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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
12 comments:
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.
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.
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.
4:44, sounds like the issue is the field test to me. It was wrong, no matter how it's applied.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 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.
NEW! ACME Purple kool-aid field drug test kit - Sunday only blowout sale!
(TCLEOSE card required for purchase)
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.
Post a Comment