Monday, November 23, 2015

Houston’s Forensic Lab: From National Disgrace to National Model

After many years of bad press, people nationwide had heard of the disastrous condition of the Houston Police Department Crime Laboratory, and similar stories emerged about labs around the country. The need for improvement became clear. However, comprehending the causes of dysfunctional labs, and more importantly, the path toward improving forensic labs remains elusive.

So, Grits has asked me to announce the publication of my book, Cops in Lab Coats: Curbing Wrongful Convictions through Independent Forensic Laboratories, published this year by Carolina Academic Press. The book addresses the national problems plaguing forensic science, holding up the Houston Police Department Crime Laboratory as a prime example. It details how shoddy forensic science contributed to the wrongful conviction of George Rodriguez who served 17 years in prison before being exonerated. The book then delves into the most critical areas of national concern in forensic science including cognitive bias in lab testing, underfunding of labs, proficiency testing, accreditation, forensic fraud, and the basic reliability of various forensic disciplines, among other issues. A press release about the book is found here. This month West Virginia University law professor Valena Beety announced on the Forensics Forum blog (announcement found here) that she will be publishing a book review on Cops in Lab Coats in the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law (book review is here).

The book does not just trash the HPD lab, however. It also tells the tale of a lab transformed. It details the city’s project to remove the lab from the organizational control of HPD and make it an independent lab. Making police labs independent of law enforcement was recommended by the National Academy of Sciences in their comprehensive report of forensic science (here). In April of 2014, the HPD Crime Lab ceased to exist, and the Houston Forensic Science Center took its place. In the process of making the lab independent, city leaders also invested in the lab, hiring leaders with national, and even international, reputations and providing support for improvements across the entire lab, leading to internationally-recognized accreditation for the lab which was announced in September of 2014. The elimination of its massive sexual assault kit backlog in 2013 is yet another way the lab has made huge strides of late, as reported by Grits here.

This month the Houston Forensic Science Center caused a national buzz in the forensic science community by announcing the adoption of blind systemic and proficiency testing in its toxicology section. The Cops in Lab Coats book details the importance of having proper quality controls in forensic testing, one of which is a rigorous system for checking an analyst’s proficiency and making sure the whole assembly line of work proceeds properly. While forensic lab representatives around the country have debated whether blind proficiency testing was even feasible, the Houston lab simply moved ahead and did it. I posted an announcement last week about the new blind proficiency testing here. This is only one of the ways the Houston lab is distinguishing itself these days, further buttressing the argument for independence and adequate funding in forensic science.

Ed. note: This is the inaugural post from Prof. Sandra Guerra Thompson, the latest of Grits phalanx of outstanding new contributing writers who brings with her years of academic experience focusing on many of the topics this blog covers. She was on the original Timothy Cole Panel on Wrongful Convictions, has published the new book described in this post on forensic error, and is the director of the Criminal Justice Institute at the University of Houston Law School. I'm excited she's agreed to write here and help class up the joint. Welcome aboard, Sandy!

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Congrats, HPD! Welcome to 20th Century science!

Now if we could only get the rest of the Texas forensic labs to catch up.

I think it might be interesting to ask WHY doesn't blind testing occur in the other crime labs? (Because ASCLD/LAB doesn't require it, duh....)

Hmmm...DPS?

It's always amazing to discover what is NOT BEING DONE in the name of science. That which is a "given" for even high school labs, is not a "given" for crime labs.

Sad.

Anonymous said...

In addition to all of these "progressive" policy wonks, how about adding some conservative voices into the stable of new contributing writers?

Anonymous said...

Does the book note this lab continues to have scandals and it has requested substantial increases in funding repeatedly? Houston is a low cost leader in employee compensation and routinely cuts corners in employee training to save money. As such, the employees it hires are more likely to be those rejected elsewhere or using city employment as a stepping stone. Given both current mayoral candidates have opened up the possibility of closing the overly expensive lab down under their reign, to rely on the Harris County lab, any improvements are not likely to last as the city struggles to keep taxes lower than other big cities.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

@6:04, I've asked a couple, we'll see if they bite.

@12:17, sure forensics must be funded. But the better way to find savings is for other players in the system to reduce the volume of cases sent to the labs. DPS' lab budget has skyrocketed and it's still not enough. These are related but separate issues from fixing lab processes.

Also, I seriously doubt the county and city will merge labs at this point. There was a moment when it seemed possible; less so, now.

Anonymous said...

@12:17-

Do you have references or documentation pertaining to the scandals? Please post.

Anonymous said...

Earlier this year, two lab employees were caught fudging results and last year there was at least one or two such cases as well according to the Chronicle. There will never be enough funding and training to institute best possible practices. There wouldn't be a merger between the city and county either, it would be the city contracting with the county to handle testing of evidence, Pasadena just announced it is doing so to save in excess of $5 million or more each year.

Anonymous said...

They have so much baggage even close to the time of the "separation" from HPD (still in the same building, same players in charge). They were in danger of their misdeeds catching up to them to the extent that no reasonable jury would trust their results if they were aware of the atrocities that have occurred their and how whistle blowers have been punished into silence if they reveal these secrets in trials. So they formed a new entity to shed their baggage and escape accountability.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:19, if even half what you claim is true, all the more reason to dump the city lab altogether in favor of the county lab.

Anonymous said...

Houston should review the happenings in DC as a warning: Politics always trumps science, especially forensic science. Prosecutors and cops get what they want, right or wrong, and the labs suffer. Fast answers are preferable to quality work, from the law's point of view. Police want fast arrests to hand the cases off to the prosecutors; prosecutors only want the witness to say what the defendant is guilty. (and defense attorneys typically don't know enough to do real damage). New Mayors bring change and baggage--if both candidates are looking to cut costs and put the city's lab burden on the county, probably going to happen. The public loves the idea of CSI but don't want to write the check for the work and quality. Dear Houston: Watch your backs!

Anonymous said...

Complementary reading...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2686231