Laboratory Analyst Falsifies Lab Report

A forensic laboratory analyst dry-labs cases. That is, they didn’t actually perform the forensic testing they are supposed to, and instead just simply authors reports that indicate a crime has occurred.

A former chemist with Erie County’s crime laboratory admitted she failed to conduct the proper forensic tests in a local drug case, but authorities say they don’t believe what was described as “sloppy” lab work had influenced the outcome of criminal cases.

Kelly McHugh, 36, of Hamburg, pleaded guilty last week in Buffalo City Court to second-degree attempted tampering with public records, a Class B misdemeanor, which carries a maximum of 90 days in jail, according to the Erie County district attorney’s office.

McHugh was fired from the Erie County forensic laboratory after issues with her work came to a head in February, triggering investigations by lab officials, the district attorney and state inspector general to determine the scope of the problem.

“I wanted to make sure no one was sitting in jail because of a false report she gave,” said Erie County District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III. “That was a top priority for me.”

It’s rather impressive she was fired. Usually it takes an act of congress to get an government employee fired!

Lab officials, meanwhile, examined a sampling of 564 of McHugh’s 1,420 cases from 2007 and 2009.

The lengthy investigation didn’t reveal any major discrepancies that would affect a pending or past criminal charge, Sedita said.

“We looked at all the cases and found no one was wrongfully convicted,” Sedita said.

But the investigation did uncover other incidents of lab misconduct, the state report pointed out.

In the most blatant example, McHugh examined a substance that tested positive for cocaine but failed to report that a retest showed no cocaine. In the end, the test didn’t have an impact on the case, but authorities called her action “inexcusable.”

McHugh wasn’t trying to falsely convict anyone, Sedita said, but she cut corners in her lab work.

I always LOVE it when a prosecutor states “no one was wrongfully convicted”. First of all, most prosecutors think everyone charged should be convicted, regardless of how they go about obtaining that conviction. It’s all very Machiavellian (the ends justify the means). Secondly, how do the prosecutors know how the jury would have ruled, had they not had the false testimony/lab report to use as part of deliberation.
Next time somewhere like Virginia complains about the Melendez-Diaz ruling, requiring the laboratory analyst to testify and be subject to cross-examination, due to the extra “costs”, remind them the defense needs this right, so that charlatans like this can be weeded out early.

Read the whole article in the Buffalo News.