Why did the ACLU wait until after the election to release this letter? In the letter, the ACLU urges the CBI to be transparent with the public regarding its compliance with federal funding requirements and the scope of the planned audit. It calls on the CBI to ensure that the external auditor can carry out the audit properly—independently, rigorously, and with enough depth to uncover the root causes of this alarming and unaddressed misconduct. The ACLU emphasizes the importance of a prompt response from the CBI.
It has been over a year since the DNA scandal involving Yvonne Missy Woods came to light through the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In that time, there are still men and women potentially wrongfully convicted, left in limbo because no one seems to know how to handle the situation. An external investigation was hired, from Kansas and other states, but it appears the investigation was closed with a conclusion that Woods did not intentionally manipulate testing. However, they found anomalies in 800 cases, and yet, no one is looking back at her work over the past 30 years.
It seems like everyone is playing the blame game, and I’m critical of every agency involved, especially those who could have made a difference but waited nearly a year before taking action. The ACLU, in particular, has lost my respect as a civil rights organization. In July 2024, I sent two letters to them expressing concerns about various outcomes from this situation, but we still have people behind bars. They’ve partnered with the Korey Wise Innocence Project—great, but what has come from it?
Let’s pause for a moment. As an attorney, especially when DNA evidence is involved, it’s crucial to utilize every tool available. Why are defense attorneys relying solely on DNA results from the CBI? It makes no sense. Defense attorneys are supposed to protect their clients and prove their innocence, yet they trust an agency with a vested interest in ensuring convictions. Why aren’t they hiring expert witnesses for DNA testing? Why aren’t they better educated on DNA lab work? This should be basic legal practice. Now, we’re playing the blame game, but I place as much blame on defense attorneys as on the CBI. And still, no one is stepping up with a real plan—they’re all waiting for the prosecutors.
Where has the ACLU been this entire year? Are they just sitting around waiting for the right moment? When I contacted them, I was told they wouldn’t be involved. Now, they’re involved with the Korey Wise Project, but what’s the outcome? Are we expecting federal charges for non-compliance with lab work? Perhaps, but I suspect the response will be a slap on the wrist. Will criminal charges be filed against Yvonne Missy Woods? I doubt it. It seems like everything is being swept under the rug.
If the issue were only with the DNA testing that would be one thing, but let’s take a closer look at Weld County’s at corner office and another DNA scandal has been quietly hidden. The truth is, the criminal justice system is broken and corrupted, and while the issues are coming to light, the victims of this system are still sitting in prison. What will it take to shake things up? Nonprofits like the ACLU are supposed to fight for people’s rights, but instead, they’ve waited until after the elections to take action. Shame on them.
To add to the disillusionment, I met a woman from the ACLU named Jen Samano, who expressed interest in my situation. I emailed her multiple times, but never received a response. Then, suddenly, after the election, a letter regarding Missy Woods’ case surfaced. What a coincidence. To make matters worse, Jen has no law degree or criminal justice background—she’s a campaign coordinator with a background as a bartender. And yet, she works for the ACLU. It’s hard to believe in the credibility of an organization like this when they’re employing people without relevant experience.
As for me, despite holding a PhD in criminal justice and science, I can’t get a job at the ACLU. Why? Because I would hold them accountable, and they don’t want that. Instead, they pass the blame, and in the end, people remain behind bars, waiting for answers that never come. What’s the purpose of the Korey Wise Innocence Project? If federal agents get involved, it’ll likely be just a slap on the wrist. The system is broken, and the people responsible are hiding behind their excuses, all while the victims of this corruption remain in prison. It’s time for someone to hold these organizations accountable, and it’s clear that the ACLU has failed in this case.
In criminal cases where DNA evidence plays a critical role, the defense attorney’s ability to scrutinize and challenge that evidence can be pivotal in ensuring a fair trial. However, many defense attorneys, particularly those working with limited resources or in public defense, face significant barriers in hiring DNA experts or fully understanding the complexities of DNA evidence. These challenges can be rooted in financial limitations, lack of specialized knowledge, and systemic issues within the legal system.
1. Financial Limitations
Cost of Experts:
One of the most immediate obstacles for defense attorneys is the prohibitive cost of hiring DNA experts. Independent DNA analysis and expert testimony can run into the thousands of dollars, an expense that many defense teams simply cannot afford. For defendants relying on public defenders, the lack of financial resources makes it particularly difficult to secure specialized expert consultations that could challenge the prosecution’s forensic evidence.
Funding for Public Defense:
Public defender offices, which represent a significant portion of the criminally accused in the U.S., are notoriously underfunded. Defense attorneys are often tasked with managing high caseloads and tight budgets, leaving them with little room to fund essential services such as hiring DNA experts. In cases where DNA evidence is central to the prosecution’s case, this funding shortfall leaves the defense at a severe disadvantage, with few resources to investigate or contest the science behind the evidence.
2. Lack of Training or Knowledge
Complexity of DNA Science:
DNA evidence, while powerful, is complex and relies on advanced scientific principles, including statistical probabilities and intricate laboratory techniques. Defense attorneys, particularly those without a scientific background, may find it difficult to evaluate or contest DNA evidence effectively. They may lack the expertise to identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence or to understand the nuances of the methodologies used in DNA analysis.
Overreliance on Prosecutors’ Evidence:
There is a common misconception that DNA evidence is infallible, a belief largely perpetuated by the “CSI Effect” — a phenomenon where popular media overstates the accuracy and certainty of forensic science. Defense attorneys, particularly those without specialized knowledge in forensic science, may hesitate to challenge the prosecution’s DNA evidence, assuming it is irrefutable. This reliance can lead to missed opportunities to discredit flawed or misinterpreted DNA results.
3. Systemic Barriers
Time Constraints:
Time is a luxury that many defense attorneys, especially public defenders, do not have. Given the high caseloads and the pressure to handle numerous cases simultaneously, defense teams often struggle to dedicate the time and attention needed to delve into complex evidence like DNA. Preparing a thorough challenge to DNA evidence requires time to consult with experts, review lab reports, and strategize on effective counterarguments — time that may simply not be available.
Prosecution’s Resources:
In contrast to the often-strapped resources of the defense, prosecutors typically have access to well-funded crime labs and state-employed forensic analysts. These resources give prosecutors an edge in presenting DNA evidence that is not easily contested. Defense attorneys working without access to similar forensic expertise are at a clear disadvantage, as they must rely on external experts who may be difficult or expensive to hire.
Judicial Bias:
Another significant hurdle for defense teams is the potential for judicial bias. Judges, particularly in high-profile or complex cases, may limit or deny funding for defense experts. In some instances, they may even restrict the scope of testimony that can be presented by defense experts. This restriction can severely hinder the defense’s ability to challenge DNA evidence effectively and may lead to a less robust defense for the accused.
4. Misunderstandings and Misapplications
Misinterpretation of Results:
DNA evidence can be incredibly persuasive, but its interpretation is not always straightforward. For example, defense attorneys may struggle to distinguish between a match and a true identification, or they may fail to recognize the statistical nuances that influence the interpretation of DNA samples. Inclusion does not guarantee certainty, and partial matches are often overemphasized or misinterpreted. Without expert guidance, defense attorneys may miss key opportunities to challenge these interpretations.
Failure to Cross-Examine Effectively:
In criminal trials, cross-examining expert witnesses is crucial for challenging the credibility and reliability of the evidence. However, without access to their own DNA experts, defense attorneys may miss critical opportunities to cross-examine lab technicians on the procedures used in collecting and analyzing DNA samples. They may fail to raise issues such as contamination, mishandling of evidence, or inconsistencies in lab results, all of which could undermine the prosecution’s case.
5. Challenges in Accessing DNA Experts
Shortage of Experts:
The pool of qualified forensic DNA experts is relatively small, and many of them are in high demand due to the complexity and importance of their testimony. As a result, these experts are often overbooked, particularly in high-profile cases. This shortage can make it difficult for defense teams to secure an expert when needed. In some cases, experts may refuse to testify due to conflicting interests, workload, or a perceived lack of merit in the case.
Ethical Considerations:
In rare instances, forensic experts may refuse to testify for the defense if they feel the case is unethical or indefensible. While this is an unusual circumstance, it underscores the difficulties defense attorneys can face when trying to find the right expert witness to assist in challenging DNA evidence. Some experts may be reluctant to testify in cases where they feel the science is being misused, which can further limit the defense’s ability to mount an effective challenge.
The challenges defense attorneys face in hiring DNA experts and understanding DNA evidence are multifaceted, with financial constraints, lack of training, and systemic barriers all contributing to the problem. In a system where the stakes are high and the science can be complex, the ability to properly challenge DNA evidence is a critical element of a fair trial. Addressing these barriers by ensuring adequate funding, providing specialized training, and reducing systemic inequalities in resources would help level the playing field for the defense and lead to more just outcomes in criminal cases.
The investigation into forensic scientist Yvonne “Missy” Woods, who worked with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for nearly 30 years, revealed that she deviated from standard DNA testing protocols and manipulated data in hundreds of cases. Specifically, the internal investigation found that Woods had omitted or altered key DNA test results and failed to comply with quality control and data retention policies. These actions raised significant concerns about the integrity of her work across 652 cases from 2008 to 2023, with an ongoing review of her earlier work from 1994 to 2008.
While the investigation did not find evidence of Woods falsifying DNA matches, her deviations from established protocols undermined the reliability of the results. This situation led to public scrutiny and calls for improved oversight in forensic laboratories. The CBI has since implemented a comprehensive review process to prevent similar issues in the future
Technical Deviation in a DNA lab typically refers to situations where errors or misconduct in DNA testing led to the misinterpretation or mishandling of evidence, which can have far-reaching consequences for criminal cases. This could occur when a forensic scientist fails to follow standard testing protocols, manipulates data, or omits critical information. Such actions can lead to wrongful convictions, the release of guilty individuals, or the invalidation of key evidence that could have affected the outcome of a trial. and restore public trust in its forensic services.
This case highlights the importance of rigorous adherence to scientific protocols in forensic analysis to ensure accurate and fair outcomes in the justice system. The ongoing criminal investigation into Woods further underscores the seriousness of her actions. “
The Fallout of a Career: Yvonne “Missy” Woods and the DNA Scandal That Shook Colorado
2023
Yvonne “Missy” Woods, a renowned DNA scientist with a stellar reputation, has become the focus of scrutiny after a distinguished 29-year career with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Known for her emotional investment in her work, Woods once remarked, “I’ve worked so many cold cases, and this last year has been very emotional for me.”
Ron Sloan, the former CBI director from 2008 to 2015 and Woods’ supervisor during much of her tenure, expressed shock at recent revelations. “It stunned me because I was never aware of any problems in that regard,” Sloan stated. He described Woods as a go-to analyst for high-priority cases, earning praise from prosecutors and defense counsel alike for her professionalism, transparency, and informative work.
However, a letter sent to district attorneys this week by the current CBI director has raised concerns about Woods’ credibility. The letter mentioned “anomalies” in her work and revealed that the CBI is compiling a list of cases she worked on while planning to prioritize and retest those cases. These developments are causing alarm, as the implications could potentially affect numerous investigations and trials.
Sloan emphasized the importance of accountability within the agency. “The message I get is that if there are anomalies, you don’t cover them up. You address them, work through them, and make it clear what’s expected of everyone,” he said.
The CBI has initiated both an internal affairs and a criminal investigation into the matter, bringing in an outside agency to ensure transparency. District attorneys are now waiting for the CBI to clarify the nature of the anomalies and the scope of their impact. As the investigation unfolds, more details are expected to surface about the issues under review and their potential ramifications for the justice system.
2024
A man serving a life sentence for murder is seeking to overturn his conviction 12 years after being found guilty. Michael Clark, who maintains his innocence, is now at the center of a legal battle after it was revealed that the star witness in his trial, DNA analyst Yvonne “Missy” Woods, is under criminal investigation.
“Michael’s innocent. He’s been wrongfully imprisoned for 12 years and counting,” said Clark’s attorney, Adam Frank. Frank has filed a motion to overturn the conviction, citing allegations that Woods manipulated and deleted data in more than 800 cases. According to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI), a review team is examining cases dating back to 2008, raising questions about the validity of the evidence used in Clark’s 2012 trial.
At the heart of the case is DNA evidence analyzed by Woods, specifically her findings from a CarMax lip balm linked to the murder. Frank argues that Clark might not have been convicted if information about Woods’ alleged misconduct had been available during the trial.
“We filed a motion to vacate Michael’s conviction based on Missy Woods’ misconduct and began discussions with the District Attorney’s office,” Frank explained. Both parties agreed that any retesting of evidence should be conducted by an independent lab, not the CBI. The lip balm, now over 30 years old, will undergo retesting to determine if any DNA can still be extracted.
“The evidence is decades old. There might not be any DNA left, or it might reveal who actually committed the crime,” Frank said. “Regardless, we’re glad the prosecution is moving forward with retesting.”
The Boulder District Attorney’s office has stated that the CBI found no immediate issues with Woods’ work on Clark’s case, but the ongoing investigation into her credibility is casting doubt on numerous cases she worked on. While Frank has long questioned the DNA evidence, the outcome of the retesting could shape the next steps in Clark’s fight for justice.
Meanwhile, District Attorney Michael Dougherty acknowledged that other closed cases linked to Woods are likely to face renewed scrutiny and challenges in court as the investigation progresses.
There are significant concerns surrounding the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and its handling of forensic evidence, particularly regarding the actions of Yvonne “Missy” Woods, a DNA scientist with 29 years of experience. Woods retired amid allegations of misconduct, including manipulating, omitting, and deleting critical data during DNA testing. The scope of her actions raises the question of how much damage has already been done.
Forensic scientist and professor Dan Crane weighed in on the situation, explaining the gravity of the allegations. While Woods’ misconduct is serious, Crane noted it could have been worse, comparing it to “dry labbing,” where results are entirely fabricated—a practice seen in past forensic scandals.
In Woods’ case, she allegedly omitted failed controls, such as negative or positive controls meant to ensure the accuracy of DNA testing. This means potential issues, such as contamination or failed test results, were excluded from case files, potentially skewing the evidence presented in court. Crane pointed out that it’s unclear whether Woods replaced the faulty controls with clean ones from other experiments or simply omitted them altogether.
This misconduct has already been identified in at least 652 cases dating back to 2008, but investigations are ongoing, and the number could grow. Crane emphasized that while fabricating DNA results is harder with modern technology, tampering with controls or data to disadvantage a suspect remains possible and highly problematic.
As for motivation, Crane speculated that analysts like Woods might rationalize their actions as minor transgressions, believing they are justified if the suspect is guilty. “They might think, ‘What I’m doing is a small sin compared to the crime this person allegedly committed,’” he said. Time pressures, a desire to meet expectations, or a lack of understanding of the importance of controls could also play a role.
Crane further explained how such behavior could become a pattern, with initial lapses leading to desensitization over time. “Once you do it once, the barrier to doing it again becomes lower and lower,” he noted.
This case underscores the importance of integrity in forensic science and the potential consequences of misconduct, as prosecutors, defense attorneys, and the justice system grapple with how to address Woods’ actions and their impact on numerous criminal cases.
The Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is under scrutiny after allegations of DNA evidence manipulation by its top DNA scientist, Yvonne “Missy” Woods, who worked at the agency for nearly 30 years. Woods retired amidst accusations that she tampered with DNA testing procedures, omitted critical information, and manipulated data in over 800 criminal cases. These revelations have sparked criticism from organizations like the ACLU and the Innocence Project, which are calling for an independent audit to fully investigate the scope of her misconduct.
The controversy began last year when an intern discovered irregularities in Woods’ work. Subsequent investigations revealed that concerns about her practices had been raised as early as 2014 and 2018, but the CBI did not take action at the time, allowing her to continue working. An internal review conducted by an external team from Kansas concluded that while Woods had not falsified DNA matches, she deviated from standard testing protocols, raising serious questions about the reliability of her findings.
The fallout from this scandal has already impacted several criminal cases. For example, Michael Jefferson, charged with the 1985 murder of Roger Dean, was offered a plea deal instead of facing trial, due to doubts surrounding DNA evidence linked to Woods’ work. This case and others highlight the ongoing concerns about the integrity of the CBI’s DNA program, with prosecutors and defense attorneys questioning the validity of evidence in cases Woods handled.
Critics, including the ACLU, accuse the CBI of a lack of transparency and non-compliance with federal funding requirements meant to prevent such misconduct. They argue that a two-year audit is insufficient and are pushing for a thorough review of Woods’ entire tenure to identify systemic issues and prevent future failures.
The scandal has left countless individuals—potentially wrongfully convicted—awaiting clarity on their cases as investigations continue. While criminal charges against Woods remain uncertain, the controversy underscores the critical need for accountability and rigorous oversight in forensic science to uphold justice.
A Cautionary Tale
As investigations into Woods’ work continue, the fallout from her alleged misconduct underscores the importance of accountability and rigorous oversight in forensic science. While the CBI has pledged to learn from this crisis, the damage to public trust and the potential miscarriage of justice in hundreds of cases will take years to repair.
For individuals like Michael Clark, David Hehn the stakes couldn’t be higher. As DNA retesting progresses, the question remains: how many others might have been wrongfully convicted based on compromised evidence?
The Woods scandal serves as a cautionary tale, reminding us that in the pursuit of justice, integrity must remain paramount. Without it, the very foundation of our legal system begins to crumble.
Blame game continues …
Justice Unlocked. 
Leave a comment