Investigation: ‘Gold Standard’ Of Evidence Turned To Pyrite By Colorado Crime Lab Employee

Law enforcement investigators and prosecutors have overwhelmingly embraced plenty of pseudoscience over the years, treating everything from bite marks to hair samples as conclusive evidence capable of singling out guilty parties.

Most claims were specious, backed only by expert" statements from law enforcement crime lab employees solely interested in confirming prevailing law enforcement theories. And that's when things are on the up and up. In multiple cases, forensic scientists and other crime lab employees have faked tests and falsified evidence to cover up everything from laziness to their own illegal drub habits.

DNA has long been considered the evidence no one can question. But it's far from fallible. DNA indicates little more than something exists where other people exists. DNA is prone to cross-contamination - something that led law enforcement on a years-long pursuit of a nonexistent serial killer before investigators realized the DNA found at multiple crime scenes was actually that of the person packing the swabs investigators used when examining crime scenes.

Multiple factors make DNA far less reliable than it's portrayed in popular media. DNA can be taken from one scene and deposited at another. Exclusion-focused tests can result in false positives simply by deciding the most common DNA at the site is an indicator of guilt. The lack of rigorous, consistent standards across all law enforcement agencies means a lot of so-called evidence" derived from DNA at crime scenes is mostly the result of a forensic examiner's interpretation of the data, rather than an empirical conclusion based on standardized best practices.

Then there's things like this, where whatever value DNA evidence might have had was destroyed by lab misconduct, as Emma Tucker and Andi Babineau report for CNN.

A now-former forensic scientist with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) manipulated or omitted DNA test results in hundreds of cases, an internal affairs investigation found, which prompted a full review of her work during her nearly 30-year career at the agency.

The CBIreleased the findingsof the investigation into Yvonne Missy" Woods Friday, which concluded Woods' handling of DNA testing data affected 652 cases between 2008 and 2023, including posting incomplete results in some cases. A review of her work from 1994 to 2008 is also underway, according to the CBI.

This discovery puts all of her work in question, and CBI is in the process of reviewing all her previous work for data manipulation to ensure the integrity of all CBI laboratory results," the agency said. CBI brought in third-party investigative resources to protect the integrity of the inquiry."

These weren't the actions of a new hire who simply didn't know what they were doing or thought the real purpose of their employment was to support whatever investigators suggested would be the proper conclusion. Yvonne Woods worked for the CBI's crime lab for nearly 30 years before her malfeasance was uncovered.

And this isn't even all of it. What's detailed above only covers half her career. Another investigation is underway to look into the details of her first 15 years of employment by the state.

As for Woods, her lawyer insists this was nothing more than a bit of incomplete paperwork. Attorney Ryan Brackey claims Woods never created or reported any false inculpatory DNA matches or exclusions." Maybe so, but that's not what the CBI's investigation (performed in conjunction with the Kansas Bureau of Investigation) determined.

The agency said its forensics team discovered Woods deleted and altered data that served to conceal evidence of her tampering as well as her failure to troubleshoot issues within the testing process." The agency said Woods' manipulations appear to have been the result of intentional conduct."

This says something else. It says tampered evidence made its way into court and that evidence of this tampering was covered up by the forensic scientist.

Woods' attorney also claims she never testified falsely" in any hearing or trial that resulted in a false conviction or wrongful imprisonment. And, sure, this could possibly be true. But if the state's Bureau of Investigation has already found 15 years of wrongdoing (and is currently digging into the other 15 years), the only way this assertion could be considered true at this point is if Woods never offered testimony during criminal proceedings.

And that's obviously not the case:

Boulder District Attorney Michael Dougherty told CNN in a statement his office has identified 15 open cases and 55 closed cases in which Woods has testified as a witness.

One lawsuit naming Woods as part of the chain of events leading to the wrongful imprisonment of a man has been filed. With the results of the first half of the CBI's investigation being made public - along with the date range and approximate number of cases affected - there will certainly be more to follow.

DNA's only as good as the people examining it and the processes they follow. In the case of Woods and the CBI crime lab, this evidence doesn't even begin to approach anything considered to be a gold standard." Instead, it's just one thing to be manipulated in favor of law enforcement or, at best, something to be handled as carelessly as routine clerical busywork.