Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Faulty field test led to false drug conviction: Court of Criminal Appeals overturns

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals today overturned a state-jail felony drug conviction - Ex Parte Donna Marie Davenport Fritsch, out of Montgomery County - on actual innocence grounds. She was falsely convicted based on an erroneous field test that was later contradicted by testing at a DPS crime lab. From the court's order: "At the time of Applicant's arrest, the substance seized from her vehicle field-tested positive for methamphetamine. After she pleaded guilty to this offense, the Texas Department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory issued a report indicating that laboratory analysis of the evidence detected no controlled substance."

Makes one wonder about the validity of the "field test" used and how many other convictions have been obtained based on similar tests without confirmation by a crime lab. Said the CCA, "The trial court concludes that Applicant has demonstrated that she is actually innocent of the offense to which she pleaded guilty," and the high court formally overturned  her conviction.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

The issue isn't really the validity of the field test, but the misapplication of the test.

Field tests for drugs are at best presumptive tests. They are fundamentally different from the testing that would be done in a laboratory, and they are invariably less accurate than laboratory tests. It may be reasonable to confiscate and detain based upon field tests in conjunction with other information. But not to convict.

For a long time in Dallas (it may still be the case there) the DA would not file on drug cases without completed lab testing. This was a consequence of the fake drug scandal in 2001. But elswhere it has always been standard to accept guilty pleas when the only test has been a field test.

I'd like to say that it is a credit to DPS that the lab results were released after Fritsch pled guilty. But this was probably just a result of poor communication between Montgomery County and DPS.

Tom Moran said...

So, what else is new. I am working on a writ where a guy was charged in 2006 with possession of 1-4 grams. Pled next day for 210 days in Harris County Jail on reduced to state jail felony.
In 2012 (yes, that's right), lab reports comes back with 1) 0.8 grams of powder and 2) no dope. So guy did 210 days in the county for no crime.
Shows why one shouldn't plead to a drug case until the lab report comes back.

Anonymous said...

Or the cop faked the field test. They have those fancy cameras in their cars but you never see them performing the test on video.

Anonymous said...

4:44, sounds like the issue is the field test to me. It was wrong, no matter how it's applied.

Texasred said...

I believe another salient point is being overlooked,the defendants pleaded guilty for a lesser sentence,the implied presumption being they would be fond guilty anyway.Given their resources for decent representation,they see a lesser penalty as thier best option...sad.

Anonymous said...

It's a "field test." The purpose is to direct the officer on what kind of case he may or may not be dealing with.

Anonymous said...

Finally, the gatekeepers are beginning to stand up to the junk science and those that use it.

Error rates for these scientific tests must be know, people.

Anonymous said...

It is a presumptive test only. The question is why would she plead guily to the charge if she didn't think it was meth. she had in her possession!

Phillip Baker said...

I agree 7:04. I've been harping on this point forever. Working people without the money to hire those costly lawyers, faced with harsh sentences unless they plead, are just the hidden face of wrongful convictions. Police and prosecutors need to up their ethical standards and seek justice, not convictions. Not that all police and all DA's are just taking any shortcut to convictions they can , but enough do warrant increased scrutiny into these practices. (See, Ms T. I do lighten up on DA's sometimes)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12:01, the obvious answer is because she could not afford representation and was told she would get a harsher sentence if she did not take the guilty plea.

Anonymous said...

NEW! ACME Purple kool-aid field drug test kit - Sunday only blowout sale!

(TCLEOSE card required for purchase)

Anonymous said...

Lack of wisdom comes in many forms. The belief that all diagnostic test results are always correct is certainly one form. The belief that tests can be cleanly categorized as valid or invalid based on a sample size of one is certainly another.