By Caitlin
Barbas
The presence of evidence tampering within
a subset of the United States legal system results in a failure of the system
in performing a fair trial. Evidence tampering, which most commonly occurs
through the destruction, fabrication, and suppression of evidence,[1]
is a criminal offense often leading to a prison sentences or probation. Forms
of evidence tampering include actions such as submitting false laboratory data,
killing witnesses of a case, preventing the production of legal documents and
reports, and planting objects which would link an alleged offender to a crime.
This offense is regarded as highly serious as it results in costly mistrials
and, often, the dismissal of prison sentences, generating in a risk of both previously
incarcerating an innocent defendant and presently releasing a guilty offender.
In order to better comprehend the
stresses placed upon the legal system by the presence of evidence tampering, we
will analyze the details and outcome of a recent Massachusetts trial during
which a laboratory chemist “pleaded guilty to 27 counts of misleading
investigators, filing false reports, and tampering with evidence.”[2]
In August of 2012, the Hinton Laboratory,
operated under the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, in Jamaica
Plains, Boston was closed after police conducted an investigation into the
presence of falsified laboratory conclusions.[3]
In investigating the work of Annie Dookham, inconsistencies were found within
the data. These inconsistencies were result of “dry testing,”[4]
meaning Dookham only tested a portion of a sample entering the lab for drug
tests, while marking the entire sample as determined by the few. As a result of
the guilty verdict, all tests in which Dookham participated must be reviewed
for validity purposes, giving defendants the opportunity to appeal for review
of sentencing. It is estimated that over 40,000 cases were handled by Dookham
within a time frame of approximately nine years.[5]
As the investigation of the laboratory still
continues, the cost placed upon the Massachusetts justice system also continues
to rise. Having spent approximately $8.5 million as of November 5, 2013 on the
review of hundreds of trials and cases, the justice department has already
approved a budget of $8.6 million for the upcoming fiscal year.[6]
The scandal has already resulted in the dismissal of 1100 cases across 8
counties, though many more cases are also expected to require a review.[7]
Furthermore, of those who received a trial review and were released, 13% were
arrested and charged with allegedly committing a separate crime, including
murder.[8]
In understanding the details of this
case, we can clearly see the negative impact of evidence tampering on the
validity and efficiency of the legal system. Due to the possibility of having
convicted an innocent man based on false evidence, the sentencing of hundreds
of prisoners, whether innocent or guilty are reviewed and, often, removed. As evident by the high levels of re-arrest in
Massachusetts, evidence tampering results in the risked safety of the
community, as well in a monetary cost for the justice department, which must
review affected cases. Thus, the
seriousness of evidence tampering crimesis demonstrated as it results in a
widespread negative effect on the defendants of the trial, the victims if the
trial, society, which must face the release of prisoners and the cost of review.
[1] Sanchirico, Chris W.
"Evidence Tampering." Duke University Law Review. Accessed November
25, 2013.
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=dlj.
[2] Valencia, Milton J., and
John R. Ellement. "Annie Dookham Pleads Guilty in Drug Lab Scandal."
The Boston Globe. Accessed November 24, 2013.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/11/22/annie-dookhan-former-state-chemist-who-mishandled-drug-evidence-agrees-plead-guilty/7UU3hfZUof4DFJGoNUfXGO/story.html.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Salsberg, Bob. "Mass.
Chemist Pleads Guilty in Drug Lab Scandal." Associated Press. Accessed
November 24, 2013.
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/mass-chemist-pleads-guilty-in-drug-lab-scandal
[5] Valencia,
Milton J., and John R. Ellement. "Annie Dookham Pleads Guilty in Drug Lab
Scandal." The Boston Globe. Accessed November 24, 2013.
[6] Salsberg, Bob.
"Mass. Chemist Pleads Guilty in Drug Lab Scandal." Associated Press.
Accessed November 24, 2013
[7] Ibid.
[8] Valencia,
Milton J., and John R. Ellement. "Annie Dookham Pleads Guilty in Drug Lab
Scandal." The Boston Globe. Accessed November 24, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment