• AML
  • Qui Tam
  • SEC
  • CFTC
  • FCPA
  • FAQS
Subscribe
Donate
No Result
View All Result
Whistleblower Network News
The Truth at Any Cost.
Qui Tam, Compliance and Anti-Corruption News.
Whistleblower Network News
No Result
View All Result
Home Features

Four Questions About the FBI Lab Scandal

David ColapintobyDavid Colapinto
July 30, 2014
in Features, Intelligence Community, News
Reading Time: 6 mins read
Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInEmail
Dr. Frederic Whitehurst

July 30, 2014 – Another front-page story about the FBI Lab Scandal appeared in the Washington Post today. In this story, we learned that the FBI unilaterally stopped reviewing thousands of criminal cases to determine if tainted forensic evidence was used to obtain convictions simply because the FBI did not like the results of the review. It turned out that “nearly every case” the FBI reviewed included flawed evidence or testimony from the FBI Lab. So the FBI stopped looking at the cases in August of 2013.

It didn’t matter that the review was pointing to possibly thousands of tainted convictions and that some of those included death penalty cases. The FBI stopped looking after it determined that its review might cast serious doubt on nearly all of the convictions that relied on FBI Lab hair analyses. Apparently that was too much for the FBI stomach so they stopped the review and sought to change the rules governing the review last August.

According to today’s front page Washington Post article, the FBI did not get approval from the Justice Department to change the way it would review these cases. The Post quotes a Justice Department official as saying, “The Department of Justice never signed off on the FBI’s decision to change the way they reviewed the hair analysis.”

Register for National Whistleblower Day

To keep this in context, this particular review was required because the FBI and Justice Department had previously promised in 1996 to conduct reviews of cases impacted by the FBI Lab scandal. That’s right. The Attorney General and the FBI Director both promised in 1996 that they would get to the bottom of who was hurt by tainted forensic evidence from the FBI Lab. After it was shown in a series of articles that the reviewed ordered in 1996 was seriously flawed, the FBI and DOJ agreed in 2012 to undergo the current hair analysis review.

This leads us to four questions about the FBI Lab Scandal. 

Question #1: What does the FBI Lab scandal have to do with National Whistleblower Appreciation Day?

July 30th was declared “National Whistleblower Appreciation Day” by the U.S. Senate in a unanimous resolution last year. And, of course, there was a whistleblower at the FBI Lab whose revelations in the 1990’s set off the series of events known as the FBI Lab scandal and the subsequent reviews and cover-ups by the Justice Department.

Not only did Dr. Frederic Whitehurst blow the whistle on serious misconduct and flawed evidence while he worked at the FBI Lab in the 1990’s, he continued to hold the FBI and Justice Department accountable by obtaining under the Freedom of Information Act documents from the DOJ’s flawed review of the FBI Lab scandal. It was Dr. Whitehurst’s FOIA documents and persistence that eventually led to the Washington Post series in April of 2012.

So it is fitting that the latest Washington Post article on the FBI Lab scandal was published on July 30th, National Whistleblower Appreciation Day.

Question #2: Who covered up the FBI Lab scandal during the 1996 Justice Department review?

It remains to be answered who was responsible for closing down the DOJ task force review that was started in 1996 without ensuring that defendants whose cases were tainted were notified and without issuing a final report. It is now known through FOIA documents and media reports that the Justice Department knew the scope of this scandal at the FBI Lab was much wider, but they closed their eyes to the problems. The Justice Department was informed and knew there was more than “one bad apple” committing forensic fraud. The Justice Department knew that death penalty cases were implicated by the wrongdoing and yet the DOJ closed their eyes to the problems – letting 16 people (to date) be executed without a review of the tainted evidence in those cases. Additionally, the Justice Department knew during the 1996-2004 review that there were thousands of cases implicated, and scientific reviews confirmed problems in more than 400 cases, but the defendants and the defense attorneys in most of those cases were not properly notified. Despite knowing all of that the Justice Department secretly shut down the task force review and never issued a final report.

Somebody in the Justice Department was responsible for shutting down the task force and closing the Department’s eyes to what now appears to be evidence of “massive” forensic fraud. Who did ordered this cover up? Where are they now?

The American people deserve answers to these questions and the Department of Justice must be held accountable for closing its eyes to these problems and breaking its constitutional duty to conduct these reviews in a timely manner.

Question #3: Who is responsible for halting the hair analysis review in 2013?

In response to the April 2012 Washington Post series the Justice Department and FBI publicly announced that they would be conducting “a thorough and meaningful” review of more than 20,000 FBI Lab hair analysis cases to determine if there was tainted evidence used to obtain convictions. However, there was no public announcement by the FBI or Justice Department that they had abruptly halted this review in August of 2013 because the FBI did not like the results of that review.

If the history of the FBI Lab scandal were not bad enough, who authorized the FBI to stop reviewing hair analysis cases that might be tainted? Why has this nearly one year delay in that review been kept secret from the public?

Question #4: Will there ever be any meaningful oversight of this scandal to hold those accountable for the massive miscarriage of justice committed by the FBI Lab and the subsequent 18-year cover up of these problems?

It is no longer appropriate to use the words “flawed,” “mistake,” ”neglect” or “failure” to describe what has happened in the FBI Lab scandal. Twenty years of sticking heads in the sand to ignore problems, and halting reviews mid-stream once it is realized the problems are worse than expected, are not flaws or failures to provide notice. It is a cover-up.

The FBI and Department of Justice have a constitutional duty to make disclosures to defendants of information that could be exculpatory (i.e., evidence that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt.). This constitutional duty has been avoided for nearly 20 years, through FBI delays and Justice Department gimmicks to ignore and minimize the true scope of the FBI Lab scandal. For years after the FBI Lab scandal the FBI made a point of saying that no criminal convictions were overturned as a result of the Justice Department’s 1996 task force review. They can no longer say that. It has been proven that 6 people in the District of Columbia, alone, were wrongfully convicted. And there are many more waiting who have been waiting more than 20 years to have their convictions based on tainted evidence reviewed.

This is not a public relations game where the FBI can find ways to sweep damaging information under the rug. The due process rights of thousands of persons – many of whom may have been wrongfully convicted – have been violated.

Who is going to take responsibility for the FBI Lab scandal and hold officials who condoned this twenty-year cover up of justice?

For our prior posts on this issue please click here.

Tags: FBI WhistleblowersForensic Justice
Previous Post

Understanding the Risks of Whistleblowing

Next Post

Senate Approves “National Whistleblower Appreciation Day” for Second Year

David Colapinto

David Colapinto

Next Post

Senate Approves “National Whistleblower Appreciation Day” for Second Year

Please login to join discussion

Receive Daily Alerts

Subscribe to receive daily breaking news and legislative developments sent to your inbox.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Most Popular

Advocates Detail Need for SEC Whistleblower Reform

Raytheon Whistleblower Receives $1.5 Million for Alleging Cybersecurity Non-Compliance

Ruling Striking Down Trump Order Targeting Law Firm Seen as Crucial for Whistleblowers

MJH Healthcare Settles Whistleblower Allegations of Postal Rate Fraud for $2 Million

Poll Shows Overwhelming Support for Stronger Whistleblower Laws in Australia, Mirroring Polling in US

Four Whistleblowers Receive $1.3 Million for Alleging Genetic Testing Fraud Scheme

Whistleblower Poll

Whistleblower Poll
Whistleblower Poll

Exclusive Marist Poll: Overwhelming Public Support Among Likely Voters For Increased Whistleblower Protections

byGeoff Schweller
October 6, 2020

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

STAY INFORMED.
Subscribe to receive breaking whistleblower updates.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

About Us

  • About
  • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Careers

Subscribe

  • Daily Mail
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • YouTube Channel

Contribute

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Submission Guidelines
  • Reprint Guidelines

Your Experience

  • Accessibility Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use

Help

  • Rules for Whistleblowers
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Advertise
Whistleblower Network News

Whistleblower Network News is an independent online newspaper providing our readers with up-to-date information on whistleblowing. Our goal is to be the best source of information on important qui tam, anti-corruption, compliance, and whistleblower law developments. 

Submit an Article

Copyright © 2025, Whistleblower Network News. All Rights Reserved.

This Newspaper/Web Site is made available by the publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this website, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Newspaper/Web Site publisher. The Newspaper/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Become a Whistleblower Network News Subscriber

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Subscribe to WNN

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Subscribe to WNN
RSVP to National Whistleblower Day 2025! July 30, 2025 on Capitol Hill
RSVP NOW

Add New Playlist

No Result
View All Result
  • Exclusives
  • Government
    • False Claims-Qui Tam
    • Federal Employees
    • Intelligence
  • Corporate
    • CFTC & Commodities
    • Dodd-Frank
    • IRS & Tax
    • SEC & Securities
  • Features
  • Legislation
  • International
    • Foreign Corruption
  • Rewards
  • Whistleblower of the Week
  • Environment & Climate
  • Opinion
  • Editorial
  • Employment
    • Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblowers
    • Retaliation
    • OSHA
  • Make National Whistleblower Day Permanent
  • Media
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Webinars
    • National Whistleblower Day
  • Whistleblower Poll
  • Whistleblower Resources
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Resources for Locating An Attorney
    • The New Whistleblowers Handbook

Copyright © 2024, Whistleblower Network News. All Rights Reserved.

Go to mobile version