Problems at Austin PD Crime Lab?

I received a copy of a letter that was sent from Debra Stephens, a former Senior Forensic Scientist with the Austin Police Department wherein she asked District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg to investigate possible wrongdoing in the Austin Police Department Crime Laboratory.    I have attached a copy of this letter in PDF form here.

In her letter, Ms. Stephens points out that in 2005 the Texas Legislature began requiring evidence presented in criminal courts in Texas come from accredited labs.  One of the requirements of the law was that certain personnel possess particular credentials.  None of the administrators, according to Ms. Stephens letter, possessed such credentials.  Thus, according to the letter, "Not only did these administrators not meet the qualifications of federal investigators, but they also did not meet the qualifications of the City of Austin personnel policies."  The letter goes on to allege that police administrators "did whatever they could to conceal this information."

Ms. Stephens goes on to explain that the controlled substance analysis that were being analyzed were being analyzed "without regard to proper laboratory procedures and without regard to policies required under the accreditation guidelines."  Such disregard "violates scientific methods at the most basic level."  

I have also came into possession of a letter from Texas DPS wherein they report on their apparent response to Ms. Stephens allegations.  In that letter found here, D. Pat Johnson, Deputy Assistant Director of the DPS Crime Lab said that the lab director, Mr. Gibbens meets the requirements to be lab director, thus dismisses that complaint.  

Assistant Director Johnson goes on to say that two of specific case files that Ms. Stephens stated had not been adequately tested prior to reports being issued did not have the date in which the preliminary testing was completed, but asked for further review of those files before a determination could be made as to whether any testing had actually been done before a report was released.  

In regards to Ms. Stephens allegation that appropriate reviews of controlled substance analysis were not done prior to reports being released, Assistant Director Johnson said that the lab does not specify when a review must be completed, therefore could make no judgments on her claim.

Assistant Director Johnson did recommend that the Austin Police Department not refer to "Preliminary Reports" as "Reports" until all analysis has been completed.  It is recommended that such analysis be referred to as "Preliminary Findings" "to more effectively distinguish them from the actual lab report."

Integrity in the analysis of samples sent to a crime lab is a fundamental right that every member of our community should expect the police department to protect with vigor.  It seems to me that Ms. Stephen's allegations calls for a more thorough review than they have so far received.  It is imperative that we have confidence in every stage of the criminal justice process.  I do not think that the DPS letter adequately addresses Ms. Stephens concerns and would like to see a better explanation as to what has been done to address her concerns, and whether defense counsel were notified of her concerns in the cases she specifically named.

To do otherwise is to require defense attorneys to delve deeply into the qualifications of each and every person who has had access to any lab specimen, and to delve just as deeply into both the scientific and administrative procedures of the crime lab.  To fail to do so might very well jeopardize reliability of any legal proceeding based on the scientific evidence and reports processed by this lab.

Anytime a scientist says that the procedures and processes being used are not scientifically reliable, and that innocent people may lose their freedom as a result then we need to take a long, hard look at those procedures and processes.  Our system of justice demands it, and with the ongoing Rachel Palmer scandal in Harris County, Texas right now, I think we need to take our police scientist a little more seriously than we have in the past when they tell us there is a problem.  It's time for a full investigation.  History has shown that if the District Attorney won't do it, a Grand Jury someday will.