Closing NC:SBI Might Be Only Reasonable Solution

The fol­low­ing arti­cle sums up the prob­lems at the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation. Closing the lab, and start­ing anew with a lab that isn’t so indoc­tri­nated as an arm of the pros­e­cu­tion might be the only way for the pub­lic to have any faith in the results com­ing out of their state crime lab.

A report reveal­ing State Bureau of Investigation agents over­stated blood evi­dence in dozens of cases could force North Carolina to close its crime lab and change the agency’s secre­tive poli­cies, defense attor­neys and a for­mer pros­e­cu­tor said.

The state-ordered report found agents repeat­edly aided pros­e­cu­tors in obtain­ing con­vic­tions dur­ing a 16-year period, mostly by mis­rep­re­sent­ing blood evi­dence and keep­ing crit­i­cal notes from defense attorneys.

An agency spokes­woman would not com­ment on changes under con­sid­er­a­tion, though Attorney General Roy Cooper has urged the SBI to con­sider sug­ges­tions from peo­ple out­side the agency.

The SBI oper­ates with­out pub­lic over­sight. Its reports are not open to pub­lic inspec­tion even after a case is adju­di­cated unlike other police agen­cies that must fol­low the state’s pub­lic records law.

Defense attor­neys in Western North Carolina dur­ing inter­views last week called for the state to close the SBI lab and set up an inde­pen­dent lab pos­si­bly run by a pri­vate company.

They also said the SBI’s pol­icy of keep­ing its reports secret could be some­thing that law­mak­ers will scru­ti­nize in the com­ing months.

A for­mer pros­e­cu­tor said ram­i­fi­ca­tions from the report, authored by two for­mer FBI agents, could be more dam­ag­ing to the state’s crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem than the Duke lacrosse affair.

“It may actu­ally be more trou­bling because it is so wide­spread,” said Alan Leonard, who was an assis­tant dis­trict attor­ney in the state’s seven west­ern­most coun­ties and now rep­re­sents police in pri­vate prac­tice. “I don’t think we quite know the mag­ni­tude of it yet.”

The review found 230 cases in which eight SBI ana­lysts filed reports that, at best, were incom­plete. Of those, 190 resulted in crim­i­nal charges.

The report says the lab may have vio­lated fed­eral and state laws man­dat­ing that evi­dence favor­able to defen­dants be shared with their lawyers.

It also bol­sters defense attor­neys’ long-held argu­ment that the lab is in the pocket of law enforcement.

Read the rest of the arti­cle on the Citizen Times online.