• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

DNA Puzzle Strengthens Case for Lab Oversight

Posted on: Tuesday, 22 February 2005, 09:00 CST

What in the world is going on?

Either three eyewitnesses are wrong in the case of Arthur Lee Whitfield or the state forensic lab is wrong.

The eyewitnesses say they are absolutely certain Whitfield is the man who attacked them in 1981. They supply physical details to support their case.

But the Division of Forensic Science has performed DNA tests that, in the words of a senior assistant attorney general, if fully credited, would completely exonerate Whitfield in the two cases for which he spent nearly 22 years in prison. Whitfield was freed last summer, and state lab tests implicated another man.

The third case, which did not culminate in rape, did not go to trial.

The attorney generals office has asked Norfolk Circuit Court to sort out the confusion. Since pure science does not lie, there are two options: Either the eyewitnesses are wrong, or human error occurred at the state lab.

Without choosing sides, the mere possibility of the latter crystallizes the need to perfect legislation creating stronger scientific oversight for the Division of Forensic Science.

Bills making their way through the General Assembly elevate DFS to a department, expand resources and create a scientific advisory panel reporting to a policy board. Thats a strong combination.

But the legislation, as currently drawn, doesnt provide the level of independent scrutiny that a crime-conscious state deserves. Certainty at the state lab isnt needed just to protect the innocent; its also essential not to let the guilty go free.

A scientific advisory panel adds a critical layer of insurance but only if the panel is filled with independent thinkers and top- notch scientific minds.

The current proposal calls for the panel to be stocked mostly with forensic scientists. That invites suspicion of cronyism and unnecessarily limits the talent pool. A mix of clinical and forensic scientists, all with doctoral degrees, would be far superior.

Also, the scientific panel needs clear authority to launch its own investigations into allegations of error at the lab. As currently drawn, the bill only allows the lab director, the governor or the labs policy board to order a review.

In the wake of a series of forensic lab breakdowns across the nation, Congress recently ordered every state to designate an independent auditing body. Sponsors of the current legislation expect the policy board, assisted by the scientific panel, to serve that function.

But its hard to see how either a policy board weighted heavily toward Virginia law enforcement and criminal justice officials or a scientific panel lacking the ability to initiate investigations fills the role.

DNA tests from the state lab affirm Arthur Whitfields innocence. Yet the attorney generals office, without taking sides, lays out evidence in court that suggests otherwise.

The dispute forms a compelling argument for the strongest possible assurance that the Virginia state lab is error free.

Source: Virginian - Pilot

More News in this Category