Kathy Eppler had spent seven long years waiting for justice against the man responsible for the murders of her two brothers and sister-in-law.

Garrett Coughlin received a life sentence without the possibility of parole for the triple murder. However, due to serious failures in a forensic lab, the pursuit of justice for Eppler was severely impacted.

A forensic scientist from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation altered numerous DNA test results, including those related to the 2017 murder case of Eppler’s family. As a result, prosecutors were forced to propose a plea deal that allows Coughlin to seek parole after 24 years.

“We all feel deeply betrayed,” Eppler shared with YSL News.

Colorado’s crime lab is one example of numerous facilities nationwide facing criticism as misconduct and lab errors surface. Although Colorado officials have promised to reassess DNA testing protocols, Eppler argues that a complete restructuring of the laboratory is necessary, along with enhanced transparency and increased oversight from external entities.

“Where are the checks and balances in this system? There’s no one regulating it,” she voiced her concerns.

Fifteen years have passed since a critical report criticized disorganized practices in forensic labs across the nation, including poor analyses of bite marks and blood splatter. Five years ago, federal researchers proposed new rigorous standards aimed at enhancing the reliability of forensic science; however, only half of the over 400 major crime labs in the U.S. have publicly embraced these changes.

Experts point out that many laboratories face staffing shortages and budget constraints, often receiving meager funding to conduct tests that could cost significantly more, such as those needed for rape kits or gun analyses. Some labs may have implemented standards but choose not to disclose them, fearing they might be held accountable in court. As lab results are essential evidence in criminal proceedings, insufficient quality could compromise their reliability, threatening both justice and public safety.

Moreover, many labs are affiliated with law enforcement, leading to concerns about bias and pressure to deliver quick results to resolve cases, instead of adhering to the national standards developed by federal researchers.

However, shortcuts and errors within forensic science can have grave implications.

Research indicates that when innocent individuals are wrongfully convicted, the actual criminal frequently continues to commit additional offenses. Kate Judson, executive director of the Center for Integrity in Forensic Sciences, points out that in a North Carolina study, six actual wrongdoers went on to commit 99 additional crimes while innocent individuals remained incarcerated. Since 1989, the National Registry of Exonerations reports that over 1,000 individuals have been exonerated after wrongful convictions due to faulty or misleading forensic evidence.

“That’s very significant to me,” Judson remarked, emphasizing that even a single criminal being free to offend again results in “one more victim that could have been prevented if the correct individual had been apprehended sooner.”

“It’s truly tragic,” she asserted. “It’s not just the wrongfully imprisoned person and the victims who were denied justice; it affects their families, their communities, and ultimately, the integrity of our system relies on public trust. Each breach of that trust damages the entire system.”

A Critical Report Leads to Federal Standards in Forensic Science

Modern forensic science encompasses a variety of disciplines that were primarily shaped by individuals associated with law enforcement who sought to identify offenders, rather than by scientists engaged in peer-reviewed research, according to Chris Fabricant, director of strategic litigation at the Innocence Project.

Forensic techniques that are now dismissed as “junk science”—such as bite mark analysis and microscopic hair comparison—were accepted in courts with insufficient scrutiny until the evolution of DNA analysis in the early 1990s revealed profound shortcomings in the field, Fabricant noted.

“Many critics argue that forensic science lacks sufficient grounding in actual science,” stated Fabricant, who authored “Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System.”

Following significant revelations that resulted in exonerations, Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences to examine commonly used forensic techniques. The findings were alarming: with the exception of DNA analysis, most forensic methods lacked scientific validity and could not reliably link evidence from crime scenes to their sources.

The report from 2009 suggested a major reform in the field, recommending the formation of a strong, independent federal agency dedicated to oversight. However, this has yet to occur, although Fabricant maintains that a federal agency with regulatory authority, akin to the FDA for forensics, is crucial.

Instead of these changes, the report gave rise to the National Commission on Forensic Science, which was disbanded shortly after President Donald Trump took office in 2017. The OSAC, or Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science, was also established; this federal initiative aims to create and uphold national standards for forensic science.

OSAC has introduced numerous standards covering everything from the management of crime labs to how forensic scientists present evidence in court. John Paul “JP” Jones, who manages the forensic science standards program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, mentioned that over 800 specialists across nearly 20 fields contributed to the creation of these standards over the past decade.

However, since most forensic work is conducted at the local level, the federal government’s influence in enforcing these standards is nearly nonexistent. Compliance with these standards is entirely up to the labs, and only about half of the largest 423 crime labs have adopted some of OSAC’s guidelines, according to Jones.

“There’s no central authority that can compel compliance across the board,” he stated.

Jones mentioned that while it’s possible more laboratories might be following these recommended practices, many fear that revealing non-compliance with OSAC’s 200 standards could be detrimental in legal proceedings. He noted that approximately 50 to 60 new labs adopt some of these standards each year, and he is optimistic that this trend will continue as more laboratories witness the advantages of these standards in their counterparts.

“I remain hopeful for the future, or I wouldn’t be dedicated to this work,” Jones remarked. “But change will be gradual in our current unregulated environment.”

Failures in Crime Labs Impact Trust in the Criminal Justice System

Numerous scandals involving local crime labs in recent years have eroded public trust and raised concerns about justice and safety.

For instance, in Rhode Island, certain firearms analyses were put on hold after forensic experts mistakenly connected bullet casings from a homicide in 2021 to the wrong weapon. A suspect was charged in this drive-by shooting, which resulted in the death of 29-year-old Keshaudas Spence, and the case is still ongoing. However, 20 other cases required evidence to be re-evaluated, and an external consultant identified an issue with “lack of diligence” as well as deficiencies in record maintenance and oversight within the firearms analysis unit.

Rhode Island’s Attorney General Peter F. Neronha expressed confidence in the majority, if not all, of the lab’s evidence. Still, recent incidents have raised “legitimate questions” regarding lab operations, prompting his office to take actions to rectify the situation.

Defense attorneys have already begun to question the validity of gun evidence produced by the lab in numerous cases, including the homicide of Berta Pereira-Roldan, who was shot during her 19th birthday celebration in Providence.

In Colorado, the state’s Bureau of Investigation permitted analyst Yvonne “Missy” Woods, a veteran with 29 years of experience, to continue her work despite colleagues flagging concerns about her forensic practices as early as 2014. An internal probe revealed she routinely deleted DNA test data to evade established protocols, including in a triple murder case involving the family of a man named Eppler.

The individual convicted in that case, Coughlin, received a life sentence without the chance for parole. However, his conviction was later overturned due to issues with juror conduct, and prosecutors decided to offer him a plea agreement instead of retrying him, partially based on the compromised evidence.

“We are all just heartbroken and unwell,” Eppler expressed to YSL News. “Honestly, I completely lack confidence in the CBI.”

The crime laboratory in Washington D.C. faced its accreditation revocation for the second time in 2021 after an audit uncovered that it had wrongly reported the use of the same firearm in two separate homicide cases and attempted to conceal the error.

During the time the lab was unaccredited, the city had to outsource forensic tasks to private companies. As a result, the extraction of DNA profiles from local evidence and their upload to a national database, which is vital for identifying suspects and solving crimes nationwide, saw a significant decline over the two years.

In the garage situated below the high-value lab in the capital, investigators are engaged in lengthy hours to gather any evidence possible—fingerprints, DNA, stray hairs, shell casings—from the damaged and bullet-beaten vehicles discovered at crime scenes. The space is kept cool to prevent overheating of the personnel in their protective gear and is messy, cluttered with debris from charred vehicles.

On the upper levels, which emit a faint chemical odor, toxicologists and forensic chemists examine blood samples. Nearby, there is a shooting range where federal agents assess firearms to conduct ballistics tests, and lab rooms that have such rigorous security that anyone entering is required to submit a DNA sample to be excluded from genetic profiling efforts of victims and suspects.

Jennifer Love, the lab’s chief science officer, played a significant role in helping the lab regain its accreditation late last year for its forensic chemistry and biology unit, which processes DNA. The lab has resolutely committed to implementing new federal standards. However, Love mentioned a slight backlog in DNA analysis, indicating the need for new hires to reestablish the firearms unit’s accreditation.

“We’ve made considerable progress, but there’s still a long way to go,” she remarked.

While accreditation provides a degree of oversight, Sarah Chu, the director of policy and reform at the Perlmutter Center for Legal Justice, indicated that her studies suggest that the basic accreditation requirements are inadequate to prevent the systemic failures seen in the forensic sector.

Chu suggested that state boards and commissions might be a more effective means of regulating forensic science, pointing to the Texas Forensic Science Commission as a model. Although such regulatory bodies operate in 17 states and Washington, D.C., there is a lack of consistency among them, as noted by Kermit Channell, president of the National Association of Forensic Science Boards.

Channell explained that some boards consist of subject matter experts, while others include law enforcement and prosecutors selected by politicians, which compromises their effectiveness and exposes them to political influences.

“Politics definitely play a role in forensics,” he stated. “Anyone who denies that hasn’t worked in a crime lab.”

Victims call for more action to address backlogs and forensic errors

The Houston crime lab earned the notorious reputation of being the worst crime lab in America in the early 2000s after the wrongful convictions of four men due to failures and misconduct in the lab, according to Peter Stout, the president of the Houston Forensic Science Center. Officials spent years striving to regain their accreditation while dealing with significant backlogs. They eventually made the pivotal decision to cut ties with the Houston Police Department, transforming the lab into a benchmark for the industry.

Stout, who joined the lab in 2015, has focused on rebuilding the organization from the ground up while ensuring compliance with OSAC standards. He introduced blind quality control to routinely test the system’s effectiveness, a practice he learned during his tenure in military drug testing, which he described as “almost non-existent in crime laboratories.”

“We significantly outperform proficiency testing across the entire laboratory, and the only reason we can achieve this is because we are allowed the flexibility to do so, without anyone saying no,” he…

Stout mentioned that “under the current pressures faced by most laboratories, it’s extremely challenging for them to justify such measures.”

Despite Stout managing a well-funded team of over 200, he pointed out that more than half of the laboratories nationwide employ 30 or fewer staff members and charge about $600 per request, describing this situation as “generally inadequate.” Testing a simple sexual assault kit can cost up to $1,000, while firearms investigations can reach costs of $5,000.

This dilemma has led to substantial backlogs, with some reaching into the thousands and persisting for years.

When crucial evidence, such as rape kits, remains untested, survivors endure ongoing distress, and offenders are left free to commit further crimes. For instance, by the time Texas officials examined the evidence from Lavinia Masters’ sexual assault incident that occurred when she was 13 in 1985, the legal time limit had passed, and the suspect had already attacked another victim.

“I felt as if my entire world was collapsing again, and I was devastated after putting so much effort into rebuilding it,” stated Masters, who advocated for legislation in Texas that mandates stricter deadlines for testing rape kits. Texas lawmakers have also allocated $50 million to enhance technology and broaden the number of qualified analysts.

In Colorado, while the state is retesting up to 3,000 DNA samples and prosecutors are reviewing cases affected by laboratory mistakes, Eppler insists that more urgent action is required.

“After this, my large family gatherings turned into a small table filled with years of pain,” she reflected. “I see no significant action being taken.”