FBI Warns of Possible Flaws in Lab Evidence

WASHINGTON —  Fearing that an undetermined number of federal prosecutions could be put in jeopardy, Justice Department officials said Thursday that they have been telling prosecutors and defense attorneys across the country in recent weeks about potential flaws in evidence caused by serious problems at the FBI crime laboratory here.

In the department’s first comments about a still-secret inspector general’s report on the lab, Deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie S. Gorelick said that officials have sought to preserve the integrity of prosecutions by reporting evidentiary problems to both sides.

Gorelick said that she hopes no prosecutions will be compromised by the alleged misconduct and sloppy procedures in the FBI’s lab. But several former federal prosecutors and legal experts disagreed, saying that hundreds of prosecutions could be affected.

These legal authorities said that shortcomings uncovered by the investigation could force the dismissal of some charges in federal or state prosecutions where FBI lab reports were crucial. New hearings could be granted in current cases and some old cases could be reopened, they added.

“This is explosive,” said Neal Sonnett, a Miami defense attorney and former federal prosecutor.

“They have had such a wonderful reputation, but if that is called into question it could have a devastating effect in many cases.”

The lead federal public defender in Orange County said that even the perception of a widening scandal at the FBI lab would make jurors more skeptical of the agency’s scientific investigations, helping defense attorneys who seek to establish a shadow of a doubt about evidence.

“Jurors look at these [FBI] guys and think they don’t make mistakes, that they can’t be wrong or questioned,” said H. Dean Steward, an assistant federal public defender. “This may suggest to the jurors that these witnesses might be as fallible as other witnesses. Their work is subject to human error or, as is now being suggested, maybe more.”

The fallout of the unfolding scandal could create a flood of court motions and case delays, attorneys said.

“This is going to be a royal pain in the neck for judges and prosecutors,” said Joseph DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia. He predicted that judges would grant many defense motions for additional data about FBI lab tests.

In a briefing for reporters, Gorelick acknowledged that “a serious set of problems” had been found during the inquiry, but she insisted that efforts have been underway to correct them, partly with help from a panel of outside scientists.

Some details of the inspector general’s report emerged earlier this week when the FBI transferred three laboratory officials and suspended another for poor management.

Although first reports suggested that the lab was found to have used sloppy procedures in some cases, documents obtained by The Times said investigators also uncovered far more serious allegations that lab employees were pressured to alter the conclusions of their analyses of evidence and that supervisors sometimes changed the findings to support criminal prosecutions.

Gorelick declined comment when asked if the inspector general has concluded that those allegations, made by several lab workers, had been proved.

The FBI is still “the best law enforcement agency in the world,” she said, even though flaws were documented “in a limited number of units” in the lab.

Other sources said that one of these units deals with analysis of explosives, and that the Oklahoma City bombing prosecution and convictions in the World Trade Center bombing in New York could suffer if federal courts rule that important pieces of evidence have been tainted by poor lab work.

The FBI laboratory conducts more than 600,000 examinations a year for federal, state, local and international law enforcement agencies.

The lab processes evidence in about 5% of the 175 federal cases that make up the average annual caseload of federal defenders in Orange County, Steward said. About 20 of those cases go to trial each year. Most cases are based on many forms of evidence and probably wouldn’t be affected, Steward said.

“What really jumps out at me is the impact on the reputation of the FBI,” he said. “This a sobering series of facts for the public.”

Asked if she could give assurances that no prosecutions were being compromised, Gorelick replied: “Until we have the final report and until the courts have a chance to examine each and every allegation as it applies to each and every case, we won’t be able to make blanket statements.”

Other legal sources stressed, however, that for any pending prosecution or past conviction to be seriously affected, attorneys would have to demonstrate that FBI laboratory analysis played a critical role and that any flaws were substantial ones.

Nonetheless, the allegations have damaged the credibility of the lab. Throughout its nearly century-long history, the FBI crime lab has had a sterling reputation, and its forensic reports usually have gone unchallenged.

Sonnett cited two ways in which questions about the FBI lab could have fallout: First, defense attorneys are likely to move for new trials to attack prosecution evidence.

Second, jurors could come to doubt the reliability of government evidence.

“Defense lawyers will have the ammunition to question the integrity of the scientific evidence, and we have seen from the O.J. Simpson criminal trial how that can have an effect,” he said.

Also contributing to this report was Times staff writer Geoff Boucher.

* LAX LAB DESCRIBED: Current, former crime lab workers tell investigators of slipshod procedures. A18