* ABC7 last December…

Serious test questions about a Chicago lab could change the outcome of hundreds of impaired driving convictions in Illinois and that could unlock the jail doors for some DUI convicts.

After a months-long investigation, the ABC7 I-Team discovered some test results from a prominent Chicago lab used by prosecutors have been deemed unreliable and could be inaccurate.

The lab, University of Illinois Chicago Analytical Forensic Testing Laboratory, is accused of providing flawed test results in cases of driving-under the influence of marijuana, many of them resulting in motorists convicted and sent to jail, and there are allegations of a cover-up. […]

The University of Illinois Chicago has now stopped doing tests for marijuana in law enforcement cases

* Maya Dukmasova did a deep dive for Injustice Watch. Some dot points…

• Faulty science: Between 2016 and 2024 a forensic toxicology lab at the University of Illinois Chicago tested people’s bodily fluids for DUI-cannabis investigations using scientifically discredited methods and faulty machinery.
• A crisis concealed: Lab management knew its machines were not producing reliable results for THC blood tests, yet for years failed to notify law enforcement or fix their testing methods.
• Wrongful convictions: The senior forensic toxicologist at the lab testified in court cases in misleading ways, prosecutors later admitted, contributing to people being convicted for DUI offenses with little or no evidence they were intoxicated.
• Lack of transparency: After shuttering its human testing program last year, the lab finally issued a disclosure to 17 prosecutors’ offices admitting their test results may have been compromised going back years. However, the University of Illinois hasn’t taken any steps to notify the people whose body fluids were tested about the possibly compromised results.
• No oversight: Illinois has no meaningful forensic science oversight system. A recently created state forensic science commission has no authority to investigate complaints, shut down labs, discipline analysts, or issue legally binding findings.

* A few excerpts…

In a months-long investigation — including more than 45 Freedom of Information Act requests, more than 100 interviews, and a review of some 8,000 pages of public records — Injustice Watch found more than 2,200 cases in which body fluids were tested for THC by the UIC lab between 2016 and 2024. In addition to improperly testing urine for DUI-cannabis investigations, these sources indicate the lab was for years unable to differentiate between legal and illegal types of THC in people’s body fluids. Worse, internal records examined by Injustice Watch suggest the lab was aware of some of the problems in its testing since at least 2021 but continued to perform tests and report results to law enforcement, mostly in DUI cases. [UIC forensic toxicologist Jennifer Bash], meanwhile, repeatedly testified about the lab’s findings in inaccurate and misleading ways. […]

Injustice Watch also found university officials charged with overseeing the lab were focused on the lab’s financial performance, and not on the quality of its scientific work. According to internal emails, officials’ eventual decision to shut down human testing at the lab came as a result of its failure to generate revenue. […]

For nearly three years, the UIC lab kept testing blood and urine in DUI cases using a method unable to properly detect the presence of delta-9 THC — even though the state’s legal limits are tied exclusively to delta-9. […]

The accrediting agency’s audit report detailed a slew of problems at the lab: months of missing records on “calibrators and controls used in THC quantitative testing”; years of missing evaluations on THC measurement uncertainty; no procedure to “preclude an individual from technically reviewing their own work”; no instructions for reporting inconclusive results; failure to properly review and document complaints about laboratory activities. The instrument used for THC screening hadn’t received required annual maintenance in nearly two years. […]

Texas has a state law requiring prosecutors to continuously disclose evidence to defendants; prosecutors can be disciplined for failing to do so. There’s a “junk science writ” that allows people to seek new trials if they can show flaws in the forensic evidence used to convict them. Most recently, the state created a portal making crime lab files directly open to both prosecutors and defense attorneys, eliminating some of the burdens of transmitting evidence. […]

In researching an upcoming book, Stout found only eight states with laws requiring forensics labs to be accredited or certified to produce evidence used in criminal prosecutions. In this environment, bad science can flourish because most defendants, police officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges do not have the expertise to evaluate the validity of what scientists say.

Go read the rest, particularly if you are a legislator involved with this topic.