Bend OSP crime lab analyst scandal widens

Deschutes County District Attorney John Hummel announced Wednesday his investigation has uncovered evidence that a forensic analyst suspected of stealing drugs from the Oregon State Police crime lab in Bend also tampered with evidence in cases not assigned to her.

Nika Larsen was put on paid administrative leave last month. Hummel said there will be a decision soon on whether criminal charges will be filed in Deschutes County Circuit Court or in federal court.

Until now, Hummel planned on reviewing the 502 cases in Deschutes County Larsen had been assigned. Now he is reviewing every case that involved drug evidence handled by the OSP crime lab during Larsen’s roughly three years of employment.

Hummel said while he “reviewed every case, we are now conducting a more in-depth review of every drug case to determine if those convictions should stand.”

Hummel also said he is still asking for an independent review by an outside entity such as the Oregon Innocence Project,but currently there is no funding available for that.

Here’s the text of a letter the DA sent Wednesday to the county’s defense lawyers:

I hope you’re all well. I’m writing to update you on the issue of the Oregon State Police crime lab analyst who is under investigation for tampering with evidence in the lab.

The criminal investigation of this analyst continues and soon a decision will be made whether to proceed with criminal charges in Deschutes County Circuit Court or in the United States District Court. Recently the investigation uncovered evidence that the suspect analyst tampered with drug evidence in a case(s) not assigned to her. Consequently, I am now reviewing every Deschutes County case that involved evidence analyzed by the OSP crime lab during the employment of the suspect analyst (previously I limited my review to cases that involved evidence that was assigned to the suspect analyst).

I am in the process of creating a spreadsheet of all Deschutes County cases involving evidence analyzed during the employment of the analyst and will share that with you when it’s completed. Right now I have a list of all cases that involved evidence that was assigned specifically to that analyst. (The list was attached to the letter).

Tomorrow, my office will begin our review of these cases. Here’s our process:

• I appointed Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Gunnels and Deputy District Attorney Jason Kropf to be the lead reviewers of these cases.

• We created a standard of review and a list of criteria that will be applied in each case. (Attached was a list that contains this information. The stated standard of review on the form: “Do the circumstances of the case, other than the lab result, create a clear-cut indication of guilt?”)

• Steve and Jason will apply these criteria to every drug case. Due to the fact there is no evidence that the analyst in question tampered with evidence other than drug evidence, I have no reason to believe non-drug cases are suspect. If you have a specific non-drug case conviction that you think is questionable please contact Steve or Jason and we’ll conduct an ad hoc review of that case.

• In each case, Steve and Jason will recommend: Conviction stands; crime of conviction reduced; case dismissed.

• In each case Steve and Jason will forward me their recommendation. I’ll consider their input and then make the preliminary decision for our office. The decision will then be shared with defense counsel who will be provided 45 days to provide input.

• Steve and Jason will then consider defense attorney input and again recommend: conviction stands; crime of conviction reduced; case dismissed.

• These recommendations will be forwarded to me and I’ll then make the final decision for the D.A.’s office.

• This decision is only final for the D.A.’s office as, of course, defense counsel are free to file post-conviction motions. My office will waive any procedural defenses to these motions (such as timeliness objections) but reserve the right to raise substantive defenses.

You recall from my previous letter to you that my preference was to have an independent, outside entity (such as the Oregon Innocence Project) conduct the first round of reviews of these cases. This remains my preference; however, no money has been identified for this project. If the Oregon State Legislative Assembly, or some other entity, provides funding for such an independent review I reserve the right to forgo the review described in this letter and submit these cases to an outside review. But I can’t wait for this speculative result.

You’ll next hear from me when I complete the updated spreadsheet that contains all the cases that involved evidence analyzed by the OSP crime lab during the employment of the suspect analyst. After that communication each defense attorney will receive a notice each time we complete a preliminary review of one of your client’s cases.

Be in touch if you have questions.