Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Attorney General Investigative Report Into Actions of Former State Chemist Sonja Farak

    Загружено:

    The Republican/MassLive.com
    8K просмотров55 страниц
    Attorney General investigative report into actions of former state chemist Sonja Farak, issued April 1, 2016

    Оригинальное название

    Attorney General investigative report into actions of former state chemist Sonja Farak

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    Attorney General investigative report into actions of former state chemist Sonja Farak, issued April 1, 2016

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    8K просмотров55 страниц

    Attorney General Investigative Report Into Actions of Former State Chemist Sonja Farak

    Загружено:

    The Republican/MassLive.com
    Attorney General investigative report into actions of former state chemist Sonja Farak, issued April 1, 2016

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 55
    Office of the Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts Maura Healey Attorney General Investigative Report Pursuant to Commonwealth v. Cotto, 471 Mass. 97 (2015) April 1, 2016 Introduction tn Apr 2015, the Massachusetts Supreme udial Cour (‘ICY published ts Kevin, Burnham a farmer nactis evidence oer at the Spring Pace Department, hasbeen charged by tha AGO forthe alleged thf of esl $400,000 rom the eidence room. Buran ws Sraigned Hampden County Superior Cour on the charges Larceny Over §250(6 coos), nation of MS. 266690, and Lareny Ur $250 (1 cont in violton of MG. 266 § 30. Burnham waste novos evidence atte st tne Sprghel Pole Lepore Tom aprons 2984 un ‘etrerent on 25,2018. Burnham oversaw the storage end salelaepirg of rugs deg paper, nf eashseedin dg eae, Burstm war acon charge of the disbursement of money when a cse {hisd. The AGO ivestpton reveled that between December 2008 and Jl 2014, aura legeay "Moe cash totaling amor §406 00 rom exdence envelopes n more than 170 drug ears. The ‘investigational uncovere@ more than 160 empty evdence envelopes in wich sla roney shuld have ‘bean found, Pres lease, Office afte Aterey General, Foret Spring Pace Oe Araigned fer ‘Agel Stealing Hea $40,000 ror dence Room anoary 1, 2016 (nf wih A), samples a alter time, This method was Farak’s preferred method of taking drugs from the SPD samples because she did not have to worry about damaging the evidence bag -- ‘she could pull the bag open, remove the drugs, and then heat seal t again over the ‘orignal seal mark (1 at 266-168; at 102) 7. Farok's Interaction with Law Enforcement, October 2012 Frak’s taking of standards and samples for her personal use continued into 2012, In the wake of the misconduct ofa DPH Chemist, Dockhnan, atthe Hinton Laboratory, the [MSP assumed control ofthe Amherst Lab on July 1, 2012 (3 at 27,85). Then-Governor Deval Patrick ordered the Hinton Lab tobe closed on August 30, 2012 (1 at 183).** During ‘his time, Farak was using crack cocaine heavily—muitple times per day while at the Lab ‘and at home (1 at 148,159,174-175,385). In October 2012, the MSP inspected the [Arsherst Lain order to assess the work ofthe Lab and move the Lab toward being fully accredited (1 at 185; 5 at 26). Members ofthe MSP interviewed Farak and the other chemists during their vist. During the recent AGO investigation, Farak testified that she smoked crack cocaine on the moming ofthe MSP inspection and then aso at lunchtime, prior toher 1 pum. interview. According to Farak, during the course ofthe fifteen to twenty minute interview, there were no Suspiclons ever raised about her use of drugs (2 9185-187). Farak had another close interaction with the MSP on January 18, 2013. Farakwas scheduled to testy in a criminal trial atthe Hampden County Courthouse, She indicated ‘that she had a ‘pretty fair amount of crackin her ca.” Taking advantage ofthe 2 Germ A, Cunha, Ofc ofthe inspector Gener Comm. of A, Investigation of the Org Labrator st ‘he Witar A Hinton State Lab ste 202-0121 [Maren 4, 2018). 19 ‘opportunity during the lunch break, she went out to her car, ae lunch and “got prety high However, when MSP members spoke to her in the Hampden County Courthouse about the trial for which she was scheduled to testify, the police never suspected her of being under the influence nor made any comment about her appearance or demeanor (1 188-189) 8. Lab Personnel Discover Something Is Wrong and Alerts Police; Farak is Arrested (On January 17, 2013, Chemist and Lab evidence officer Salem discovered that drug samples from two diferent SPD cases were missing.” The fist sample had been assigned to Farak for testing, Forakhad tested the sample on January 4,2013 and had issued a cetiicate of analysis, However, there were no drugs. The second sample had also been ‘assigned to Ferak for testing. Farak had not yet issued the certificate of analysis. Salem looked through the rest of the SPD batch from the relevant date but did not find the drugs. Before Salem went home forthe day, she looked through the other batches inthe ‘evidence safe bute not find the two missing samples. The next morning, Frak left the Lab around 8:00am. to go tothe Springfield District Court to testy at atrial. While Farak was gone, Salem, who had aerived at work rouné 8:30 xm. tol her supervisor, onchet, about the missing samples. Hanchett and Salem fookelfor the missing samples in other places in the Lab, Including Inthe temporary safe where Farak and her 5 Stn ested tothe procadires that werein leet the Lab during the rlevant tine frame. When 2 potee department brougt ras to th ab fo be tested the samples wee batched sccordng tothe [eparonen and dae on hich he samples were brovgh in. Toe samples were not reared to the ‘biting epatmet unt i of he sales nthe bath were tested ano drg certs was (Senate foreach some Slr tse tht content wth the requirements of er ob as he ‘Sidones ffcer she nrmolcolcted llth dug erates fr abate, verified that they matehed the apyreprate drug ssl, ar then prepared tebatch tobe pcked up bythe submitng department (eattie-ns), Fr colleague Pontes stored the samples that they were processing. Hanchet also checked the data from the mess/spec to confirm whether Farakhad completed the analyses of both ofthe missing samples, Hanchett found that Fara, in fat, had tested oth samples ané that they were both postive for cocaine (4 at 98:9), onchett went to Fara’ workstation to lok forthe samples, When he pulled ‘open the fist cabinet, Hanchet discovered a white pasticbin with aplastic bag of cocaine, chunks of wan lik substance Ina sauce, whit chunks in another saucer, a peste, and drug paraphernalia. Hanchett continued to look fr the missing samples in Farak’s workstation, where he found a manila envelope contalning the packaging forthe ‘wo missing samples. The samples were properly labeled with the appropriate sample number, but the heat sealed packaging had heen sliced open and the contents in the bogs looked strange to him. Upon visual inspection of the bags, Hanchett noted that one sample appeared tobe 2 half and hal miture of two efferent substances, and the other id not appear tobe cocaine a al anchet called Major lames Connolly ofthe MSP to notify him of what he had ‘iscovered, The Amherst Lab was immediately shut down, and Major Connolly and his team went to the Lab to Investigate further. Once there, they instructed Hanchett to perform preliminary drug analysis onthe tw drug samples and the bag of cocaine that hhad been found inthe plasticbin, Hanchet then performed a more complete analysis of the samples (5 tS), With regard to one ofthe samples, Farakhad concluded inher lab notebook that the substance was ccsine in fre-base form and had not noted any significant impurities inher analyss. However, upon re-testing, both sarnples were found rnottobe cocaine. (S at 50-51), a {As the Investigation unfolded, it appeared that Frak ha tampered with additional samples, Faak’s car was located a the Hampden County Courthouse and, pursuant toa warrant, searched in the early morning of January 19,2033, Several tems were seized from the car, Including controled substances. Farak was arrested later that day and was subsequently indicted bya Special Suffolk County Statewide Grand Jury on April 1,013. On January 6, 2024, Farakpleaded _lty to four counts of Tampering with Evidence in ioation of M.GA 268 § 13 four counts of Larceny of Contralled Substances from a Dispensary, in volation of M.G.L 6 ‘90¢ § 37; and two count of Unlawful Possession ofa Controlled Substance (lass Bin violation of MG. ¢.94C § 24. The Court, Mary-Lou Rup, 1, sentenced her toa term of 2- years in the House of Correction, eighteen months tobe served and the balance to be suspended for five years. “Testimony of Other Witnesses In addition to Farak other Amherst Lab employees testified before the gran jury. Each witness testified to his or er lnlvgual observations of Farakas wellas various practices and procedures atthe Amherst Lab, In ation, a witnes from an MSP drug, la tested In regorltoher observations ofthe Armberst Lab. ‘A. Testnony of Amherst Lab Superior, Jomes Hanchett 4. Hanchett’s Testimony about Farak Hanchett testified that he worked alongside Farak after she transferred from the Hinton to the Amherst Lab in 2004. At that time, Hanchett was a senior chemist with a supervisory role aver the less experienced chemist although not yet the Lab's supervisor), so he was actively testing drugs inthe Lab and sat approximately twelve feet 2 ‘away from Farak, Hanchettdescrived Forakas 2 “meticulous” employee ané “deckcated j ‘oherwork She handle ll he evidence wel. Everything was always “packaged neaty [and] marked and labeled neath” She kent her workstation meticulous, she was “a smart gl [and]... rusted employe,” and she “did great}ob.” He explained that no police officer or Assistant District Attorney had ever complained about Farak’s work (4 3886.87, 104) [Although Farak id some ofthe testing slighty itferently than he and the other “merst chemists, Hanchett did not see 2 need to offer her any atonal training because she had been ful trained at the Hinton Lab. Inany event, asher time atthe Lab continued, Farak began to adopt the Amherst Lab's methods, with the exception of how she kept her personal notes (4 at 75,78, 80-83). Hanchett never noticed anything ifferent about Farak until the last few months ‘of her employment atthe Lab (4 at 77-78). He testified that starting in the late summer or early fall of 2012, Farak’s production “dropped” and he noticed other changesin her ‘work, a5 well. “The condition of her laboratory bench was. .. (had beer] very meticulous [but twas... getting messy, ... stacks of paper [were] not being filed property]. {and he] could see something deteriorating in her habits.” (4 at 83). Inaddition, her physical appearance was “deteriorating” and “the way she was dressing... [was a5 though] she was letting herself go" (4st 92). He “noticed ke] near the end fof her employment] she seemed to be awful nosey {sic} about what was coming in. She wanted to know large samples that were brought in... trafficking cases” (8 at 105). Hanchett would keep track of the number of samples that each chemist tested anc the type of ‘amples that they were testing ona monthly basis. These records were kept in-house at a the Amherst Lab and the overall testing numbers, but not each individual chemist’ work, \vas reported to Hinton. Hanchett began to review al of Farak’s output at the Lab and referred to Lab records to show her that her work was deteriorating in comparison to her ‘output during prior months and years (4 at 8485). 2. Hanchett decomes Lab Supervisor inthe Amherst Lab; Typical Procedures In une 2008, Allan Stevenson (*tevenson”}* retired from his postion as lab supervisor and Hanchett was promoted to Chemis land the main supervisor of the | [Amiherst Lab (8 at 11), Hanchett then undertook several new responsibilities. He was responsible for making sure all substances were analyzed properly, seeing that chemists followed certain drug protocols that were in place atthe Amherst Lab, and ensuring that the Lab was adequately staffed during working hours. In addition, he was responsible for | the maintenance ofthe drug testing instruments (GC/MS}, ths lst responsibility ‘occupying about 25% of his time (4 at 11-12). “There was an extremely high backlog of cases a the Hinton Lab and so once a month, Hanehett would drive from the Amherst Lab to the Hinton Lab and bring about two to three hundred drug samples, a majority of which had been submited by various easter counties of the Commonwealth, back othe Amherst Lab so that the Amherst Lab could conduct testing and help alleviate the Winton Lab's backlog, There was a backlog at the Amherst Lab, too, but It was not as bad as the Hinton Lab's (4 at 13), Upon arrival atthe Hinton Lab, Hanchett would meet with the assigned evidence officer, who would give him alist of samples that he would bring back with him tothe * Severson, age 62, warnarvewedby AGO investigators, Stevenson a Fast was wellqatiid here _woremeprblems with er work and no one compshes about er Headed tha she was let ard kept toner oy ‘Amherst Lab fr testing. Hanchett would then go through each sample by hand to make sre that the samples that he had in is possession corresponded with the list that he had ‘received, The Hinton Lab evidence officer would then “scan” Ithe samples to record “which samples were leaving the Hinton Lab and being transferred into the possession of anchott ho In tre, would sien form acknowledingisreelpt of them, Upon arrival atthe Amherst Lab, personnel woulé enter the samples int the computer inventory nd place the drgsin the vault for assignment t the individual chemists. | Testing ofthe Hinton “overflow” had ocurred fr approximately fifteen to twenty years and was usually done during chemist" overtime when the DPH budget alowed (4 at 14- 16. 3. Hanchett’s Testimony about Laboratory Stondards Drug testing laboratories use drug “standards” inthe GC/MS wile testing to confirm whether the drug sample fs controled substance under MG... 94C.* anchett testified that a “primary standards something purchased froma drug or chemical company {and that has been certified as to what is” In ether words the primary standard was essentially a “known” substance that would be tested against the “unknown” polce-submitted samples. Types of “standards” thatthe Lab would order for this purpose included heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, nycodone and “ust about cevervthing” The GC/MS instruments inthe Lab each maintained an interna brary that ‘would record its analysis ofthe standard That information would be retained within the instrument for future reference during substance analysis (4 at 33,35, 60-61). * chapter 4C of the General Lave the “Corral Setsances fe" af the Commonweath of Massachusetts, Ths chapter set out the applabectntions, asain, and cumin pena or tho possesion, dation an afiing of pranited contol) substances. 25 anchet, by then the supervisor of the Amherst Lab, was responsible for ordering allof the standards forthe Lab. Before him, that responsibility had been Stevenson’ (the previous supervisor's). A Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") license authorized the Lab to purchase these drugs from various companies. Hanchet testified that the Lab had approximately two hundred standards. There was never regular audit ofthe standards at the ArerstLab unt the MSP took over the Lab In ly 2012. Shortly thereafter, Hanchett prepared a new DEA license aplication to purchase standards, and was notified that certain regulations required the performance of two Inventories a year and thatthe standards had tobe storedin a drug vault, Prior to July 2012, however, the Lab had stored the standards in an unlocked meta fle cabinet and refrigerator. The standards were refrigerated because they had alimited shel ie (@ t 38,50). The refrigerator ‘could not be locked, nd it stores approximately 20 standards. Before sly 2082, everyone had acces to these standard, according to Hanchet. ‘The storage cabinet was located on the far side of the laboratory, away and not readily Visible from the testing Benches. Although the cabinet was locked the key was accessible bya Lab employees. Te standards were in both liquid and powder form, but Hanchett ‘estimated that approximately 95% of them were in powder form (4at 32-37). The price of standards varied based upon the stte-2uthorized vendor andthe laboratory Frequently, there were budget problems atthe Amherst Lab and the DPH would resist requests to order certain supplies, including standards (4 at 23,35). In those instances, Hatchett explained, it was necessary to “make... new standards (at 38), Frequently, he would make “secondary standards” when the Lab ran aut ofthe primary standard that had been purchased from an outside vendor (4 6 147), He manufactured these secondary standards by taking an “excess sample from 8 large tracking case,” He would complete an “extraction process where he would take the excess sample, mixit with hydrochloric acid and chloroform extract to get rid ofthe contaminates... back extract ito purify t up and then erstalize tout” (4 at 48). The nal af that process would be to remove all adulterants or “cutting agents from the police-submitted sample in order to produce the purest form ofthe drug for use as 2 standard. Hanchett would always run this “secondary standard” through the machines to ‘confirm that the new standard was inthe purest form possible. He admitted thet sometimes there were “co-contaminates [that they] couldn't get riéof all the time but it wasn'ta problem because it never interfered withthe sample sel.” He was confident that these secondary standards were almost as good, or the same as, the primary standards (4at 49) Hanchett would make only small amounts ofthese “secondary standards,” however, because they were not as stable asthe standards purchased from various ‘outside vendors and laboratories, and they always needed to be stored in the refrigerator. The other Lab employees were aware that Honchett was manufacturing the secondary standards but they did not do so themselves (4at 48-54, 111), Sometimes, the ‘other chemists atthe Lab would alert Hanchett when the secondary standard was “breaking down” oF was “running out,” and he would then take it upon himself to make ‘more (4 at 122). He would “put aside two to three hundred miligrams of heroin or cocaine from polie-submitted samples) ...and kefep tin the refrigerator... sealed in plastic, [He] hada backlog of itso [he] would be ready to go if he] needed! to make the net standard” (at 112-113}. if he was planning in advance to make the secondary a standard, he would leave it out Yon top of his] bench sealed ina plastic container." He took this step so thatthe substance would “come to room temperature and bela ite easier to weigh" (438133) Ins testimony, Hanchett maintained that, when he joined the Lab in 1977, the creation and use of these s0-aled secondary standards was a regular and acepted practice, He believed thatthe Hinton Lab was producing secondary standards as wel. Me | testified that, t some point, he had even made heroin standard forthe Hinton Lab (4at 58), He had never had a particular conversation with anyone at the Winton Lab about the use of secondary standards, but he assumet that the supervisor of the Hinton and Aamberst Labs, uae Wasi ("Nasi"), was aware ofthe practice: “Ym sure she ke}, yes. L-youknow, sometimes we told her we could, you krow, cout purchase drugs so used secondary standards” In deseibing her reaction, Hanchet sad she conveyed her acceptance of the practice, (435). 4. Honchett’s Testimony about the Amherst Lab's Protocols and Securiy “The Amherst Lab was not an accredited forensic laboratory under the DPH (4 at 23). Itwasnot until the MSP took over the Amherst Lab in July 2012 thatthe Lab began tomove toward full-accreditation (4 at 108-108) Although Hanchett had made attempts to-seek accreditation for the Amherst Lab earlier, he was told by the DPH that there was ‘not enough money in the budget to carryout the process (4 at 29). Athough Hanchett did attempt to follow the standards set forth by the Scientific Working Group forthe Analysis of Sele Drugs ("SWGDRUG") he admitted in his testimony thatthe Lab dd ' syaonu works to improve te aul of the fren examination fxd chug ant respond to the nets the fren commas by stppartng the development of international acxpted minimam 28 ‘not meet the SWGDRUG criteria in areas such asits paperwork maintenance oF processing, andis storage and receipt ofvarlous substances. He acknowledged thatthe Lab was “weak" in some ofthese areas but sad thatthe Lab “Just didn‘thave the ‘manpower or the time to handle’ all or the money to” satisfy all of the SWGDRUG requieoments (8 3t 9-30). anchett also testified regarding “blanks” “Blanks” are solvents thatthe Lab ran ‘through the GC/MS in order to clean out any traces of contsinments or remaining drug residue after test had been performed. Faure to take this step would frequently resuit in “carry aver" from the previous tests), which would have to be distinguished by the Individual chemist (4 8 114) After the MSP assumed control ofthe Amherst Lab, the [MSP required that a blank be run after every sample was tested (4at 108). The previous procedure atthe Amherst Lab had been to run a blank after every five to ten samples that were tested, butt was largely lft to the discretion of the individual chemist doing the test (4at 74), Hanchet testified that the Lab did have a model Standard Operating Procedure (S0P"|in place. It was developed inthe mid-1980s by a professor from Northeastern University who went to both the Amherst and Hinton Laboratories to set up procedures ‘or analyzing drugs. The Amherst Lab “more or less followed the|] procedures that [werel recommended” Those procedures included a preliminary test and = confirmational test. fan putting it allinto documentation” (4 at 30-31). Hanchett “Tondar denne bet practices within the ineratonl community, and providing resources tol Ibboratres moet these standart ww sear or cary overs res om prev tat that rears in the GC/MS lesa an” ram vcueh to “clan tha maeinels| ant alow et aft theres ona subeeqent test, 23 recalled that since he had begun working atthe Lab in 1977 the Northeastern professor had been the ony individual who had ved the ab to set any type of poley or procedure for analyzing suspected narcoties (31). Hanchet indicated thatthe “Amherst (and Hinton) Labs were in “deplorable caneitlon” He sald, “It was nota good ‘environment to be working under, Equipment hoods were broken, not fe, [and not replaced... [The DP ust ett go for so long. they dit have the money" (4at 28) Security at the Amberst Lab was non-existent, and Hanchettindieated that he had ‘iced concerns to the OPH about this lack of security (a 24-25). Infact, the building that housed the Lb (the Mori Bullding) also contained an “auitorium that was used by Lass students that was onthe net floor. So between the main office and the laboratory was a corridor that everyone had access to" (4 at 25). Access tothe Lab was possible by use ofa key ora swipe card that was given to each employee. Employees ould use the key or swipe card interchangeably andthe swipe card did nt keep a record ofthe employaes who entered or their entry times (5 at 17). Further, there were no cameras located inthe Lab (6 at 90), Every chemist had access twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week. Every chemist also had access to all the workstations, the work station safe (where the Lab kept samples overnight they were stl belng tested), the drug vou, the standard cabinet, the standard refgerator, andthe computer inventory system, Hanchet stated that the Lab employees wore forbidden from doing any typeof testing when there was only one person atthe Lab, but that was posible to break that rule when “nobody's there” to enfore itor report the misconduct (8 90-91). The ofies ofboth Hanchett and Salem were located acros the hal frm the Lab and there \was no way they could monitor the testing (4 at 91). Henchett admitted that although 30 ‘the chemists were not supposed to assign samples to themselves for testing, the practice ‘was possible due to the unfettered access all employees had to the diferent areas ofthe tab (4at 104-205). 5. Hanchett’s Testimony about the Testing of Cass E Substances a the Amherst Labs Hanchet testified tothe manner In which chemists atthe Hinton and Amherst Labs would test and classify substances that were believed to fll within the definition of ‘a Cass E substance asset forth M.G.L. ¢.94C § 32, namely substances in pill form 3* He explained that the Lab did nat perform a chemical analysis of mst Class E substances. Instead, any analysis was simply done visually (at 63). Essentially the chemists Identified the samples by relying on the colors and markings onthe individual ils and ‘comparing those to their desk reference materials. Hanchett explained that where the chemist was not able to identity the pill by any individual markings, the pill would be run through the Gas Chromatograph and f that produced a result, the pill would then be tun through the Mass Spectrometer and compared to that machine's Ubrary of substances Hanehett testified that this procedure usualy would be adequate to determine the chemical make-up ofthe individual pil (4 at 64). sjtotaw tins x Gass Esvtanee as “a Any compound matte or preparation containing ny of the folloninelinied queries of arco drugs, whi salinude one oF more non-arcoti ave ‘nedinlInpetentsmsufcen progoion te carter upey svc vinr, x peparton ‘tluole medina quale ther tan thse poner by te macali draclone 1) Not more than 200, lens of odie per 09 millers ope 10 grams 2) Ntrmere than 10 grams of tycocedene po 00 liters or per 00 pram 3} Nat more an 100 millers of etnyimorphine per {comers ope 200 gare Net rare than 2 Siler ef ephenowlt nd not ss than 25 rrcrogramsf ergine sulfate per dosage uit () Hot more than 100 ila of pm per $00 ‘titers oper 100 par) Presertin args oer tan Tose ineloded i Cases, , GO, and ‘hein (ofthe Oats” MG. Le 94031 (2016), a1 Hanchett aleo indicated that there would be frequent discussions between chemists atboth the Hinton and Amherst Labsif an unknown pill was submitted to the Lab, Oftentimes, chemists would classify pill asa Class E drug based simply upon those conversations (as opposed to any actual testing), or based upon a belief thatthe pill may have been, or was. 2 “preseried” drug under Chapter 84C §32(1)(d)" Hanchett testified that listing al ofthe Class E drugs covered by the statute would have been impossible; he estimated that there may be atleast 10,000 Class E drugs in enstence (4 at 67). In adcition, Hanchett nated that “it took alot longer to analyze Class E drugs because [there were usualy} 2 lot of them,” because they were "not easyt test," and ‘because they requlred “more complicated tests.” At the same time, however, there were countervailing “time constraint.” So, visual identifications were “just easier.” Possibly for those reasons, Hanchett testified, someone “up top" the Lab—though not Hanchett himself—had “decided tat. the chert] were going to analyze Css Es by visual ‘amination ony! (42 63-65). 8, Testimony of sharon Salem, Chemist and Evidence Officer Sale, wio had worked a the Amherst Lab for 25 years is currently employed by the MSP in the Criinalisies ad Crime Scene Units, based in Springfield, Massachusets She holds a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from the University at Massachusetts, “Amherst, She began her careerin the DPH as a chemist assigned tothe Amherst ab (Sat 8) Atthe time ofthe closing ofthe Amherst Lab, her tle was Forensic Chemist Mand she was the evidence officer fr the Lab. In that capacity she did not analyze any The ated the Pan Deak Reference "OR" to deny pin the Lab. ta pil wasted a3 prevebe drugin the POR meant tat tone me or another twas controled under the Federal OFA [et fond thercorewoulbe considered als (60, 32 substances, She held the postion of evidence officer for approximately seven years and continued in that role after the MSP took over the Amherst Labin July 2012 (5 at 5-6) 1. Solem's Duties Regarding Police-Submitted Samples Salem testified that a police officers brought evidence tothe Lab, she would log the evidence into the evidence computer, In making these entries, she would “rely on what the police were telling her] forthe most par.” She would “eyeball” the sample "but for the most part [she] hed to take thelr word! for it (5 at 5). Salem further indicated that in her experience as an evidence officer, there were never any large liserepancies between the quantity that the police reported as coming in and the ‘quantity that the chemists ukimately determined (5 at 26) ‘Salem testified that she sometimes also picked up samples of suspected narcotics fom the Hinton tab and transported them back tothe Amherst Lab for testing. [According to Salem, the Hinton Lab frequently gave the Amherst Lab more simple cases to test and stayed away from the more dificult or “trafficking” cases. According to Salem, the Hinton Lab made this choice so thatthe Amherst Lab “could do more of them” (52033) 2, Solem’s Duties Regarding Security atthe Lab ‘As for security, Salem indicated that Lab employees could access the Lab and the rug vault by either a key oF swipe card given to them, She indicated thatthe key could bypass the swipe card and vce versa. Furthermore, any employee could access the Lab and all secured areas within the Lab, day or night, without being detected (5 at 43-48). Salem had never seen any type of log recording the names of those who had entered the Lab but she noted that the University of Massachusetts was the entity that was 3 responsible forthe “larm sytem and the card swipes” (5 at 17}, Adding to what Salem saw asa lack of security, was what she also believed tobe # lack of oversight by the DPH in regard tothe Amherst Lab. She was ofthe view that there was never a requirement 10 submit eports of any type tothe DPH regarding the work atthe Amherst ab, Furthermore, in the couse of Salem's employment, supervisors from the DPH would vst the Amherst Lab infrequently, Salem recalled that they had ited only “once or tee” in er years at the lb (5 t 60). Salem testified that chemists at the Amherst Lab could asign samples to themselves but it was “frowned upon” (5 a 20). Every chemist had acess to the computer inventory system and, a5 Salem admitted, someone could manipulate the deug inventory onthe computer system (5 at 63). Frequently, Farak or Pontes would approach thor Hanchett or Salem forthe assignment of samples. Occasionally, according to Solem, Honchett would assign samples to himself becouse he was inthe Lab before anyone else (5 at 2). Salem stated that fa batch of samples was assigned to a particular chemist and that chemist was unable to finish the testing, the protocol was to store the samples ina shared safe at the workstations. Both Farak and Pontes had acess to that safe, which was secured only by an “old-fashioned combination lock" (5 a 2223) 3. Salen’s Testimony Regarding Stondards at the Lab Salem testified that everyone also had acess to the standard atthe Ames Lab and thatthe Lab store the standard na locker that was out of view from the chemists! ‘workstations (Sat 25) She alo noted that “working standards” were kept in refrigerator inthe Lab (5 st 26). Salem described working standards or secondary standards as those that were “made from samples that were submitted by police departments.” Typically, “any leftover sample would be utilized to be made into a standard” (5 at 27). She Further Indicated that only Hanchett would make the secondary or working standards and the {nb would usualy store them in the refrizrator (5 at 27-28). Saler stated that after forimal MSP audit, the use of ‘secondary standards” stopped (Sat 37). Ata certain point, Salem stated, Hanchett noticed thet some ofthe standards that had been acquired from outside labs were at lower levels than “he thought they should be” (Sat 3). Hanchett ‘was concerned about this dscrepaney and first brought it to the attention of Salem. He confronted both Farak and Pontes about the isue. They denied any knowledge ofthe problem and Hanchett did not pursue the matter further, Salem stated that Hanchett ‘was concerned about “wrongdoing” but did not have any proof that misconduct hed ‘occurred. This incident occured “sometime after the state police aut of the} lab in ‘October of 2012, but before the DEA came to inspect [the Lab] for [ts] licensure under the state Police” (5 at 3). 4, Solem’s Testimony Regarding Evidence Bags Salem also testified about the chemists Initazing of evidence bags. When she ‘was analyzing drugs prior to becoming the evidence offcer atthe Amherst tab, her own practice was toni the bags only after they were sealed (5 at 54). Salem was not aware ofthe specific practices of the other chemists atthe Lab, or whether anyother chemist \would initia a bag before or after the substance to be placed inthe bag had been analyzed. She conceded the possibility that some ofthe chemists may have been 35 Initiating empty evidence bags s0 that when they finished their analysis, they could seal right throueh the initia but she was not certain 5, Solem’s Testimony About the Testing of Class Es Salem indicated that the certification of Class E substances was done visually using ‘the PDRs, if the substance remained unknown after visual inspection, It would be run through the GC/MS in an attempt to discover its properties. Salem was not sure whether the individual chemists had any particular practices as to how they would test Clas € ‘rugs. She acknowledged that a substance could be classified asa Class E drug by mistake, but didnot believe that ab employee would deliberately miscassfy 2 substance (5 at 56-57) 6, Salem's Testimony about Accreditation Salem testified thatthe Amherst Lab was not acredited, Although there had been some discussion about having the Lab accredited, the funding was never in place to take the steps needed todo so and the DPH “never made ita priority.” One ofthe Lab's shortcomings for accreditation purposes, was that the DPH never had any formal, writen policies or procedures in place (5 at 30). Salem testified that there were no set drug, protocols atthe Amherst Lab and that any policy or procedure was conveyed or leamed “by word of mouth" (5 #9). “[Aln accreted lab,” Salem explained, follows a strict uideline as to what is standard practice, what [an analyst's] paperwork would] show, [and] what testing [would be] dane on a particular item..." nan accredited lab, “everyone [would be] on the same page and doing the same type of testing and working ® Satemasthe ont hemi rom the ab that mentone ths races 36 ‘towards the same goal.” In short, “falcereditation standardizes all the practices" (5 at 30." 7. Solem Testimony Regarding her Observations about Farak Salem tested that she did not notice any problems with Farak until the last few ‘months that Farak worked in the Lab. She noticed that Farak was losing weight, was moody," and was leaving the Lab more frequently during the day, but she did not ‘observe any other “dramatic changes.” She did not note how frequently Farak was nat presentin the Lab, Salem stated that there was positive feedback about Farak’s testimony from various Assistant District Attorneys and nothing negative (5 at 42-43), . Testimony of Rebecca Pontes, Chemist Pontes had worked atthe Amherst Lab for eight and one half (8) years. She Is currently employed by the MSP Inthe Criminalistes Unit in Springfield, She holds 2 ‘bachelor's degree in biology from the University at Massachusetts, Dartmouth, She | began her career in the DPH as a chemist assigned tothe Amherst Lab. At the time ofthe losing ofthe Lab, her title was Forensic Chemist Il and she was one ofthe main chemists analyzing substances that police submitted tothe lab. She continued in that role after the [MSP took over the Amherst Lab in July 2012 (5 at 65-66) 1, Pontes's Testimony about Drug Testing \when Pontes arrived atthe Amberst Lab in May 2004, she was trained by Hanchett. She described the training as “individualized on-the-job taining.” She had 5 in adn, the po and procera the Arharst ab fore samcwht fom those flawed at the non Lao (5 a2), slr sified tht he testing atthe ion Lab "was alot more complicate” ‘eleingto the wo choi sate hat wasn lac (5 t 32). The two-chenst system ceqied theft ‘Chom todo petnsy testing witout the seo ary mscinery. The second chert woul perfor at ‘he conratory testing onthe GC/MS. Tis equrement became more felt she emits became ‘enue totes eout to ter work, ana as a eu he Hinton 3 cessed hat procedure a previously worked at an environmental lb (2 company named Rhode Island Analytical, where she used instrumentation similar to that atthe Amherst Lab to test environmental samples, Hanchett walked Pontes through the steps ofrecelving the samples, weighing them, sampling them, and running them on the GC/MS (5 at 70-71. A the beginning of heremployment, she was only allowed to test vegetable matter unt she was deemed to be “proficient,” a desgnation that allowed her to test powders and other substances (Sat 71-72), Pontes stated that it wos possible to complete many marlhuana tests on an average work day, atleast in part because those tests were simple. By contrast, with | powdered samples, (9, cocaine, the weighing, sampling and actual esting would take alot longer, “from half an hour to forty minutes” (5 at 72-73). Pontes stated that Farak and she di the vast majority of the testing atthe Lab, Hanchet did test some substances, but only the larger and more complicated ones (5 at 73-74), Pontes testified ‘that Salem was the evidence officer atthe Amherst Lab and assigned the samples to each chemist fr testing (5 at 76) 2. Pontes's Testimony ebout Security tthe Lab Ponts testified that, for the majority ofthe time she was tthe Lab, employees ‘accessed the Lab by key or swipe card and only one ofthe two had to be used, Pontes cid not now there was a mechanism by which etry int the Lab was tracked. She added that there was an alarm system Inthe Lab that was set at night and which had to be cisarmed with a securty code in the morning. Employees were able to enter the Lab at “any time ofthe day or night, twenty-four hours a day (5 at 77-78). The drug locker oF ‘vault that contained all the police-submitted drug samples was in an area near Hanchett and Salem's offices, across the hallway from the Lab. Employees could access the drug 38 ‘aut inthis area by using the same swipe card or key that employees aso used to gain access tothe Lab area (5 at 78). Tere was no written or spoken policy concerning wha could or could not enter the safe (Sat 78). There was also another safe located inthe Lab Insel. It was used for overnight storage of any samples thatthe chemists had na fished testing That safe was located alone a wal nthe mide of the Lab and had a dal combination to secure tat eight. Allemployees atthe Lab ae the combination tothe safe (81-82). Pontes testified that she never left an open bag Inthe “overnight sae Inste she used the safe for samples that she had not yet opened or that she had complated” and had “sealed up ateady” (Sat 62), Pontes also noted that there was a computer inthe evidence room, and that everyone had acess oI though the entry ofa single passcode that was the same for every employee, She indicated that someone could possibly change the weights of the submitted samples inthe evidence computer (5 28100) 2, Pontes's Testimony about Stondords Pontes indicate that the Lab used both primary and secondary or “prepared standards.” The primary standards were “known manufactured, known standards that {the tab] would gt rom a manufectuer and keep] n a locke storage area” (5 at $5). & chemist would use these standards as a benchmark “to test against unknown substances” (5.at 5), They were in both powder and iui form. Pontes did not recall how many such standards were on hand tthe Amberst Lab (5 at 85). These primary standards were kept along withthe “prepare standards’ na rtrigeratorin the Lab that was closest to Honchett’s workstation. (5 2t 85-86). 39 Pontes explained thata “prepared standard” is standard that was a powder that is] diluted in quid form tobe used onthe instrumentation.” Hanchett mace these prepared standards at his workstation in the Amherst Lab (5 at 8687), Hanchett would ‘make these prepared standards by using a small sample from known substances thatthe police had submitted for testing (5 # 8}. Pontes tested tat i she noticed 3 prepared standard runnin low in the refrigerator, she woul tel Hanchett ( at 88), She recalled Honchett confronting her and Fara about mising standards atthe Amst Lab --he ‘expressed cancer about these missing standards and wondered what could have happened to them. He aso asked Pontesf she was making her own standards. Both chemists denied going int the standards cabinet and refrigerator and Pontes denied ever ‘making her on standard. She was trying to “wrep her bran” around how standards could go missing (5 at 110-111), 4, Ponts's Testimony about Evidence Bogs Pontes testified that she never pre-ntaled her bags before completing her analysis onthe substances. She would always resal the evidence bag wth the polee submited sample, an then intial and date the bag (5 at 82-83). She Further ndeated that the Lab required all the chemists to date and intial the evidence bags. She observed Forak achere to this procedure and did not recall she ever observed her pre- al evidence bags ($ at 83). Pontes described the evidence bags or “KPAC” bags as "heavy plastic type bags that you would... hes seal” (Sat 83). {In adaltion, Pontes would occasionally act as the evidence office for the Amherst Lab. She recalled that some police departments would deliver samples tothe Labin open 5 yeacis rand thas quent wed nthe food and dug Instr or packaging. 40 evidence bags. She remembered that the police departments from East Longmeadow and Springfield followed tis practice, and tha the bags from Springfield, in particular, had to be resealed atthe Lab (5 at 98-99). 5, Pantes’s Testimony about Lab Protocol Pontes testified that when she first started working at the Amherst Lab, part of her training involved writing notes based upon her observations of Hanchett’s analysis of the substances, Because she had experience rom her pror employment} writing standard operating procedures, Hanchett had asked her to “write an SOP™ for each controlled substance that [the Lab] came across (5 at 103), although there may have | ‘been some informal or unwritten SOPs already in place atthe time Pontes started "working atthe Amherst Lab. However, Pontes believed thatthe SOPs that she drafted "were very close in ther terms to those that would be found in an accreted laboratory (5 {at 103) she indicated thatthe policies set forth by SWGDRUG were avallable to her at the Lab for her review, if necessary (5 at 104). 6, Glass E Substances Pontes testified tothe classifications of certain types of substances atthe Lab, | specifically Class E drugs. She indicated that Class drugs were identified by visual inspection only (5 at 112), The substances “would come in as tablets and they would hhave identiving marks on them’ (5 at 113). A chemist would identify 2 gven pill by ‘consulting a reference gulde, On the infrequent occasions when a police department submitted a pill or substance that was net inthe reference guide, the chemist would run the substance through the GC/MS (5 at 113). Pontes recalled one specific drug named | * Sop er standard operating procedure. a "070." she recalled that 0ZP was 2 federally controlled substance but not controlled Under the state drug laws, “It could have been classified ata Class E...or reported that ‘twas not cassfied with a note that ft was federally controlled. The Lab had no polices set in place concerning the classification of B2P." However, Pontes was certain that she hata dceusion with Hanchett regarding that issue (Sat 114-115). 7, Pontes’s Testimony Regarding Her Observations of Farak Pontes testified that she worked alongside Farak dally for over eight years. Pontes ‘maintained that she did not find anything unusual about Farak’s demeanor or physical appearence. Although Pontes considered Farakto be “odd” “there wasnt anthing that stood out” She thought Farak as od because Farak would fnsh Pontes’ sentences ‘and wasjust “uly” (Sat 95). Pontes indcated that towards the lst few months of Forak’s employment, Farak was leaving the Lab frequently for long periods of ime. However, Pontes would never question Farak about where she went. Pontes assumed that “she may have gotten a coffee oF went tothe bathroom” (5 at 96). Pontes recalled that no member of law enforcement had ever made a comment to her regarding Fark’s work(5 at 105) She described Fara’s work as “very good," nating that “Ther notes [were] very neat and methodical, [and] she kept everything organized as fr asher cas les went” (5 196), Pontes sid that Farak’s workstation was “neat” but her desk area was a Ite ressier” (97). Occasionally Farak would show interest inthe types of samples or the | ‘quanthy of samples that Pontes was testing (5 at 96-97). ‘apis aves at eg in he estnony of MSP Cie Laboratory Manager of Forense Cems, Brooks. a D. Testimony of Nancy Wong Brooks, Massachusetts State Police Brooks is employed at the MSP Crime Laboratoryand isthe Manager of the Forensic Chemistry Section, overseeing several units: the Drug llentifcation Uni; the Office of alcohol Testing: and the Post-Mortem Toxicology Unit, Before managing the aforementioned divisions, she was the Supervisor f the Drug lentication Division of the MSP, located in Sudbury, Massachusetts. She received a Bachelor of Sclence degree in Chemisty from the University of Wisconsin, Maison. Sheisa member ofthe Clandestine Laboratory of investigating Chemists anda member of the New England Assocation of forensic Scientists. In ation, she hasbeen qualified as an expert the state of Wisconsin and testified in the states of New Hampshire, Vermont, end Massachusetts. In her 20 years as a bench chemist, she has examined over 30,000, samples and authored 10,000 reports. she curently overses al forensicunts located at the MSP drug labs in Suabury, Maynard, and Springtel, Massachusetts (6 at 4). 41. Brooks's Testimony Regarding the Amherst Lab ‘The MSP had recently taken over control ofthe Amherst Lab from the DPH on July 1, 2012 when Brooks frst had the opportunity to visit the Amherst Lab in October 2012, “The purposes of her vst were to conduct a cursory autor site assessment ofthe Lab; to review protocols; to evaluate some ofthe case work that the chemists performed: to evaluate the instrumentation inthe Lab and to discover what would “need to be obtained in order fr [the Lab] to become aezredited because the Lb] wfas} not ‘accredited a that time” (6a 2628), Brooks testified that there were aot of steps thatthe lab needed to take to become accreites (6a 28). There wee few written protocols place at the ume (at 43 27), She was of the opinion that the Lab's GC/MS instrument “was of an older ‘generation. Some of t was at least ive years old. The laboratory itself was definitely ‘eminiscent of an academic laboratory” (6 at 28). Brooks added that “as a former “chemistry major, [she] did't see too much difference between when [she] was in cherisry lab twenty years ago and in the Amherst lab" (6a 29). Brooks noted, for ‘example, that there were deficiencies such as "hoods being out of order atthe time” (6 at 28). She indicated that there were two safesin the Amherst Lab: one for temporary storage and another larger, secured evidence storage room safe in the administrative area ofthe Lab (6 at 30). 2. Brooks's Testimony about Accreditation ‘Brooks state that a lab becomes accreted through a multi-step process. The Jab fist submits an application to an accrelting body for forensic drug laboratories, the ‘American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Accreditation Board, also known as ASCLO/LAB* (6 at 89}, The ASCLD/LAB reviews the submitted application along with the submitting lab’s writen drug protocols. Members of ASCLD/LAB do an on-site review of the lab, ineluding a review of protocols and case files and they make a ste facility assessment. The members seek to determine whether the lab has adequate space to perform analytical examinations; mechanisms for tracking evidence throughout the phd” Iesed ding chemical exactions for see) reason. The hood vetates the area wnete te ‘erin s eeu that ay fames or uxt are cacled oat. The extraction woul take pace under the Droteconslty goss. trample of yp erections incude ang components ut fate othe ‘roporton of substance ving hestng erent (2 29, SSReaoyun ters aurecatin proses wich any cme laboratory flung ee scare ané emputeroensies poe) ot ores sence breath alco aleratio preyram proving covered ‘ver may outa n onder to drsnstate tha hel techeal operons and overall management System mec 80/1 17025-2005 requirements and apeabe ASCLD/LAnteratonl supplemental Feauiteets Arca Scetyo Cre Laboratory Decors /abortory hereto Board (ASCLO/LAB: tpn sed oh. eghhow to become ceded ost vsted Moreh 3, 2016, 4 laboratory; anda safe enviranment for analysts to work. In addition, they review lab protocols to ensure that the methods being used, as well asthe conclusions being formed by the analysts are scientifically sound; inspect the instrumentation and assess how well thas been maintained and review security protocols lab seoking accreditation must also have a DEA license in order to handle and ‘acquire controlled substances for testing. Aside from that license, the lab should also have a DPH registration (6 at 8-10), ‘The ASCLD/LAB offers two different types of accreditation programs: the ASCLO/LAB Legacy Program and the ASCLD/LAB International Accreditation under the 180 117025 Supplemental Guidelines” (6 at 8-10). Brooks indicated thatthe “international Supplements were far more comprehensive. Under the orginal Legacy Program there \were one-hundred and fifty (150) criteria that were reviewed fora lab. Under the International Program Supplemental [a lab is} reviewed on ... approximately four= ‘hundred (400) eritera... all of which [the lab] must pass” (6 at 1). 3. Brooks's Testimony about the Massachusetts State Police Laboratories in Sudbury and Springfield ‘The two MSP drug labs, located in Sudbury and Springlield have been accredited since 2002. The labs first were accredited under the ASCLD/LAB Legacy Program. The [ASCLO/LAB subsequenty awarded the labs the international Acreitation under the 0 417025 Guidelines, both described above (6 at 10). Brooks explained the general ayouts ofthe two labs and ther features. Inthe Sudbury lab, thare are approximately ten to ® panecan Sockety of Ge sseratryDrectrs/tbocator Acedkation Board (ASCAD/LAB) utpfunew ate ab opntermatons testing prota) lst sted March 31,2026), 45 ‘twelve chemists and four supervisors. In the Springfield lab, there ae two chemists, with {an addtional one ia tainng and one superior When evidence is brought into the Sudbury or Springfield drug ab for testing, the Individual or entity that seeks the testing must complete certain paperwork. Evidence control personnel wil recive hats the paper andthe substance, andig the sample {nto the lb’s Laboratory Information Management System. The system records the name the submitting agency, any agency case numbers, and any subject names. The evidence officer also willecord the gross weight ofthe sample ands packaging, The evidence oficer does not “inventory” the samples because the bags re not opened Instead the officer visually verifies that the substance described bythe ageney is pretty ‘uch consistent with what the lotfcr] sels in [the] sealed plastic bag” (6 at 16). The samples then assigned a unique laboratory case number and aba code spaced onthe ‘evidence bag. The purpose ofthat procedure isto track evidence throughout the laboratory (6.15) Each analyst ashi or her own personal bar code so thatthe lab can track the progression of the sample from the submitting ageny tothe chemist an back to the vault (6a 15). Everytime a semale moves from one location to another, lab ‘worker must scan the sample. The ab retains electronic records regarding this movement (6 at 20) samples are stored in a deve vault. Inthe Sudbury lab, the dru vat i located In a secure area within the evidence contol unit and there isa safe within the vault where the substances ae actually kept. Inthe Spring ab, the vats secured within the laboratory Both labs follow the exact same procedures forthe storage, handling, and testing fal police submitted samples. Evidence control personnel atthe lab must a6 retrieve any item thats ready for testing (6 at 13). I, for any reason, evidence personnel ‘are not available to retrieve evidence from the vault, an analyst wth authorization wall, enter the vault along with the primary chemist to remove the evidence bin using his/her swine card, This procedure is known as “ual entry" andl an electronic record is kept as to that entry and.as to allother entries (6st 32), Inthe Sudbury lab, the samples are assigned and prioritized for testing based "upon how soon the results ofthe tests are needed in court (6 at 15). When the lab assigns samples toa chemist for testing, the samples are taken from the vault and

    Вам также может понравиться