a chemist working in the lab since 2003 was not following lab protocols and in some cases, may have deliberately tampered with evidence. Reports suggest that chemist Annie Dookhan worked on over 60,000 samples potentially affecting up to 34,000 criminal cases.

Willingham’s Family Seeks Posthumous Pardon

October 25th, 2012

Twenty years ago, Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted of starting the fire that consumed his home and killed his three young daughters. On October 24, 2012 members of Willingham’s family filed a petition with the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles asking them to posthumously clear his name. The validity of Willingham’s conviction was called into question after advances made in arson science showed that the fire was based on flawed forensics. Despite evidence of his innocence, Willingham was executed for the crime on February 17, 2004. He always maintained his innocence.

You can read an in-depth investigation of Willingham’s case here.

Read more about advances in arson science on our website.

NEIP Holds 2nd Annual Exoneree Picnic!

October 11th, 2012

NEIP hosted a picnic for New England exonerees and their families on Sunday, October 7th at our new office right off the Boston Common. New England exonerees and their families joined NEIP staff for a day of food, games and discussion. This is the second annual exoneree picnic. Guests in attendance included Dennis Maher, who spent 19 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, and Betty Anne Waters, who put herself through law school to prove her brother Kenneth’s innocence. The event was designed to give exonerees the chance to discuss their struggles and successes adjusting to life after being freed from prison.

While some exonerees have found jobs, started families and bought houses, many struggle with the lack of resources available to help them transition to life on the outside. People who are proved innocent are often not eligible for the same post-release services available to people who are released after they complete their prison terms.

NEIP provides pro bono legal assistance to inmates who have claims of actual innocence. The New England Innocence Project’s mission is to represent persons wrongly convicted in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island or Vermont and to advocate for the reform of our criminal justice system. It is the New England Innocence Project’s vision that no one in New England will ever go to prison for a crime he or she did not commit.

Please consider making a donation so that we can continue to fulfill our mission of helping the wrongly convicted in New England.

Update- NEIP Board Member Chosen to Lead Review of Cases in Crime Lab Scandal

September 27th, 2012

Updated 9/28/12
This afternoon former lab technician Annie Dookhan was arrested at her home in Franklin following a lengthy investigation into her mishandling of evidence at a Jamaica Plain drug laboratory. She is expected to be arraigned this afternoon in Boston Municipal Court on two felony counts of obstruction of justice and one misdemeanor count of falsifying her academic record. NEIP is continuing to follow the situation and will update information as we receive it.

Originally posted 9/27/12
Major problems have emerged at the Hinton State Crime Lab located in Jamaica Plain after evidence emerged that a chemist working in the lab since 2003 was not following lab protocols and in some cases, may have deliberately tampered with evidence. Reports suggest that chemist Annie Dookhan worked on over 60,000 samples potentially affecting up to 34,000 criminal cases. By September 23, at least 11 defendants awaiting trial in drug cases had been set free due to the unreliability of the evidence used to convict them.

NEIP Board of trustee member David Meier has been appointed by Governor Deval Patrick to head a committee tasked with reviewing and identifying cases linked to Dookhan’s work. Meier worked as a prosecutor in Suffolk and Middlesex counties for 20 years before working as a defense attorney for the Boston firm Todd & Weld LLP. During his time as prosecutor, he helped overturn the wrongful convictions of Donnell Johnson and Marlon Passley.

Meier announced that up to 1,150 convictions could be called into question based on problems in the crime lab. These convictions represent defendants who were convicted of crimes based on the drug evidence analyzed by Dookhan, and who still remain incarcerated for those crimes in state prison or county jail. In the coming days and weeks, Meier’s team will work to identify others incarcerated in federal prison, those in jail waiting to be tried and people who have been freed on bail.

NEIP will continue to follow this story and report on developments.