CBI: Over 1K cases impacted by former forensic scientist employed for decades
After over a year of investigating, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation said a comprehensive review of a former forensic scientist has been completed.
DENVER (KDVR) — After over a year of investigating, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation said a comprehensive review of a former forensic scientist has been completed.
In doing so, the agency found that about 1,003 cases were impacted in her nearly 30-year career. The agency previously announced that 652 cases between 2008 and 2023 were identified as being affected by the scientist's data manipulation.
On Nov. 6, 2023, CBI announced that Yvonne "Missy" Woods, a forensic scientist within the agency for about 29 years, was no longer working there and was subject to internal affairs and criminal investigations because of DNA anomalies in her work.
Over the years, Woods was connected to some high-profile cases, including the Kobe Bryant sex assault case that was eventually dropped, the Susannah Chase murder case and the Alex Ewing hammer killings case. Both cases hinged on DNA evidence presented at trial.
On Dec. 17, CBI provided a brief update on the investigation of Woods' work, saying the comprehensive review of all cases in her career was complete. In the review, investigators found 1,003 cases impacted by Woods.
"New information, if discovered, will be thoroughly vetted," the agency wrote in the release.
In November, the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado and the Kory Wise Innocence Project called on CBI to be more transparent about its response to Woods' misconduct. The two groups sent a letter to CBI discussing the watchdog organizations’ investigation into how CBI allowed Woods’ conduct to go unchecked for almost a decade.
The press release discussing the letter’s contents said that the investigating groups found that CBI “has apparently been out of compliance with requirements of its federal funding, requirements designed to prevent exactly this kind of pervasive and unchecked misconduct.”
Some cases have been directly impacted already: In June, a man pleaded guilty in Boulder to lesser charges related to the killing of three people in 2017. The case was widely publicized as the first prosecution in the state believed to be impacted by Woods' work.
Internal affairs report shows questions about work in 2014
In June, an internal affairs report on the former state-employed forensic scientist showed no evidence that the analyst crafted fake DNA profiles or matches, but that coworkers had called her work into question several times.
The report also showed that Woods "deviated from standard testing protocols and cut corners" in several of her cases, raising concerns about how reliable the DNA testing was that was used to prosecute individuals.
“Following the discovery of Woods’ actions in manipulating DNA analysis data in 2023, CBI is meticulously reviewing all of its testing protocols,” CBI Director Chris Schaefer said in a release. “Not only is Woods’ caseload being reviewed, but we are auditing the results of all current and previous DNA scientists to ensure the integrity of the Lab.”
According to the report, Woods admitted to deleting some historical data on a DNA instrument but said she was told to do so during quarterly maintenance. However, the manufacturer did not recommend the deletion, according to the internal report.
Additionally, coworkers had called Woods' work into question as long ago as 2014. That year, a coworker allegedly questioned how Woods tested evidence in a case and reported those concerns to a technical leader. In reviewing the incident, one individual said she found a deleted value in one dataset. She told the investigators she “felt at the time this was on purpose, but allowed it was possible to accidentally highlight a value and delete it without knowing.”
Woods faced similar scrutiny in 2018. She was removed from casework during the investigation but ultimately was reinstated to her original position.
The report detailed numerous examples of how Woods appeared to cut corners in her work, failing to take steps that would allow for more accurate results, but more work for her.
What's Your Reaction?