Issued November 22, 2024
By Jared Polis, Governor of Colorado
In a significant move to bolster justice and public safety, Governor Jared Polis has issued an Executive Order establishing the Colorado Bureau of Investigation Forensic Services Committee. This newly formed body aims to enhance collaboration between the Colorado Bureau of Investigation Forensic Services (CBIFS), the criminal justice system, and the scientific community, ensuring the delivery of top-tier forensic services across the state.
A Commitment to Justice and Safety
The Colorado Bureau of Investigation Forensic Services has long been at the forefront of providing critical forensic support to the state’s criminal justice system. Its mission centers on the pursuit of justice and creating a safer Colorado. However, achieving excellence in forensic services requires robust cooperation and open communication between various stakeholders.
Governor Polis’ Executive Order seeks to solidify this collaboration by creating a forum for addressing concerns, oversight, and operational improvements within CBIFS. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation Forensic Services Committee will act as an advisory body to enhance transparency, accountability, and the overall effectiveness of forensic services provided by CBIFS.
Mission and Responsibilities
The Committee’s mission is clear: to facilitate the continuous improvement of CBIFS operations and their integration into Colorado’s criminal justice system. To achieve this, the Committee is tasked with:
- Reviewing quality incidents within CBIFS to ensure services meet high standards.
- Evaluating procedural changes in forensic submissions, reporting, and discovery to assess their impact on the criminal justice process.
- Recommending operational improvements to maintain excellence in service delivery.
- Addressing additional topics proposed by the Committee Chair.
This strategic focus ensures that CBIFS remains responsive to advancements in forensic science and the evolving needs of the justice system.
Membership Reflects Diverse Expertise
The Committee’s membership represents a cross-section of Colorado’s criminal justice and scientific communities. This includes leaders from law enforcement, defense, post-conviction advocacy, and academia, along with professionals specializing in forensic sciences.
Key members include:
- Representatives from the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police and the County Sheriffs of Colorado.
- A representative from the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar.
- An academic expert in criminal justice or forensic science.
- A professional with experience in post-conviction and innocence advocacy.
- Members of the Colorado Laboratory Directors working group.
- A state Laboratory Director with experience, preferably from outside Colorado.
In addition, the CBIFS Deputy Director of Forensic Services will serve as the Committee Chair, ensuring alignment with CBIFS leadership and operational goals.
The inclusion of diverse perspectives will enable the Committee to address forensic issues comprehensively, bridging the gap between science and justice.
Maintaining Transparency and Integrity
To uphold transparency, the Committee will implement policies to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure that participation does not interfere with members’ primary responsibilities in individual cases. The Committee may also invite non-members with relevant expertise to contribute to discussions on specific issues, fostering an inclusive and informed decision-making process.
A Step Forward for Colorado’s Criminal Justice System
The establishment of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation Forensic Services Committee marks a pivotal moment in the state’s commitment to justice and public safety. By fostering collaboration and accountability, the Committee will help CBIFS continue to provide forensic services of the highest quality, ensuring fair and effective outcomes within Colorado’s justice system.
Governor Polis’ Executive Order underscores the importance of integrating scientific advancements and stakeholder feedback into the framework of forensic services, setting a precedent for innovation and excellence in criminal justice.
The CBI Scandal: Decades-Old Murder Case Undermined by Forensic Malfeasance
In a stunning turn of events, a Weld County cold case from 1979 has been upended due to compromised DNA evidence tied to a scandal involving a former Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) forensic scientist. The case highlights the ripple effects of misconduct within the criminal justice system and raises serious questions about forensic reliability across the state.
The Case of Evelyn “Kay” Day
Evelyn “Kay” Day, a lab educator at Aims Community College, was found sexually assaulted and strangled in her car five days after Thanksgiving in 1979. For over four decades, her case remained unsolved. In 2020, DNA testing conducted by CBI forensic scientist Yvonne “Missy” Woods appeared to link James Herman Dye, a Kansas man with a lengthy criminal record, to the crime. Dye was arrested in 2021 and charged with first-degree murder. However, after nearly three years in custody, the charges against Dye were reduced to felony manslaughter following revelations that the DNA evidence used to implicate him had been compromised.
The Fallout from CBI’s Scandal
Woods, a 29-year veteran of CBI and once considered a leading DNA expert, is accused of intentionally altering, deleting, or skipping steps in hundreds of forensic analyses since 1994. These actions have cast doubt on countless investigations and convictions statewide. In Dye’s case, retesting of key evidence revealed that neither his DNA nor that of the victim’s husband was present on the murder weapon—a cloth belt from Day’s coat.
Weld County District Attorney Michael Rourke admitted the compromised evidence left his office with no choice but to negotiate a plea deal. Dye pleaded no contest to felony manslaughter, receiving credit for time served, and was immediately released.
“This is not justice,” Weld County District Judge Marcelo Kopcow acknowledged, lamenting the challenges posed by the tainted evidence and the betrayal of public trust by a forensic expert.
Statewide Implications
The Dye case is the first known instance in Colorado where a defendant has been released due to Woods’ misconduct, but it is unlikely to be the last. Rourke revealed that his office alone has identified over 100 cases involving Woods, while CBI has reported 809 instances of “irregularities” in her work statewide. The potential scope of the scandal is enormous, with many cases now under review and some convictions already overturned or reduced.
In nearby Larimer County, David Hehn was sentenced in 2011 to life without parole for the murder of Gay Lynn Dixon. This conviction came 20 years after the cold case had gone unsolved. Yet, no one is bringing attention to the broader implications of cases like this, where over 800 individuals have been affected by the flawed work of Yvonne “Missy” Woods, once celebrated as a “golden child” of forensic science. Ironically, Governor Jared Polis only recently signed an executive order addressing these issues—a year after awarding Woods for her so-called “outstanding citizen work.” It’s baffling how such contradictory actions can come from our government.
Another case that infuriates me is Michael Clark’s. His conviction, stemming from a 2010 or 2011 case, continues to make headlines. However, I strongly question whether his situation truly represents a wrongful conviction. The evidence overwhelmingly points to his guilt, and even the sheriff who led the investigation was unequivocal in his certainty of Clark’s culpability. Yet, Clark’s case receives relentless media attention, raising suspicions about whether his attorney, Frank, is influencing the narrative by leveraging the press to keep his name in the spotlight.
If Michael Clark truly sought justice, he would ensure that other individuals affected by Woods’ actions were also acknowledged. Instead, his focus appears self-serving, portraying a troubling narcissism. Justice should not be selective or self-centered, and cases like Clark’s demand scrutiny—not just for his claims of innocence but for the broader impact on the system and those whose stories remain untold. So, which path are we talking with Michael Clark? Because the evidence doesn’t align with claims of wrongful conviction, and it’s time to refocus on the bigger picture.
Addressing the Crisis
In response to mounting concerns, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed an executive order on Friday establishing the Colorado Bureau of Investigation Forensic Services Committee. This body aims to restore trust in forensic science by fostering collaboration between law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, academics, and forensic experts. The committee will oversee quality issues, recommend procedural improvements, and review cases affected by forensic anomalies.
A Crisis of Confidence
The CBI scandal exposes the fragile foundation upon which many convictions rest and underscores the catastrophic consequences of professional misconduct in forensic science. For victims’ families, like those of Evelyn Kay Day, the revelations add another layer of heartbreak to their decades-long pursuit of justice. For the accused, like James Herman Dye, the scandal highlights the devastating impact of flawed evidence on individual lives.
As the state grapples with the fallout, the Dye case serves as a sobering reminder of the importance of accountability and transparency in the justice system. Colorado now faces the daunting task of rebuilding trust, one case at a time.
Another issue I see is with the district attorneys. They are well aware of the problems with Yvonne “Missy” Woods’ DNA analysis, yet their actions raise an important question: Do we believe these individuals were wrongfully convicted, or do we assume they are guilty but strike deals to ensure some semblance of justice is served? Which is it? Because frankly, I’m confused.
If someone is wrongfully convicted and remains in prison due to the manipulation of evidence by Woods, they did not commit the crime. Why, then, would prosecutors negotiate plea deals with individuals who are innocent? This pattern of deal after deal makes no sense to me. The District Attorney’s Office and the newly established committee need to carefully review these cases and distinguish between wrongful convictions, illegal sentencing, and procedural errors. These are three entirely different scenarios, yet they have never been properly defined.
Right now, it feels like the district attorneys are treating everyone as guilty despite the DNA scandal—while simultaneously cutting deals to manage the fallout. What is the logic behind this? Are we living in a paradoxical 2024 reality? It’s time for clarity, accountability, and a reevaluation of how justice is truly served.
Justice Unlocked. 
Leave a comment