Criminal defense attorney Jerome F. Buting has filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Department of Justice, calling for an external investigation into possible negligence by employees at the state’s crime labs.

Buting, who represented Steven Avery in 2006, referenced six instances since 2002 where he alleges technicians or lab analysts could have compromised forensic testing.

“I think it’s important to look back and see if there are behavioral patterns which could have affected tests,” said Buting. “There needs to be some transparency.”
Gary Hamblin, administrator for the Division of Law Enforcement Services, said an investigation into the allegations is being conducted by the Department of Criminal Investigations (DCI). He noted that a full report is forthcoming.

But Hamblin, who facilitates operations at the state’s three crime labs, also downplayed the severity of the complaint.

“Based on the allegations as stated and the documentation, I don’t think what we saw here is inconsistent with issues you find in any organization with several hundred people,” said Hamblin. “I’m not particularly alarmed by the examples he cited.”

Among the six instances cited in the complaint, one involved a lab technician who reportedly came to work drunk in March 2006, during the period in which the Madison crime lab was analyzing DNA samples from the Avery case.

The analyst, whose name was redacted from the disciplinary records obtained by Buting, was immediately sent home and suspended for five days. But Buting suggested the punishment could pale in comparison to any intentional or inadvertent tainting of evidence if the analyst had a pattern of working while impaired.

“It’s not enough to say we’ll punish the person’s immediate conduct,” said Buting. “How many other times has this happened?”

Buting also suggested that since the crime labs are an “extension” of the DOJ, the agency needs to comply with the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant and conduct an independent investigation.

“The crime lab has always been an arm of law enforcement, rather than independent objective scientific entity,” said Buting.

In the complaint, filed last month, DCI and Division of Legal Services/Public Integrity Unit are named as the appropriate agencies under the Coverdell program to handle the investigation.

Hamblin refuted the claim that the labs are part of any law enforcement agency and analyst findings are all subject to peer review prior to leaving the lab.

“Given resources available, analysts work hard to ensure the accuracy of results,” said Hamblin, who previously worked for DCI for 29 years.

The recent influx of new analysts also heightens the need for the agency to conduct an independent investigation, said Buting. Last year 31 new analysts were hired, including 22 in Madison.

As of this June, 27 they had completed a one-year training program and begun working low-level cases under the supervision of experienced analysts. Prior to the additions, the Madison lab had 34 analysts.

Hamblin noted that all of the new analysts completed their training prior to any of Buting’s allegations and to this point there have been no disciplinary issues with the new recruits.

“They start off on less complex cases that have been sitting on the shelf for a period of time, like property crimes and experienced analysts have to review their reports before they go out,” said Hamblin.