Forensic Science Commission closes multiple lab disclosures, opens several investigations
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
At its Jan. 31, 2025 meeting the Texas Forensic Science Commission voted to accept and disposition a series of laboratory self‑disclosures and complaints, issuing mostly "no further action" findings while opening investigations or panels for a smaller number of matters.
The Texas Forensic Science Commission on Jan. 31, 2025 considered a large batch of laboratory self‑disclosures, equipment‑failure reports and complaints and voted on staff recommendations that in most cases resulted in "no further action." Commissioners accepted several matters for additional investigation or assigned investigative panels where staff recommended further review.
Commission staff presented multiple self‑disclosures from accredited and non‑accredited forensic providers. Forensic biology and toxicology matters reviewed during the meeting included: Sherlo Optical Research Institute (item 24.26), DNA Reference Laboratory (item 24.32), NMS Labs (items 24.47 and 24.48), Southwestern Forensic Sciences (item 24.49), Tarrant County Medical Examiner's Office (item 24.50), Jefferson County Regional Crime Lab (item 24.51), DPS breath alcohol lab (item 24.52), and several seized‑evidence and data‑loss events (including item 24.55). After staff described root‑cause analyses and corrective actions, commissioners largely voted to accept staff recommendations for no further action where labs had identified causes and remediated problems.
Not all matters were closed. The commission accepted for investigation a self‑disclosure from DNA Reference Laboratory (item 24.32) and appointed a three‑member panel (commissioners Doctor Koval, Miss Zemack and Mister Daniel) to review it. The commission also accepted for staff investigation a disclosure from the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences (item 25.101) and directed staff to report back at a future meeting. Separately, commissioners voted to accept a complaint filed by an attorney from Houston (item 24.45) for panel investigation; commissioners Parsons, Kerrigan and Drake were appointed to that investigative panel.
On complaints, the commission dismissed several matters for lack of factual support or because the complainant did not provide independent testing: the complaint by Kevin Shuute regarding DPS Tyler seized‑drug analysis (item 24.58) was dismissed pending any independent testing; the broad allegation by Lucio Atkinson against DPS Austin (item 25.102) was dismissed for lack of supporting facts; and staff dismissals for three other matters (2443, 2444 and 2453) were endorsed by the commission.
Votes and formal actions were taken on the record for each item. Where panels were formed or staff investigations ordered, commissioners specified whether the review would be handled by staff or a commissioner panel. Where labs had corrected procedural or equipment problems and had completed case reviews and notifications to affected agencies, commissioners accepted those corrective actions and voted "no further action."