420
Founder
A low-level drug charge against a Decatur man has been dismissed after evidence was destroyed by the Indiana State Police lab before the trial. State police blamed the error on a miscommunication and said it was an isolated occurrence.
The destroyed evidence comes on the heels of the discovery of mold growing at the Fort Wayne lab on biological evidence from five cases - -- one homicide and four sexual assaults. The mold discovery led a forensics expert to question the lab's competence.
Stephen A. Huffine, 43, of the 300 block of Roeville Road in Decatur, had been scheduled for trial in Adams Superior Court on Oct. 24 on a possession of marijuana charge, but Adams County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Tracy Noetzel filed a motion to dismiss the case Oct. 21.
The motion said the evidence was "inadvertently destroyed by the Indiana State Police Laboratory and the state is unable to pursue this matter."
Judge James A. Heimann granted the request and dismissed the case.
Huffine's case had been pending for nearly 18 months. He was arrested in August 2004 after a state trooper stopped him for speeding on Indiana 101. Shortly before being pulled over, Huffine tossed something from his car, which the trooper retrieved and found to be a bag of marijuana, according to court records.
Lab employees destroyed the evidence in Huffine's case after reading a supplemental report written by the trooper, where he had checked off a box indicating that the evidence was of no value and could be destroyed, said Sgt. Rodger Popplewell, state police spokesman.
In an attempt to make paperwork more useful to the troopers, state police used a new form for a few days that contributed to the miscommunication, Popplewell said. The paperwork, which had been used for only a few days, gave troopers a list of options with boxes to be checked off, including one that stated evidence was of no value and could be destroyed, he said.
Officials found the paperwork created more confusion and reverted to using the old forms, which require the trooper to write in his or her own words what should happen to the evidence, Popplewell said.
In Huffine's case, the box ordering the destruction of the evidence was checked accidentally and the lab believed it was OK to destroy it, Popplewell said.
No other cases were affected by the new forms, he said.
Popplewell said the evidence in the Huffine case had been analyzed and the results could have been used in court. The prosecutors could have also used testimony related to the testing of the evidence, he said.
Huffine's attorney, Don Swanson, was not available for comment Monday.
Allen County defense attorney Michelle F. Kraus said she has heard of cases where evidence was destroyed prematurely, but in this case the marijuana was a key element for the prosecution. She said the prosecutor should be commended for dismissing the case.
The dismissal of Huffine's case came less than a week after the same lab confronted problems with mold growing on biological evidence.
About two weeks ago, the trial in a high-profile Allen County sexual assault case had to be continued because mold was growing on biological evidence gathered in the case. The mold was growing on biological evidence from four other cases as well, but Popplewell said none was affected by it, meaning there was enough evidence left to extract valuable samples.
A forensic science consultant from California, Ed Blake, questioned the lab's competence after hearing about the mold. He compared the problem to food growing moldy in the refrigerator, adding that mold can grow only in a moist environment and that the first rule of forensic science is to dry out evidence before storing it.
Popplewell said the lab's competence should not be questioned and the recent problems should not concern anyone "because of the number of cases they handle annually."
Popplewell said the lab processes evidence from about 3,000 cases a year, and each case may contain many pieces of evidence.
"They are professional and very thorough in their work," he said, adding that lab employees are competent.
But repeated mistakes give defense attorneys ammunition against the lab and prosecutors, Kraus said.
"It opens the door to question the competency ( of the lab )," Kraus said.
Typically during jury trials, Kraus stipulates to lab employees' educational backgrounds and testing procedures to spare jurors from generally boring testimony and accepted information by the attorneys. The recent problems at the lab may change that practice, she said.
"You can no longer presume ( testing ) was done correctly," Kraus said. "If you are doing your job as a defense attorney, you can't ignore it."
She agrees the number of cases processed by the lab is a contributing factor, but unlike Popplewell, Kraus believes the lab may be overwhelmed by the amount of evidence to be processed.
In the end, the problems could cost taxpayers more, she said.
Reviewing lab procedures in each case means public defenders must take more depositions from lab employees -- taking away from their time in the lab and adding to the expense of the public defense, she said.
Source: Journal Gazette, The (IN)
Copyright: 2005 The Journal Gazette
Contact: letters@jg.net
Website: https://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/
The destroyed evidence comes on the heels of the discovery of mold growing at the Fort Wayne lab on biological evidence from five cases - -- one homicide and four sexual assaults. The mold discovery led a forensics expert to question the lab's competence.
Stephen A. Huffine, 43, of the 300 block of Roeville Road in Decatur, had been scheduled for trial in Adams Superior Court on Oct. 24 on a possession of marijuana charge, but Adams County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Tracy Noetzel filed a motion to dismiss the case Oct. 21.
The motion said the evidence was "inadvertently destroyed by the Indiana State Police Laboratory and the state is unable to pursue this matter."
Judge James A. Heimann granted the request and dismissed the case.
Huffine's case had been pending for nearly 18 months. He was arrested in August 2004 after a state trooper stopped him for speeding on Indiana 101. Shortly before being pulled over, Huffine tossed something from his car, which the trooper retrieved and found to be a bag of marijuana, according to court records.
Lab employees destroyed the evidence in Huffine's case after reading a supplemental report written by the trooper, where he had checked off a box indicating that the evidence was of no value and could be destroyed, said Sgt. Rodger Popplewell, state police spokesman.
In an attempt to make paperwork more useful to the troopers, state police used a new form for a few days that contributed to the miscommunication, Popplewell said. The paperwork, which had been used for only a few days, gave troopers a list of options with boxes to be checked off, including one that stated evidence was of no value and could be destroyed, he said.
Officials found the paperwork created more confusion and reverted to using the old forms, which require the trooper to write in his or her own words what should happen to the evidence, Popplewell said.
In Huffine's case, the box ordering the destruction of the evidence was checked accidentally and the lab believed it was OK to destroy it, Popplewell said.
No other cases were affected by the new forms, he said.
Popplewell said the evidence in the Huffine case had been analyzed and the results could have been used in court. The prosecutors could have also used testimony related to the testing of the evidence, he said.
Huffine's attorney, Don Swanson, was not available for comment Monday.
Allen County defense attorney Michelle F. Kraus said she has heard of cases where evidence was destroyed prematurely, but in this case the marijuana was a key element for the prosecution. She said the prosecutor should be commended for dismissing the case.
The dismissal of Huffine's case came less than a week after the same lab confronted problems with mold growing on biological evidence.
About two weeks ago, the trial in a high-profile Allen County sexual assault case had to be continued because mold was growing on biological evidence gathered in the case. The mold was growing on biological evidence from four other cases as well, but Popplewell said none was affected by it, meaning there was enough evidence left to extract valuable samples.
A forensic science consultant from California, Ed Blake, questioned the lab's competence after hearing about the mold. He compared the problem to food growing moldy in the refrigerator, adding that mold can grow only in a moist environment and that the first rule of forensic science is to dry out evidence before storing it.
Popplewell said the lab's competence should not be questioned and the recent problems should not concern anyone "because of the number of cases they handle annually."
Popplewell said the lab processes evidence from about 3,000 cases a year, and each case may contain many pieces of evidence.
"They are professional and very thorough in their work," he said, adding that lab employees are competent.
But repeated mistakes give defense attorneys ammunition against the lab and prosecutors, Kraus said.
"It opens the door to question the competency ( of the lab )," Kraus said.
Typically during jury trials, Kraus stipulates to lab employees' educational backgrounds and testing procedures to spare jurors from generally boring testimony and accepted information by the attorneys. The recent problems at the lab may change that practice, she said.
"You can no longer presume ( testing ) was done correctly," Kraus said. "If you are doing your job as a defense attorney, you can't ignore it."
She agrees the number of cases processed by the lab is a contributing factor, but unlike Popplewell, Kraus believes the lab may be overwhelmed by the amount of evidence to be processed.
In the end, the problems could cost taxpayers more, she said.
Reviewing lab procedures in each case means public defenders must take more depositions from lab employees -- taking away from their time in the lab and adding to the expense of the public defense, she said.
Source: Journal Gazette, The (IN)
Copyright: 2005 The Journal Gazette
Contact: letters@jg.net
Website: https://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/
