Hey, there! Log in / Register

Man convicted of selling crack outside Forest Hills T stop to get new trial thanks to disgraced chemist Annie Dookhan

The Supreme Judicial Court today ordered a new trial for Daniel Francis, whom a jury found guilty of trafficking crack in 2005 because a key part of the evidence against him was certification from the disgraced chemist that the substance police found in his car - and in the mouth of a man who'd just left his car - was crack.

The court had previously ordered new trials for people who had pleaded guilty to drug charges based on drug certifications signed by Dookhan, who herself got 3-5 years in prison after pleading guilty to evidence tampering in 2013. Francis's case was different because he was convicted by a jury after a trial.

As in the earlier cases, a key question for the justices was whether there was sufficient evidence not from Dookhan's lab that would have supported the prosecution's case against Francis.

Because the evidence independent of the drug certificates did not overwhelmingly prove that the substance at issue was cocaine, we cannot conclude that the Commonwealth has met its burden of proving that the admission of the drug certificates did not influence the jury and or had only slight effect on their verdicts.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 

Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

You never know, it could have been just bits of crumbled feta cheese.

up
Voting closed 0

Maybe he owns a bakery and it was flour residue

up
Voting closed 0

Uh huh, sure, it wasn't crack.

Why is it that there has to be a whole new trial? Just get the stuff re-tested.

up
Voting closed 0

She'll explain how the justice system works. There are certain Constitutional issues involved that ultimately protect us all.

up
Voting closed 0

This stooge will get his makeup call. Look at OJ.

up
Voting closed 0

Man Wrongfully Convicted Due to Official Corruption to Get New Trial

up
Voting closed 0

A) Corruption usually implies money or goods being exchanged. There's no evidence Dookhan did what she did except that she got it in her head she had to process vast numbers of samples.

B) The court didn't say the guy was innocent. They said he deserves a new trial. Not quite the same thing. Let's talk after his second trial (assuming the DA goes for one).

up
Voting closed 0

Corruption that's devastating to American principles, with the government systematically falsifying evidence against citizens... and it's put on one person, who is sentenced to only 3-5 years.

Why is no one responsible facing life in prison for this?

up
Voting closed 0

It might be because you don't understand the case. The government didn't systematically falsify evidence. And it was one person who was responsible. You can criticize the move to place drug-testing responsibilities with a poorly-run public health lab instead of an accredited police crime lab (like the one that discovered Dookhan's crimes), but who would you like to see sent to prison if not the person who actually broke the law?

up
Voting closed 0

If some other official knew what was going on, and was taking advantage of that to secure convictions, that could be systematic.

up
Voting closed 0

The gift that keeps on giving.

Did any suits lose their job and pension over her?

up
Voting closed 0

The next month he was working at Northeastern as their new director of the Institute on Urban Health Research:

http://www.northeastern.edu/news/2012/10/auerbach/

up
Voting closed 0

whether there was sufficient evidence not from Dookhan's lab

How about this instead. Retest the drug evidence that was originally collected BEFORE giving this perp a lengthy do-over at the taxpayer's expense. If the re-testing is inconclusive, then we should proceed with a new trial.

Oh wait, this is Massachusetts, where a person is automatically presumed to be innocent after being found guilty.

up
Voting closed 0

And one if them is that they understand the Constitution and how that has a section that gives you a right to a fair trial and how that in turn means if your initial verdict is overturned, you can get a whole new trial. This isn't a Massachusetts thing - the Constitution applies equally in all states.

up
Voting closed 0