The New York State constitution charges the District Attorney's Office with the responsibility of prosecuting all crimes in Onondaga County, however, I believe in doing far more.

 

Not only must we punish the guilty, but we must protect the innocent; not only must we convict an abusing spouse, but make sure all citizens can live in a safe environment; and not only must we put violent predators behind bars, but make sure our children are prepared to live productive and crime free lives.

 

If you have any questions or comments, please contact my office at 315.435.2470, or e-mail us at daweb@ongov.net .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The office of the District Attorney is responsible for all criminal prosecutions in Onondaga County and works in conjunction with all the law enforcement organizations in the boundaries of the County to investigate any criminal felonies or misdemeanors."

January 4, 2010

 

 

 

The Post Standard

Letter to the Editor

Clinton Square

Syracuse, New York 13202

 

To the Editor:

 

The Post Standard's January 4, 2010 editorial entitled "Tainted Justice" contained a number of misleading impressions that need to be clarified for your interested readers. You correctly noted that Forensic Scientist Garry Veeder was the subject of a report by the State Inspector General, said report being very critical of Veeder and the State Police's investigative response to his misconduct.

 

In 1995, New York State established the Commission on Forensic Science, a fourteen member panel (Onondaga County is well represented as both myself and The Wallie Howard Forensic Science Director Kathy Corrado serve as members) tasked with the responsibility of overseeing the State's fourteen crime laboratories as well as its six post-mortem toxicology labs. Subsequent to its establishment, Congress determined that any state receiving federal money designate an independent agency with authority to review and investigate any allegation of serious negligence or misconduct that could call into question a laboratory's forensic conclusions. Upon my motion several years ago, the Forensic Science Commission designated the State Inspector General's Office as that agency (the current Inspector General is the widely respected former Judge Joseph Fisch).

 

To ensure that the State's twenty forensic labs are properly analyzing evidence, the Forensic Science Commission has employed ASCLD/LAB (The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board) to periodically accredit crime labs. This is an exhausting and necessary process that, upon completion, is reviewed by the FSC which then votes to either accredit the lab, withhold accreditation or request further information. As my friend noted defense attorney Barry Scheck, Esq. is a fellow member of the FSC, I assure you the process is thorough.

 

 

 

In 2008 when reviewing the accreditation request of the New York State Police Crime Laboratory in Albany in the discipline of fiber evidence comparison, the ASCLD/LAB auditors discovered deficiencies in the work of Forensic Scientist Garry Veeder. A number of things happened at this point; the State Police began an internal review, the FSC was notified, and the FSC in turn notified the Inspector General who decided to commence an investigation, and whose subsequent report formed the basis for your editorial.

 

Despite your cavalier and uninformed assertion, in reference to prosecutors' claims that no wrongful convictions occurred, "that is what you'd expect them to say," the fact is that forty-four District Attorneys have reviewed every case Veeder worked on that occurred in their respective counties. They have followed protocols adopted by the State District Attorneys' Association that call for each defendant and his or her counsel to be notified of Veeder's actions. To date, only one attorney has unsuccessfully attempted to have his client's conviction overturned.

 

Your call for "independent court review" suggests the editorial author does not understand the criminal justice system. Of course there will be court review, but it has to be upon motion of the defendant or the prosecutor. In the overwhelming number of the 322 cases that Veeder handled, his findings did not result in crucial evidence dispositive of guilt or innocence. In fact, in the case referred to Onondaga County, Veeder's findings had nothing to do with the outcome of the case (People v. Donald Sigsbee, a cold case resulting in Sigsbee's conviction for the 1975 murder of Regina Reynolds, where Veeder analyzed fiber evidence from defendant's van and made no conclusions).

 

You finally suggest that the Inspector General found that the misconduct of Veeder (which, it should be noted, involved the skipping of an initial test, and going directly to a confirmatory test in fiber analysis) was "systemic" and then you ominously opine "how widespread is the fraud?" The answer is that it is not widespread at all, nor did the Inspector General's report assert there was any fraud outside the area of fiber comparison.

 

Despite your assertions, the system worked. The Inspector General did an outstanding and thorough job. The FSC acted appropriately in referring the matter to the Inspector General. And the District Attorneys of the State, as they do every day, are busily assuring that no one is sitting in a jail cell as a result of tainted evidence.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK

ONONDAGA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

 

WJF/mac