David Kofoed, CSI Director of Douglas County, Nebraska was con­vict­ed last month of plant­i­ng evi­dence dur­ing a mur­der inves­ti­ga­tion, cast­ing doubts on the legit­i­ma­cy of oth­er cas­es on which he worked. Kofoed’s work came into ques­tion after a 2006 inves­ti­ga­tion into the mur­der of Wayne and Sharmon Stock. The vic­tims’ nephew was one of the lead­ing sus­pects in the mur­der, despite the lack of phys­i­cal evi­dence tying him and an accom­plice to the killing. The vic­tims’ nephew con­fessed to the police, but he retract­ed his con­fes­sion the next day. A day lat­er, Kofoed claimed to find a drop of blood from one of the vic­tims in a car that was linked to the sus­pects, though it had already been exam­ined by anoth­er foren­sic inves­ti­ga­tor. The two sus­pects were charged with mur­der but were released sev­er­al months lat­er when pros­e­cu­tors deter­mined the con­fes­sion was unre­li­able and did­n’t fit the facts in the case. A man and woman from Wisconsin lat­er plead­ed guilty to the crimes and are now serv­ing life sentences.

Other states have also expe­ri­enced prob­lems with evi­dence pre­sent­ed in crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tions, rais­ing con­cerns that even sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence can be mis­lead­ing if mis­han­dled. In Harris County, Texas, four pris­on­ers’ con­vic­tions were over­turned because of faulty work by the Houston crime lab. A 2002 audit found that tech­ni­cians were poor­ly trained, kept bad records and had mis­read data. In San Francisco, pros­e­cu­tors dis­missed more than 250 drug cas­es because of accu­sa­tions of evi­dence tam­per­ing in the city’s crime lab.

(J. Ortiz, ​“Flood of pris­on­er appeals like­ly after Neb. CSI chief’s evi­dence-plant­i­ng con­vic­tion,” Associated Press, March 24, 2010). See also Innocence.

Citation Guide