USA - New Study Finds That State Crime Labs Are Paid Per Conviction..

OFF THE WIRE
Radley Balko   

've previously written about the cognitive bias problem in state crime labs. This is the bias that can creep into the work of crime lab analysts when they report to, say, a state police agency, or the state attorney general. If they're considered part of the state's "team" -- if performance reviews and job assessments are done by police or prosecutors -- even the most honest and conscientious of analysts are at risk of cognitive bias. Hence, the countless and continuing crime lab scandals we've seen over the last couple decades. And this of course doesn't even touch on the more blatant examples of outright corruption.

In a new paper for the journal Criminal Justice Ethics, Roger Koppl and Meghan Sacks look at how the criminal justice system actually incentivizes wrongful convictions. In their section on state crime labs, they discover some astonishing new information about how many of these labs are funded.

Funding crime labs through court-assessed fees creates another channel for bias to enter crime lab analyses. In jurisdictions with this practice the crime lab receives a sum of money for each conviction of a given type. Ray Wickenheiser says, ‘‘Collection of court costs is the only stable source of funding for the Acadiana Crime Lab. $10 is received for each guilty plea or verdict from each speeding ticket, and $50 from each DWI (Driving While Impaired) and drug offense.’’

In Broward County, Florida, ‘‘Monies deposited in the Trust Fund are principally court costs assessed upon conviction of driving or boating under the influence ($50) or selling, manufacturing, delivery, or possession of a controlled substance ($100).’’

Several state statutory schemes require defendants to pay crime laboratory fees upon conviction. North Carolina General Statutes require, ‘‘[f]or the services of’’ the state or local crime lab, that judges in criminal cases assess a $600 fee to be charged ‘‘upon conviction’’ and remitted to the law enforcement agency containing the lab whenever that lab ‘‘performed DNA analysis of the crime, tests of bodily fluids of the defendant for the presence of alcohol or controlled substances, or analysis of any controlled substance possessed by the defendant or the defendant’s agent.’’

Illinois crime labs receive fees upon convictions for sex offenses, controlled substance offenses, and those involving driving under the influence. Mississippi crime labs require crime laboratory fees for various conviction types, including arson, aiding suicide, and driving while intoxicated.

Similar provisions exist in Alabama, New Mexico, Kentucky, New Jersey, Virginia, and, until recently, Michigan. Other states have broadened the scope even further. Washington statutes require a $100 crime lab fee for any conviction that involves lab analysis. Kansas statutes require offenders ‘‘to pay a separate court cost of $400 for every individual offense if forensic science or laboratory services or forensic computer examination services are provided in connection with the investigation.’’
In addition to those already listed, the following states also require crime lab fees in connection with various conviction types: Arizona, California, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

Think about how these fee structures play out in the day-to-day work in these labs. Every analyst knows that a test result implicating a suspect will result in a fee paid to the lab. Every result that clears a suspect means no fee. They're literally being paid to provide the analysis to win convictions. Their findings are then presented to juries as the careful, meticulous work of an objective scientist.

No wonder there have been so many scandals. I'm sure we'll continue to see more.

COMMENT, NUFF SAID...

Here's another email from a retired police officer in response to my book, and an accompanying article I wrote here at HuffPost:

Although I haven't read your book yet, I'll be downloading it to my Kindle soon, your article on HuffPo really hit me.

I'm a retired police lieutenant, first woman police officer in my community, also a Army Veteran. I knew I was book smart, backed with a 4.1 at the academy, as well as years in college. It was just the unknown if I could survive street duty with male officers who pretty much informed me that I was their enemy. You pretty much hit on everything that ran though my mind when I dealt with officers who had this warrior state of mind, especially when none of them had the military experience I had . . .

. . . I can understand the thin blue line you are hitting with the LEOs and LEAs on your book. I've dealt with it first hand as a woman officer. They made my life hell . . . I've even arrested one of my own for domestic violence, and refused orders from my previous lieutenant, who wanted me to ignore state domestic violence laws. It's tough dealing with this attitude, but when you consider it the right fight, you learn to deal with them and face it head on. Fortunately for me, when my county's sheriff found out that they were purposefully putting my life in danger on bad calls, he ordered his deputies to come and back me up, no matter what.

So there are other good cops who feel the same way, that these are communities of citizens with rights, and should be treated as such. But I did just want to take this time to tell you I am very glad to see a book that addresses this issue, it's long overdue.

This former officer asked that I not included her name. I previously posted some email feedback from former cops here.