In 38 states (MA included) crime labs report directly to prosecutors or police, what could possibly go wrong?

North Carolina; The work of the SBI crime lab has been under fire since February, when Greg Taylor, an innocent man, was freed after judges learned an SBI serologist withheld crucial evidence that proved a stain on Taylor's SUV wasn't blood.

Problems at the lab run deeper than blood. State law puts scientists at the lab on the prosecution's team, instead of assigning them as independent seekers of fact. Analysts sometimes don't run DNA or blood tests that might threaten prosecutors' theories. And they shield themselves from scrutiny, fighting against turning over records and forbidding defense experts from observing their work.

Such bias is not surprising, given that the lab is controlled by a law enforcement agency; North Carolina is one of 38 states where the lab reports to police or prosecutors. In 2009, the nation's most renowned scientists warned against such a setup in a wide-ranging study that included dozens of top lawyers, professors and judges.

One of their top recommendations: Forensic scientists shouldn't report to law enforcement or prosecutors.

"The best science is conducted in a scientific setting as opposed to a law enforcement setting," said the report from the National Academies, which advises on science, medicine and engineering. "Forensic science serves more than just law enforcement; and when it does serve law enforcement, it must be equally available to law enforcement officers, prosecutors and defendants in the criminal justice system."

Police deliver a set of clues along with boxes and envelopes of evidence from the crime scene. They offer a story of sorts, a set of assumptions made early in an investigation.

It's a faulty arrangement, according to the National Academies report, one that colors which tests are performed and their results. The dialogue between police and SBI lab analysts continues for months.

Analysts are expected to log calls with police and prosecutors. Sometimes those calls don't get noted. Memories of information swapped get foggy.

The majority of the time, examiners turn to prosecutors to provide feedback on their testimony.

At crime scenes, perfect DNA samples can be hard to find. In sexual assaults, the victim's profile has mixed with the rapist's. Often, the evidence is degraded, and scientists can only get a good look at a fraction of the 16 unique identifiers that make up one's DNA profile.

Crime labs adopt their own protocol on what constitutes a match between a suspect and a mixed or partial sample.


Links:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/08/12/625107/witness-for-the-prosecution-lab.html

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/08/11/623223/f-in-science.html

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/08/11/623224/games-agents-play.html