Forensic laboratories that serve the criminal justice system are required to maintain accreditation through bodies such as ANAB (ANSI National Accreditation Board) or A2LA (American Association for Laboratory Accreditation). Accreditation requires compliance with established quality standards and periodic external audits that assess whether the laboratory is meeting those standards. When problems are found, accreditation can be suspended, conditioned, or revoked.
Laboratory audits and accreditation records are public in many jurisdictions and can be obtained through public records requests. In Texas, Department of Public Safety crime laboratory records are subject to open records requests under the Texas Public Information Act. The audit history of a laboratory (including any findings of deficiency, corrective action requirements, or accreditation conditions) is directly relevant to the reliability of results produced by that laboratory and can be used in the defense of cases where the laboratory’s analysis is offered into evidence.
What Accreditation Audits Assess
Accreditation audits typically evaluate the laboratory’s compliance with a comprehensive set of quality standards covering:
- Personnel qualifications. Do analysts have the required education, training, and ongoing proficiency testing for the methods they perform? Have all required certifications been maintained?
- Method validation. Has the laboratory validated each analytical method it uses, and is the validation documentation complete and current? Do the validation parameters (accuracy, precision, specificity, sensitivity, detection limits) meet required standards?
- Equipment calibration and maintenance. Are instruments calibrated on the required schedule? Are calibration records complete? Are maintenance logs current?
- Chain of custody and evidence handling. Does the laboratory have adequate procedures for receiving, tracking, storing, and returning evidence? Are chain of custody records properly maintained?
- Proficiency testing. Does the laboratory participate in external proficiency testing programs? Do analysts complete both internal and external proficiency tests at the required frequency? What were the results?
- Corrective actions. When deficiencies are identified (through internal audits, external audits, or proficiency failures) are they properly documented and corrected? Is there a system for identifying root causes and preventing recurrence?
What Audit Findings Can Reveal
Systematic methodology problems. An audit finding that a laboratory’s method for a specific analyte was not properly validated, or that the laboratory was using a method outside the scope of its accreditation, has implications that extend to every case analyzed using that method during the relevant period.
Analyst-specific problems. An audit finding that a specific analyst failed proficiency testing, lacked required training, or had a history of errors is directly relevant to any case where that analyst performed the analysis.
Instrument-specific problems. An audit finding that a specific instrument was not calibrated on schedule, produced out-of-specification results, or was used while under a corrective action plan affects any analysis performed on that instrument during the relevant period.
Evidence handling failures. Audit findings about evidence handling, chain of custody documentation, or storage conditions affect the integrity of every sample that passed through the laboratory during the period of deficiency.
How to Obtain and Use Audit Records in Texas
Texas DPS crime laboratory accreditation and audit records can be requested through the Texas Public Information Act. The request should specifically identify the laboratory, the time period of interest, and the records sought: accreditation documents, audit reports, findings of deficiency, corrective action documentation, and proficiency testing results for the relevant analysts and time period.
Once obtained, audit records should be reviewed alongside the specific case file to identify any overlap between the audit’s findings and the methods, analysts, and instruments involved in the defendant’s case. If an audit finding relates to the method used in a case, the analyst who performed the analysis, or the instrument used, that connection may provide grounds for challenging the reliability of the result.
In significant cases, engaging an independent forensic consultant to review the laboratory’s audit history and assess its implications for the specific case is often worthwhile. An experienced forensic toxicologist or forensic chemist who understands laboratory accreditation standards can identify the significance of specific findings and explain them clearly to a court or jury.
If forensic science evidence is central to your case, contact Deandra Grant Law for a free, confidential consultation. Managing Partner Deandra Grant and Partner Douglas Huff both hold the ACS-CHAL Forensic Lawyer-Scientist designation and Deandra has a Master’s Degree in Pharmaceutical Science and a Graduate Certificate in Forensic Toxicology. Call (214) 225-7117 or visit deandragrantlaw.com.