scientific misconduct and poor practices in the crime lab. It is inconceivable that she did not havethese reports or would make such statements to the fact.In addition, during my testimony, opposing Attorney David Alex suggested the existence of asecret audio recording of an interview occurring on March 9, 2009, between me and Investigator for the Dallas County DA’s Office, Jim Hammond. The interview was a discussion concerningthe poor scientific practices occurring within the lab. Many details of the secretly recordedconversation were discussed during the trial. I’m of the opinion that neither this audio recordingnor the notes from the interview were made available to Attorney Lori Ordiway or thedefendant’s previous attorneys from Attorney David Alex
, a clear violation of Brady Rules
.This information, too, would have been beneficial to Attorney Lori Ordiway’s defense argumentsif she had procured it. (During testimony, Attorney Lori Ordiway made no attempt to corroborateor acknowledge the existence of the audio recording.)Attorney Lori Ordiway presented no other information to me that would support my testimonyfor her zealous representation of her client
Monday December 21, 2009
In an attempt to help Attorney Lori Ordiway with her argument of questionable scientific practices within the crime lab (in exchange for my testimony), I presented her with an internaldocument from the crime lab, a SWIFS Corrective Action Request (see attached -- CAR #07-007.I obtained it via a Public Information Act-Open Records request from SWIFS in the Summer 2009 in preparation for my civil proceedings.)I then verbally explained to Lori Ordiway the contents and the important aspects of the documentas it applied to her arguments of her case (and my subsequent testimony), including:
The Trace Evidence Lab and offices of the crime lab were discovered to be contaminatedwith blood (evidence of an inept SWIFS Management at maintaining the integrity of theevidence inside the crime lab).2.The document does not state the root cause of the blood contamination and that bloodcontamination still occurs within the lab uncontrollably.
The document only states when blood contamination was
by the analysts,and not when it
. This suggests that blood contamination within the lab
Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.09. Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor ...(d) timely disclose to the defense all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate theguilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense andtribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.01 Competent and Diligent Representation...(b) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not:(1) neglect a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer; or (2) frequently fail to carry out completely the obligations that the lawyer owes to a client or clients.(c) As used in this Rule neglect signifies inattentiveness involving a conscious disregard for the responsibilitiesowed to a client or clients.