|
|
Monday, February 4, 2013
By Michael Nichols
Categories: Drunk-Driving
The Washington D.C. forensic lab is now just over 3 months old. The lab is an experiment in itself: it is not part of any law enforcement agency. East Lansing OWI-OWID Attorney Mike Nichols says that the efforts of the District of Columbia should be hailed: “the forensic services work in Michigan is done exclusively by the Michigan State Police,” says Nichols. Nichols adds: “the police and prosecutors have exclusive use, possession and control of evidence before, during and after it is tested. That is wrong. It creates an inherent bias no matter how hard the lab analyst works to avoid it.”
An article in the National Law Journal on the D.C. experiment is here:
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/01/in-qa-dc-forensic-sciences-chief-says-lab-moving-toward-accreditation.html
Nichols says that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was critical of the tie between labs that are supposed to do independent scientific testing and law enforcement. The conflict of interest may be perception, but the NAS called for independence for laboratories that analyze forensic evidence to avoid even the perception of a bias. “I had a real telling example recently during a hearing on a motion to exclude blood alcohol evidence in a case” Nichols says – “the supervisor of the toxicology unit testified about his career path and during that testimony he revealed that he wanted to be a police officer in college, changed his mind yet disclosed that he still wanted to serve in law enforcement but in a way that was suited to his skill set. In other words, he wants to use laboratory analysis to help prosecute people arrested by police officers.”
For a lawyer who is a leader in forensic evidence issues, will speak at the American Academy of Forensic Science and who teaches forensic evidence to other lawyers and to law students, call Mike Nichols at 517.432.9000 or mnichols@nicholslaw.net