Forensic Misconduct: Dr. Pamela A. Fish

Kirstin L. Daniels

Professor Ian Rodway
George Mason University

Forensic Misconduct: Pamela A Fish Forensic science is defined as the practice of utilizing scientific methodologies to clarify judicial inquiries. The field of forensic science contains a broad range of disciplines and has become a vital aspect of criminal investigations. Some forensic disciplines are laboratory-based; while others are based on an analyst’s interpretation of observable patterns (Kourtsounis, 2009). According to the Innocence project’s website; in greater than fifty percent of wrongful convictions, the use of invalidated or improper forensic techniques played a role in cases; which were later overturned by DNA testing. Unlike other forensic methods, serology has been subjected to rigorous scientific testing to achieve validation. Even still, these methods can be inaccurately conducted or counterfactually conveyed during the trial (Innocence Project, 2012). Since the evidence presented during a trial can be the difference between freedom, and incarceration in many cases and death in some cases, misconduct in the forensic field is not tolerated. Some types of forensic misconduct include exaggeration of statistics, false testimony and laboratory fraud. Evidence offered by forensic scientists is often called “expert testimony”. Nevertheless, what is an expert? Is it someone who has gone to school and earned an undergraduate, graduate or doctoral degree? Alternatively, could it be someone whom has many years of “on the job training”? The answer depends on whom you ask. Regardless of who is asked, the testimony given by forensic scientists are typically given more weight than other evidence. The articulation of the findings almost always makes a difference in how the case is decided. When misconduct occurs, it is often misplaced and does not fare well for the defendant. Dr. Pamela A Fish whom was employed for two decades as a Criminalist in the Crime Laboratory of the Chicago Police Department. Within the Crime Lab, Dr. Fish worked in the serology section handling the preservation and testing of biological sample (blood, semen, saliva etc.) submitted to the Lab by investigators. Dr. Fish earned both her Bachelor’s of Science and Master’s of Science in Biology from Loyola University. She began her career at the Chicago Crime Lab in 1979 (Fisher, 2014) where she spent nine months under supervision, learning her duties (on-the job training). Additionally, she attended a seminar on Bloodstain Analysis at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia; as well as seminar presented by Scotland Yard’s Gram Devall on the topic of Blood Stain Analysis. While employed with the Chicago Police Department’s Crime Laboratory, Fish took night classes and eventually earned her PhD in Biology from the Illinois Institute of Technology (Fisher). In 1996 Fish transferred to the Illinois State Crime Laboratory where she was later promoted to Chief of Biochemistry, after questions were raised about her work at the Chicago Crime Lab (Mills, 2001). Reviews of Dr. Fisher’s casework began in 2001 after the reversal of John Willis’ conviction. Dr. Edward Blake studied nine cases in which Dr. Fish has testified that blood typing results were inconclusive. He found that in all nine cases the defendants had been excluded as donors, and that she had given false testimony at those trials. Later that year, the head of the Illinois State Police ignored the recommendations from the state legislative hearings on prosecutorial misconduct to remove Fish from the lab and to place her into a job where she could do ‘lesser harm’. In 2002, three more men were exonerated by DNA testing; in all three cases, Fish testified for the prosecution. It wasn’t until after the state settled the Willis case that they refused to renew Fish’s contract for employment (Fisher, 2014). John Willis was accused and later convicted of five armed robberies and two rapes; which occurred inside of the beauty salons on the Southside of Chicago between 1989 and 1990. Although he was in jail, five more crimes with the same distinctive patterns occurred. Though another man name Dennis McGruder had been arrested and charged with those crimes the prosecution still moved forward with Willis’ case (Warden). The only piece of physical evidence in this case was a scrap of toilet paper; which, contained traces of semen on it. (In 1992, after two separate jury trials Willis was convicted based on identification of eyewitness identifications, as well as the rape victims. He was sentenced to one hundred years in prison. The prosecution in this case failed to disclose to the defense attorneys that they had received a report; which, stated that one of the rape suspects had type A blood. This was exculpatory evidence as Willis had type B blood. Dr. Fish’s hand written lab notes concluded that the secretor of the semen had type A blood; however in her official report and later her testimony, she falsely testified that she was unable to complete the test because the biological sample was too small to test. In 1997, under a new law granting him the right to seek DNA testing, Willis filed a petition. Prosecutors claimed that the biological evidence had been lost, but was later found. The DNA sample was tested and found to exclude Willis as the donor. After eight years of incarceration, another man Dennis McGruder confessed to the crimes after being linked via DNA. Willis (Fisher, 2014) was released from custody on February 24th 1999, and was exonerated in March. Willis filed a lawsuit against Fish, which settled in 2004 for two and a half million dollars (Warden). In the early morning hours of October 3rd, 1992 Anita Hill (National Registry of Exonerations) a home health care nurse was walking to her bus stop on the South side of Chicago, when a man with a gun forced her into an abandoned building and violently raped then robbed her (Innocence Project). Hill returned home after the attack, and did not report the attack for three hours. When she reported it to the police, she was told she should not have bathed and was taken to the hospital so that a Sexual Assault Kit could be completed (National Registry of Exonerations). Six months passed and in April of 1993 (National Registry of Exonerations), the victim saw a police sketch on the news that she thought looked like her attacker. She called the police and she was brought in for a line up where she identified Marlon Pendleton as the man that raped her. During the trial, the victim testified that her attacker weighed about one hundred and seventy pounds, which is forty pound heavier than Pendleton’s weight at the time of the crime. Pendleton stated that at the time of the crime, he was home with his parents, an alibi which was confirmed by his parents. Like the previous case, Dr. Fish reported that the seminal fluids found on the vaginal swabs were insufficient to test for DNA. This would come into question at a later time. He was convicted of Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault and Armed Robbery on December 29th 1996 and sentenced to twenty years in prison. In 2005, the Center for Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law picked up Pendleton’s case. They were able to arrange DNA testing of the seminal fluid on the swab from the victim’s Physical Evidence Response Kit (PERK). On November 22nd 2005, Pendleton was excluded as the source of the semen from the vaginal swab. Eight days later, on November 30th 2006 he was released from custody until his next court hearing. On December 8th 2006, the District Attorney dropped all charges against Pendleton, and his conviction was vacated. Pendleton has not been compensated for his wrongful conviction (National Registry of Exonerations). Forensic misconduct not only damages the reputation of an individual forensic scientist, and the organization they work for, it undermines public confidence, endangers public safety, and leads law enforcement officers away from their primary duties; therefore, justice cannot be served (Huff & Killias, 2010). This paper discussed forensic misconduct/What makes someone an expert witness, the actions of Dr. Pamela Fish and the cases of two men; Willis and Pendleton whose convictions were based on Pamela Fish’s erroneous “expert” testimony.

References
Bluhm Legal Clinic, Northwestern University School of Law. (n.d.). John Willis. Retrieved from http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/il/john-willis.html
Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., & McEwen, T. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. (1996). Adjudged by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of dna evidence to establish innocence after trial. Retrieved from National Institute of Justice website: http://www.ncjrs.org
Dna exonerations nationwide. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/DNA_Exonerations_Nationwide.php
Fisher, J. (2008, January 16). Dr. Pamela Fish: Marlon Pendleton Case. Retrieved February 23, 2015, from http://jimfisher.edinboro.edu/forensics/fire/dna.html
Fisher, J. True Crime: Dr. Pamela Fish: DNA Expert From Hell) http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.com/2012/01/dr-pamela-fish-dna-expert-from-hell.html
Huff, C. R. & Killias, M. (2010). Wrongful conviction: International perspectives on miscarriages of justice. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Innocence Project. (2012). Unreliable or improper forensic science. Retrieved from http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Unreliable-Limited-Science.php
Innocence Project. (2012). Marlon Pendleton Case. Retrieved from http://www.innocenceproject.org/ cases-false-imprisonment/marlon-pendleton.php
Kourtsounis, G., (2009) Combating the “csi effect”: an analysis of forensic science in north carolina. Retrieved from www.udclawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Kourtsounis.pdf‎
Marlon Pendleton. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3529
Mills, S. (2001, August 16). Crime Lab Analyst Moved. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-08-16/news/0108160170_1_crime-lab-pamela-fish-criminal-casework
Samaha, J. (2012). Criminal Procedure. (8th ed.)