Court Orders Prosecutors To Stop Dragging Feet On 20k Convictions Resulting From Faked Drug Lab Tests

from the Move-a-bit-faster.-It-is-so-ordered. dept

In 2012, it was discovered that Annie Dookhan, a Massachusetts state drug lab technician, had falsified thousands of drug test results. Perhaps this would have been discovered before it became catastrophic, but supervisors seemed impressed with her productivity and dumped even more of the testing workload on her.

The end result of Dookhan's fakery was a caseload of well over 40,000 convictions that needed to be reexamined. It also resulted in Dookhan being sent to jail for three years. Dookhan is out now, but more than 20,000 of the possibly-tainted convictions still haven't been addressed. This makes it likely there are people still falsely incarcerated while the person who helped put them there is back on the streets.

Presiding over what's left of Dookhan's mess is Massachusetts' highest court. It has been weighing various solutions to expedite the processing of more than 20,000 possibly wrongful convictions. One suggestion is that all remaining convictions be immediately vacated, with the option left to state prosecutors to reopen any they feel are still legitimate.

State prosecutors, however, aren't nearly as willing to see 20,000 convictions overturned. Their suggestion is the complete opposite: that they be allowed to continue doing not much about it while people continue to do time for crimes they didn't commit, or live a less-full life thanks to a bogus felony conviction on their record. In fact, as Fault Lines' Josh Kendrick points out, the DA's office seems to feel wrongful convictions aren't really a big deal.

The DAs argued a majority of the affected defendants might not be interested in a remedy, because there was little adverse impact from a closed chapter in their life. The Court was skeptical of this argument, because it is bullshit highly unlikely anybody wants to keep a wrongful drug conviction on their record out of convenience.

The court thinks even less of the DA's mass mailing attempt to notify those affected by Dookhan's drug lab fakery. From the decision [PDF]:

The shortcomings begin with the envelope itself, which identified the source of the letter as "RG/2 Claims Administration LLC," a source that would appear inconsistent with the words on the envelope, "IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS." Such an envelope invites the risk that the notice might be unopened and discarded as "junk mail."

Among the shortcomings of the letter itself are that it failed adequately to inform the Dookhan defendants that the Supreme Judicial Court has determined that they are entitled to a conclusive presumption that the drug analysis in their case was tainted by egregious government misconduct. Nor did it adequately inform them that, as a result, this court has determined that they are entitled to withdraw their guilty plea on drug charges if they can show a reasonable probability that they would not have pleaded guilty, and instead would have decided to go to trial, had they known of Dookhan's misconduct.

[...]

The letter also failed to inform the Dookhan defendants that they had a right to counsel if they sought to withdraw their plea or move for a new trial and that, if they could not afford counsel, one would be appointed for them. Instead, it invited them to speak to their original lawyer on the case and, if they did not know how to contact that lawyer, invited them to obtain that information from the relevant criminal clerk's office. The letter also invited them to contact the office of the district attorney who prosecuted them "[f]or more information." It did not provide a telephone number for CPCS or for any other entity that conducts criminal defense.

Not only that, but nearly 6,000 of these letters were returned as undeliverable and the DA's office sent out less than 1,000 second attempts to different addresses. Half-assing its way towards cleaning up thousands of wrongful convictions isn't something the court is willing to let the DA's office continue doing.

The court splits the difference. It's better than allowing the DA's office to slow-walk the conviction rollback, but it's not nearly as expedient as vacating the remaining 20-24,000 convictions. First off, the court puts a strict time limit on the reexamination of the remaining cases.

Upon the issuance of this opinion, each district attorney shall commence an individualized review of every Dookhan case in his or her district that was included on the list that the district attorney earlier submitted to the single justice. No later than ninety days after the issuance of this opinion, each district attorney shall file three letters with the county clerk.

This is something the DA's office has had years to do but still hasn't. Now, it will have to complete this task within the next three months. The first letter would identify any cases where defendants pled guilty before Dookhan signed the drug certification. These defendants would not be given a presumption of egregious government misconduct if their cases are reopened. The second letter would contain a list of any convictions the DA's office has proactively chosen to dismiss with prejudice, whether or not it feels the conviction might hold up under reexamination. The third letter would contain any convictions the state feels would still hold up in court despite Dookhan's misconduct. Recipients of the first and third letters would be given access to public defenders during legal proceedings.

After this face, new attempts to notify Dookhan defendants will begin, with a letter whose content, envelope, and delivery method will all have to be approved by the court.

The mailing should permit a relevant Dookhan defendant to declare, simply by checking a box, that the defendant wishes to discuss with counsel whether the defendant should attempt to vacate his or her drug conviction by filing a motion for a new trial, and should also include a form indigency affidavit for the defendant to fill out if he or she claims to be indigent and therefore qualifies for the assignment of counsel. CPCS is encouraged to draft and include within the mailing a separate letter providing the legal guidance and information that CPCS would generally provide to a relevant Dookhan defendant who would telephone its hotline.

Better still, the court says the prosecutor's office will bear the full cost of these efforts.

The financial burden of notifying defendants of egregious government misconduct that affected their criminal cases must be borne by the prosecuting district attorney's office, even if, as here, the fault belongs to the Hinton lab and Dookhan, not the prosecutors. Therefore, the cost of providing new and adequate notice, including but not limited to the cost of mailing, of locating missing defendants, and of publicity through social and other media, shall be borne by the district attorneys, with the allocation of those costs to be determined by the single justice. We recognize that this cost could be considerable, but that is a consequence of egregious government misconduct that affected more than 20,000 defendants.

And if the prosecutor's' office doesn't like seeing its budget eaten up by these efforts to right the lab's wrongs, it has everything it needs to control the bleeding.

We also note that a district attorney may reduce the amount of this cost by reducing the number of defendants identified in the third letter.

The concurring opinion reinforces this point: stemming the bleeding relies heavily on the state's willingness to vacate convictions:

Just as the success of the Bridgeman II protocol will depend on its timely and rigorous implementation, so too will its viability turn, at least initially, on the willingness of the district attorneys promptly to dismiss with prejudice a truly significant number of the roughly 20,000 relevant Dookhan defendants' cases -- at a minimum, those for simple possession in which sentences already have been served. Not doing so in the first phase of the protocol will of necessity add to the already staggering human and financial costs of the scandal and risk overloading the already strained public defense system.

And it adds this chilling hint of things to come:

In this regard, we cannot turn a blind eye to the potential costs of the looming crisis of thus far undetermined magnitude caused in western Massachusetts by Sonja Farak, yet another rogue chemist employed by a State laboratory.

The dissenting opinion says the route the court didn't take -- immediate vacation of all affected convictions -- is the only correct way to shift the burden where it should be: from the falsely-convicted defendants to the office that convicted them.

Contrary to the court's assessment of the case-by-case procedure offered as the solution to the problem the court is obliged to solve, it is neither the fairest nor the best alternative for remedying the manifest injustice to the defendants caught up in the Dookhan scandal and for restoring the integrity to our criminal justice system. It fails as the "fairest" alternative because it flouts the guiding principle that "in the wake of government misconduct that has cast a shadow over the entire criminal justice system, it is most appropriate that the benefit of the remedy inure to the defendants." [...] It also fails as the "best" alternative because it is simply unworkable as a timely and effective mechanism for addressing the due process claims of the thousands of defendants now deemed to have been convicted on Dookhan's tainted evidence. In short, the court's solution is too little and too late.

The court is too timid to adopt the only remedy that's going to save the state from a nightmarish future. A justice hinted there's another set of bogus convictions on the horizon, possibly on the same scale as the Dookhan misconduct. How the hell is the state going to handle concurrent, overlapping attempts to right its drug lab's wrongs? The only way it can stay ahead of the damage done by its drug lab is to do what the court is unwilling to order: begin vacating sentences en masse. But the DA's office seems to believe it's better than plenty of innocent people remain locked up, than one guilty man go free.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2017 @ 8:39am

    But the DA's office seems to believe it's better than plenty of innocent people remain locked up, than one guilty man go free.

    Indeed. Only the guilty woman who set this in motion through her egregious misconduct should go free so soon.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Adam V, 25 Jan 2017 @ 11:06am

      Re:

      Wikipedia says she's been out 9 months already:

      > By April 2016, she had been granted parole and was subsequently released from prison.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2017 @ 1:33pm

        Re: Re:

        Which is fucking crazy. She should have gotten as many years as everyone who was unjustly prosecuted as a result her actions combined. The DAs who are letting people rot should also face charges for knowingly subverting justice because they're lazy or intentionally ignoring the injustice. They should be held to a higher standard. They're supposed to seek justice, not just prosecutions.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Jan 2017 @ 8:40am

    But we have to protect the conviction score we got.
    Who cares if we screwed people, they were all bad people(tm) anyways.

    Protecting the image of the office once again trumps justice. Wait until someone who was innocent sues to get repaid for all of the lost time as the state relied on tainted evidence & then pretended that wasn't reason enough to fix it quickly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2017 @ 9:09am

    Refreshing!

    It's refreshing to see a dissenting opinion that argues that the harsh punishment isn't harsh enough.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    bucky da beaver, 25 Jan 2017 @ 9:17am

    come to canada

    supere court jsut forced thousands of civil lawyers to start doing criminal law cause trials were taking too long , hte result civil suits are going to take 3-4 years to jsut get heard....

    get ready for people to say fuck the law and start beaing people up for there mistreatment now

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2017 @ 10:24am

    "The DAs argued a majority of the affected defendants might not be interested in a remedy"

    Has the DA since been fired for a gross display of pure, unconscionable incompetence?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2017 @ 10:38am

    The DAs argued a majority of the affected defendants might not be interested in a remedy, because there was little adverse impact from a closed chapter in their life.

    We can test that theory out pretty simply.

    For each person who works in this DA's office, put a comparable charge on their children(s)' records, regardless of guilt.

    Then let's see if that statement holds water.

    It amazes me that these vile pieces of shit would even consider saying that. Congratulations on being the reason why lawyer jokes exist in the first place.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 25 Jan 2017 @ 5:49pm

      Re:

      Not their children's records, theirs. If that charge is sufficient to disqualify them from their current position then that's just too bad, after all according to them it's not like a bogus drug relation charge is that big of a deal.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    I.T. Guy, 25 Jan 2017 @ 10:53am

    Hey man, those guys worked really hard to keep their private jails filled to capacity. Give em a break.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Personanongrata, 25 Jan 2017 @ 12:39pm

    Double-Blind

    In 2012, it was discovered that Annie Dookhan, a Massachusetts state drug lab technician, had falsified thousands of drug test results.

    Falsified drug test results are not a problem found solely in Massachusetts state laboratories/courts.

    Any time any of the entities (ie police, DA, lab) involved in an investigation have professional (or personal) relations, work for the same employer (ie Massachusetts) or operate within the same system (ie courts) there is the potential for bias. And once bias has been interjected into an investigation the results of the investigation become suspect.

    One way around this potential for bias is to have any evidence collected tested using some form of a double-blind testing method.

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/double-blind?s=t

    In a perfect world the police, DA and lab would not collaborate so closely in pursuit of justice.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Canuck, 25 Jan 2017 @ 4:18pm

    FFS, just toss ALL of the convictions already. Any collateral damage is the fault of Dookhan, her supervisors, and the agencies that didn't perform random checks on the lab's work.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anon, 25 Jan 2017 @ 6:02pm

    How about this

    Disbar all the prosecutors in that office, terminate the lab tech permanently or life in prison for her, and immediate release of all convicted under faked evidence.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2017 @ 6:42pm

    Re: still falsely incarcerated ...

    " still falsely incarcerated while the person who helped put them there is back on the streets. "

    This should read to prospective lab technicians as:

    Want to be a millionaire by the time your 25? Secure a percentage of a class action lawsuit with an attorney before going on the job, and then completely fuck things up.

    You'll be out in a few years, and you'll get a chunk of the pay due to everybody you sent to jail on false evidence!

    Who said that working for the state couldn't be lucrative?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    stine, 26 Jan 2017 @ 11:11am

    Can the judge not vacate the sentences?

    If the DAs continue to delay things, could the judge simple vacate all of the charges, at least of anyone on that list who's already completed their (ha) sentence and been released?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2017 @ 2:10pm

    I've posted this elsewhere but thought it's worth posting here as well.



    "guilty persons have been released to further endanger the public"

    Have they been convicted of doing something that will endanger the public? Because them simply doing drugs in and of itself doesn't endanger the public. Sure if they were driving and under the influence. But is that the case here?

    I have no problems with putting people in jail that endanger the public. But as far as I can am concerned they aren't doing that, they are simply wasting taxpayer money going after victimless crimes so they have something to grandstand about.

    And yes, drugs are bad and they can cause cognitive problems. People blame them for our lack of education. But all the money going towards the war on drugs can be used to fund better education and rehabilitation programs. Taxes from it can be used to fund these programs as well.

    and if the FDA really cares about human health they would legalize marijuana in favor of pain killers. Throughout the entire history of marijuana use worldwide there has only been a small handful of documented deaths caused by it yet every year in America alone more than one person per hour dies of painkillers. I'm not even sure if the documented marijuana related deaths were caused by marijuana itself or by a possible contaminant because the herb may have been obtained through the blank market (something a white market would remedy, not to mention a white market can easily improve how we prescribe it and create better contraindications through better experience and documentation).

    When Colorado legalized marijuana painkiller sales dropped in favor of marijuana so that tells me people are very willing to trade the more dangerous painkillers for the much much safer marijuana. If the FDA had any consideration for human health whatsoever they would be completely in favor of allowing people to use marijuana in place of painkillers. But the FDA doesn't care about you at all. They only care about corporate profits. That's the only agenda the agency has ever sought to serve.

    https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=17/01/27/0328204

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Close
Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.