DNA Data Disaster
An investigation by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) uncovered that forensic scientist Yvonne “Missy” Woods’ decades of flagrant disregard for scientific scrutiny could have landed hundreds of innocent people in jail. Woods was discovered to have deleted, withheld or otherwise manipulated data in various criminal cases, some of which were high-profile murders. The scandal, which may be the largest in forensic DNA testing history, plunged the Colorado justice system into chaos as thousands of DNA samples needed to be retested and two thousand criminal cases reviewed (Associated Press).
Woods worked for the CBI for 29 years and was initially celebrated as a model forensic scientist who could solve decades-old cold cases. The CBI first detected an “anomaly” in her work in September 2023. A later investigation discovered that Woods manipulated data in 652 cases from 2008 to 2023 and another examination of her cases from 1994 to 2008 is in progress. She had not only violated lab policy by failing to conduct additional testing to verify the reliability of results, but also covered up evidence of her cutting corners by deleting or altering data. In other instances, she did properly run through tests but omitted certain details in her reports (New York Post). Sophomore Evan Yoo condemns Woods for the harm she has inflicted.
“Clearly, Woods has lost all credibility within the scientific field,” Yoo said. “Not only did she disregard forensic protocol, [but] her data manipulation resulted in possibly hundreds of innocent people being imprisoned. The fact she did this undetected for three decades, has also shattered my faith in [the CBI]. Woods deserves to be sent to jail herself.”
When this information was revealed, the CBI placed Woods on leave in October 2023 and she retired on Nov. 6. The CBI released information regarding Woods and her data manipulation on March 8. Although Woods has not yet disclosed her motives for the data manipulation, her attorney stated that she is cooperating with the investigation. Colorado prosecutors are waiting for the results of the investigation to begin reassessing the hundreds of criminal cases that utilized Woods’ tampered data or had her as an expert witness. The process of reevaluating cases also requires contacting the victims and informing them that the perpetrators responsible for all their suffering and trauma may not have been imprisoned after all (New York Post). Freshman Khushee Totla reflects on the immense emotional impact this can have on the people affected by these cases.
“The victims and their families will feel betrayed by the [justice] system and suffer a tremendous loss,” Totla said. “The thought that the perpetrators are still [at large] and have been for years will shatter their faith in the authorities, [who are] meant to keep them safe. [If it is true that there are] innocent people in jail, [then they would] have also undergone great hardship. They lost so much of their life serving time for somebody else and will have to somehow reintegrate into society. [The scandal] shows that we need to pay more attention to the criminal justice system.”
This uncertainty has contributed to an onslaught of criticism toward the CBI as much of Woods’ work was not peer reviewed, despite there being pre-existing protocol requiring just that. As a result, the CBI received $7.5 million from the state to establish an independent lab to retest around 3,000 DNA samples Woods worked on and for cases affected by lab errors to be reevaluated.
People convicted in these cases have also called for action against Woods. For example, days after Woods’ resignation, an attorney filed a lawsuit against her on behalf of his client, James Hunter, who is currently in prison serving a 168-year long sentence. Hunter was convicted of the burglary and sexual assault of a mother and her 5-year-old daughter in 2002. As the criminal was wearing a mask, Woods identified the culprit by collecting and examining hairs from the crime scene. However, the hair used to convict Hunter was found 10 months after the initial investigation of the crime and there was no verification that the evidence was properly collected by the crime scene investigation unit, leading Hunter’s attorney to claim that he is innocent and was wrongfully convicted. Despite this, Woods’ attorney maintains that although she strayed from procedure, she never falsified any DNA evidence nor testified falsely in court (Cable News Network). Another man, Alex Christopher Ewing, who was identified as the “Hammer Killer” in Woods’ most notable case, is looking to appeal his conviction. Ewing was already in jail for attempted murder when he was declared to be the “Hammer Killer” 34 years after the string of Colorado murders in 1984. Hunter and Ewing’s cases highlight the prosecutors’ greatest concerns: either some people were wrongfully convicted or those rightfully jailed will use the scandal to seek freedom (New York Post). Freshman Rina Kurosawa doubts that those properly serving time will be freed and maintains faith in forensic science.
“The scandal may have decreased public faith in forensic science but it is still a reliable field,” Kurosawa said. “We have the technology to know if a person is guilty of a crime or not, so those rightfully in jail will remain there. The problem lies not in forensic technology itself, but the trustworthiness of the scientists using it.”
