Houston PD analysts faked drug evidence in four cases. How much more fraud has gone undetected?

The most recent chapter in Houston's crime lab drama prompts a question. Which is worse: officials who turned a blind eye to police misconduct, or the unguessable number of defendants who might have been wrongly convicted? Both injustices demand prompt redress, and accountability must be pursued up the full chain of command.

This week, an independent investigator reported that yet another Houston Police Department crime lab division — controlled substances — engaged in appalling, and possibly criminal, misconduct. Two analysts at the lab, which processes about 75 percent of HPD's forensics workload, allegedly took part in at least four cases of "drylabbing" — fabricating test results, twice without conducting tests at all. The fact that police have a term for it suggests that such misconduct is not that unusual.

In one 1998 episode, an analyst invented evidence to support an HPD investigator's thesis: "The analyst never tested the tablets recovered from the defendant, but rather, tested a standard sample ... and reported those results as though the tests related to the tablets possessed by the defendant," the outside investigator reported. In 2000, the same analyst didn't even bother fabricating, instead plucking test results from a colleague's case and presenting them as his own. When the misconduct was uncovered, the analyst resigned to avoid being fired.

The other accused analyst allegedly falsified results twice. In one instance, the analyst identified pills as a controlled substance without bothering to test them. Incredibly, this analyst received a mere reprimand — and still works at the crime lab today.

According to Chronicle reporters Roma Khanna and Steve McVicker, the analysts' supervisors caught each fraudulent finding before it could be introduced as evidence in court. But punishment for these grave misdeeds was mystifyingly squelched. To its credit, HPD forwarded findings about one analyst to the Harris County district attorney's office. But the DA chose not to prosecute.

If the lack of official follow-up is troubling, District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal's explanation is downright chilling. In a telephone interview with McVicker Wednesday, Rosenthal said the analyst reviewed by his office didn't merit prosecution, because his actions simply reflected improper procedure or sloppiness. But there is nothing sloppy about consciously crafting false evidence, knowing it could result in wrongful conviction. Presented in a courtroom, such false evidence might have been considered perjury. Left in the laboratory, both analysts' handiwork still might qualify as manipulated government records. Because the fabrications were allegedly deliberate, the two workers should have been subjected to legal scrutiny. That one of the analysts still has his job is incomprehensible.

In the aftermath, the decision-making process of the whole crime lab hierarchy, and of Rosenthal's staff, as well, merits scrutiny. Since civil rights questions could be involved, this might be a job for the U.S. attorney. Investigating why the analysts eluded prosecution is just the first step in fixing the drug lab debacle. It will take longer -— if it even is possible — to review all the convictions that may have resulted from drug lab foul play.


Report here


(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)