LINKS TO USE FOR VIDEO
| Description | Link | |
| 1 – CRIME LAB SCANDALS | ||
| 1A | Massachusetts – USE LINKS Drug Lab Scandal Results in Convictions Dropped. Massachusetts drug lab chemist Annie Dookhan was caught faking results. Dismissals capped a five-year legal fight, longer than it took to discover, prosecute and punish Dookhan, who worked at the William A. Hinton State Laboratory Institute in Boston. When questioned by police, she admitted to a practice called “dry labbing,” identifying samples just by looking at them, rather than performing the required tests. She also admitted to tampering with samples, writing in a statement to police that she “turned a negative sample into a positive a few times.” | https://www.masslive.com/news/2012/09/annie_dookhan_former_state_che.html |
| 1B | Massachusetts – USE LINKS An investigation by the state attorney general found that from 2005 to 2013, Sonja Farak, 37, heavily abused various drugs including cocaine, LSD and methamphetamines and even manufactured her own crack cocaine using lab supplies. In 2014, Farak was sentenced to 18 months in jail. Article 9/14/20 | https://www.wbur.org/news/2020/09/14/sonja-farak-sutton-case-boston-hinton-lab |
| 1C | CALIFORNIA – USE LINKS Crime lab scandal rocked San Francisco district attorney • Neither the DA nor the prosecutors working for her had informed defense attorneys of the problems — despite rules requiring such disclosure. The DA “failed to disclose information that clearly should have been disclosed,” Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo wrote in a scathing decision in May 2010. • “Systematically violated defendants’ civil and constitutional rights” because her office hid “damaging information about a police drug lab technician and was indifferent to demands that it account for its failings.” • Office prosecuted cases that relied on crime lab testing, but defense attorneys were not told that evidence might have been tainted | https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/crime-lab-scandal-rocked-kamala-harriss-term-as-san-francisco-district-attorney/2019/03/06/825df094-392b-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html |
| 2 – MAX LORINCZ CASE | ||
| 2A | MAX LORINCZ -FOIA-For Emails-Granted By MSP | https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Max-LORINCZ-FOIA-For-Emails-Granted-By-MSP.pdf |
| MAX LORINCZ -Emails spell out alleged scandal in state crime lab testing, falsely reporting marijuana Fox-17 | https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Max-Lorincz-Emails-spell-out-alleged-scandal-in-state-crime-lab-testing-falsely-reporting-marijuana-Fox-17.jpg | |
| 2B | MAX LORINCZ -Exhibits-MSP-Lab-Reports | https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Max-Lorincz-MSP-Lab-Report.pdf |
| 2C | MI COA – People vs Campbell – Synthetic THC | https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/COA-People-vs-Campbell-Synthetic-THC.pdf |
| MAX LORINCZ- Email From Choate To Other Lab Techs about Synthetic vs Plant ID | https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/MAX-LORINCZ-Email-From-Choate-To-Other-Lab-Techs-about-Synthetic-vs-Plant-ID.pdf | |
| 3 – ROADSIDE DRUG TESTS | ||
| 3A | MSP-Oral_Fluid_Report – Roadside Spit Test 2018 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC ACT 243 OF 2016: Public Act 243 of 2016 authorized the Department of State Police to establish a pilot program in five counties in Michigan for roadside oral fluid testing to determine whether an individual is operating a vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance. The legislation stipulates that the preliminary oral fluid test will be performed by a certified Drug Recognition Expert (DRE). A certified drug recognition expert means a law enforcement officer trained to recognize impairment in a driver under the influence of a controlled substance rather than, or in addition to, alcohol. The MSP was tasked with developing a written policy and authorized to promulgate administrative rules as necessary for the implementation of the roadside oral fluid testing pilot program (Legislative Service Bureau, 2015). SUMMARY OF PUBLIC ACT 242 OF 2016: Public Act 242 of 2016 states that a peace officer who is certified as a DRE may administer a roadside oral fluid test if they have reason to believe a driver is operating a vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance, and the DRE may arrest a person in whole, or in part, upon the results of a preliminary oral fluid analysis. A person who refuses to submit to a preliminary oral fluid analysis upon a lawful request by a peace officer is responsible for a civil infraction. | https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/MSP-Oral_Fluid_Report_646833_7.pdf |
| 3B | Michigan State Police Impaired Driver Report The results cannot be used as evidence in determining if the driver was impaired. A Tool The roadside drug tests are meant as a screening tool to further support arrest for use once a motorist is suspected of being impaired. Results Results are only allowed into evidence at a criminal proceeding when there are questions surrounding the validity of an arrest, similar to the admission of a roadside breathalyzer tests. Results from the initial pilot program revealed roadside tests often produced positive results for drugs that were later found not to be present in the person’s blood. This occurred in 11 of 74 positive tests for THC, the psychoactive compound in marijuana; one of three positive tests for methamphetamine; six of 16 positive tests for amphetamines; and two of seven positive tests for cocaine. Critics of the test say there’s not good correlation between the amount of a substance found in a person’s saliva and their level of impairment | https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Michigan_Impaired_Driver_Report_2019-1553554601148_79160282_ver1.0_651633_7.pdf |
| 4A | State Police Lab Report-Blood-THC-ET 2020-01-09_Redacted MSP Report to Alma PD – Blood test results for THC | https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/State-Police-Lab-Report-Blood-THC-ET-2020-01-09_Redacted.pdf |
| OTHER | ||
| 4B | Forensic Science Lab to Oak Co Pros -Letter-Customer Request Error margin only by Customer Request | https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Forensic-Science-Lab-to-Oak-Co-Pros-Letter-Customer-Request.pdf |
| CASES | ||
| 4C | MI Supreme Court – Opinion – People vs Feezel 11 Carboxy THC | https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/MI-Supreme-Court-People-vs-Feezel-Opinion-138031.pdf |
ALL LINKS
| Description |
| CRIME LAB SCANDALS |
| Massachusetts – USE LINKS Drug Lab Scandal Results in Convictions Dropped. Massachusetts drug lab chemist Annie Dookhan was caught faking results. Dismissals capped a five-year legal fight, longer than it took to discover, prosecute and punish Dookhan, who worked at the William A. Hinton State Laboratory Institute in Boston. When questioned by police, she admitted to a practice called “dry labbing,” identifying samples just by looking at them, rather than performing the required tests. She also admitted to tampering with samples, writing in a statement to police that she “turned a negative sample into a positive a few times.” |
| Massachusetts – USE LINKS An investigation by the state attorney general found that from 2005 to 2013, Sonja Farak, 37, heavily abused various drugs including cocaine, LSD and methamphetamines and even manufactured her own crack cocaine using lab supplies. In 2014, Farak was sentenced to 18 months in jail. Article 9/14/20 |
| CALIFORNIA – USE LINKS Crime lab scandal rocked San Francisco district attorney Neither the DA nor the prosecutors working for her had informed defense attorneys of the problems — despite rules requiring such disclosure. The DA “failed to disclose information that clearly should have been disclosed,” Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo wrote in a scathing decision in May 2010.“Systematically violated defendants’ civil and constitutional rights” because her office hid “damaging information about a police drug lab technician and was indifferent to demands that it account for its failings.”Office prosecuted cases that relied on crime lab testing, but defense attorneys were not told that evidence might have been tainted |
| MAX LORINCZ CASE |
| MAX LORINCZ -FOIA-For Emails-Granted By MSP |
| MAX LORINCZ -Emails spell out alleged scandal in state crime lab testing, falsely reporting marijuana Fox-17 |
| MAX LORINCZ -Exhibits-MSP-Lab-Reports |
| MAX LORINCZ -MSP defends marijuana crime lab reporting after FOX 17 investigation |
| MAX LORINCZ -“A non-stop political game:” Former MSP Forensic Science director on false marijuana reporting allegations (Fox 17) Article |
| MAX LORINCZ- Email From Choate To Other Lab Techs about Synthetic vs Plant ID |
| MAX LORINCZ -Dr Paul Land – THC not synthetic – 3 pages |
| MAX LORINCZ -Lawsuit against Oakland County-Dismissed-Opinion |
| Crime Lab Quotes |
| ROADSIDE DRUG TESTS |
| The results cannot be used as evidence in determining if the driver was impaired. A Tool The roadside drug tests are meant as a screening tool to further support arrest for use once a motorist is suspected of being impaired. Results Results are only allowed into evidence at a criminal proceeding when there are questions surrounding the validity of an arrest, similar to the admission of a roadside breathalyzer tests. Results from the initial pilot program revealed roadside tests often produced positive results for drugs that were later found not to be present in the person’s blood. This occurred in 11 of 74 positive tests for THC, the psychoactive compound in marijuana; one of three positive tests for methamphetamine; six of 16 positive tests for amphetamines; and two of seven positive tests for cocaine. Critics of the test say there’s not good correlation between the amount of a substance found in a person’s saliva and their level of impairment See the Michigan State Police Impaired Driver Report here |
| State Police Lab Report-Blood-THC-ET 2020-01-09_Redacted MSP Report to Alma PD – Blood test results for THC |
| NIST – Quantative-Qualative Definition-Gormley What the NIST thinks about the definition of Qualative and Quantative |
| OTHER |
| Forensic Science Lab to Oak Co Pros -Letter-Customer Request Error margin only by Customer Request |
| Daubert Motion-Quash_Bindover-Synthetic THC |
| Daubert_Motion-Denied-Synthetic THC_Redacted |
| EMAIL-to-Komorn-Confirmation-BIAS_Redacted |
| EMAIL-Bennett MSP to Greia MSP- Exclude Blood Motion |
| Time Line- Joslin prep for 8 7 2016 evid h daubert |
| MSP-Forensic Science DIV-Letter to Chief Prosecutor |
| CASES |
| MI COA – People vs Campbell – Synthetic THC |
| MI COA – People vs Mansour 2018-0719 |
| MI COA – People vs Manuel |
| MI Supreme Court – Opinion – People vs Feezel 11 Carboxy THC |
| Revisiting Feezel – Komorn Law Blog |
| ARTICLES – BOOKS |
| John Kelley -False Positives Equal False Justice |
| John Kelley – DEA Law and Science Unto Itself |
| Chartier Mary and Vinsky Marisa – Digging Daubert – How to Use Expert Witness Challenges to Win Your Case |
| LAWS and RULES |
| Daubert vs Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Case |
| The Daubert Standard For Expert Testimony 1 |
| Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702 |
| Medical Marihuana Case Law Summary – Ken Stecker |
| Controlled Substance 1 – Public Health Code 333_7212 |
