Did she keep her pension? Because that is worth a lot more then a million dollars.
9
Dr. Marina Stajic holds a PhD, as it mentions in an article from the NYT in 2016. You should update your article to reflect this, as you use the title of "Dr" for other individuals mentioned in this article.
14
I hope Samson got the boot. This is how politics work. Very disheartening! 1 million seems a meager compensation for the loss of her job and reputation.
11
My wife has worked in Genetics all her life; both in research and clinical testing. One thing I have learned from her is how easily genetic samples can be contaminated and ruined from a test standpoint. Even highly trained professionals contaminate samples from time to time. So how could police officers ever collect micro-samples from a crime scene where nothing is tightly controlled and then use that so called data to convict someone? It does not make sense to me.
11
the fact that she had enough leverage to avoid signing a non-disclosure agreement about this is additional evidence that she was firing for the wrong reasons. good for her and also those SEALs who stuck to their guns.
12
Politics is everywhere, but i naively thought that Medical Examiner offices throughout the country were above it. Oh how i was wrong. I also thought that having an advanced educational degree would come with a higher sense of responsibility, intergity, intelligence and common sense. That too I'm afraid is wrong. So where does this leave human beings as a whole? On the lower end of the evolutionary scale i'm afraid, no matter what these evolutionary bioligists may say, for they too are political and often spiteful people probably looking out for their own jobs. Having a higher education degree doesn't equate to higher intelligence.
12
Anecdotally it has always been obvious that bureaucrats latched onto the justice system are happy to see their misdeeds grease the wheels for law and order. Ms. Stajic, as illustrated by this article, is the exception to the rule.
8
So the city lawyer says that she was in the wrong and they did everything right, but they’re paying her $1 million anyway.
Not very convincing.
17
Seems to me that $1 million is actually not very much compensation for someone who has been subject to this kind of experience, including losing their very responsible position in these circumstances. Probably barely covers lost earnings and her legal costs, etc. Not much for the stress of these experiences.
22
The sad thing is that Dr. Stajic was the only one who did the correct thing, but then became the only one fired.
I'd suggest to pay her the $1 million settlement then fire all the other people who had voted to maintain the DNA testing with no scientific basis. Then hire Dr. Stajic back to a promotion.
32
Dr. Stajic deserves to be publicly exonerated for exposing this cover-up by an agency that there should be no doubts about, but no, they refuse to admit their crime, which has likely resulted in wrongful convictions, destroyed lives, and guilty individual walking among us.
When I see wrongdoing such as this, it tells me that our justice system in the United States of America, is often corrupt, and nearly always corruptible.
Of course this matter pales when compared to the reality that our President is a criminal of long standing, has never been punished, and will never be.
10
Sampson should be sacked.
7
Great. A woman does a good job, and they punish her for questioning poor practices and putting the thumb on the scale for prosecutors with results from a faulty test. Marina Stajic behaved the way I would want the chief of a toxicology lab to act. That is not enough money ($1MM)for all the heartache and stress that they caused her. What fools and idiots be these men..
13
Agree with the sentiment but note that the CME, Dr. Sampson is a woman. When it comes to jealously guarding power and privilege, women are as bad as men. Sampson and her office should be thoroughly investigated and she should be suspended without pay.
9
Democrat prosecutors like high conviction rates to boost their careers. Then, Democrat trial lawyers sue for damages. No wonder NYC pays so much for settlements they can't afford to modernize their ancient infrastructure and a begging the federal government to cover 50% of their new tunnels.
1
@ebmem- Republican prosecutors are notoriously worse.
5
“Hold me down,” Dr. Barbara Sampson, the city’s medical examiner, wrote in an internal email to a colleague in 2014, when she found out that Ms. Stajic had voted on a state panel to compel the office to release a study proving the technique’s validity. “She sucks,” a lawyer for the office wrote about Ms. Stajic, in another internal email.
How is she still in office?
13
Thank you for this article. Now that Pandora's box is opened, how many cases should be reviewed for possible injustices? Ms. Stajic should be honored, not fired. But, of course, she exposed the Emperor, didn't she? I would think Barry Scheck and other defense attorneys will be demanding to review cases that used this unproven method. NY justice system gets another black eye.
9
Nothing like scientific/medical lies to support criminal injustice, profits for a corporation and its stockholders. That mindset, aka capitalism being more important than democracy or too many colas, sweetened by sugar or artificially will result in illness, etc. Worse that that position, of course, is the identification of the educated being elitist and their real degrees or knowledge unnecessary for America. At which point do Americans rise up and said, give me real scientific information, while educating my children so that they understand science, math or so called STEM subjects. No ifs, ands or buts.
What that means would be reflected in the selection of non political hacks and the truly educated selected to run and be employed in STEM related agencies. So no, Rick Perry shouldn't handle an agency which has anything to do with atomic energy. And no Betsy DeVos should have absolutely nothing to do with setting policy for the education of American children. And no, DJT has no business being president and permitted to hire his unqualified family and in- laws to make USA policy by selecting political hacks.
And to Mr. De Blasio, clean out the NYC Law Department, Office of the Medical Examiner, Police Department, NYCHA, Board of Education, etc., of those folks who have no respect for the rule of law and the requirements of science. After all what one pushes under the rug today will arise tomorrow as a more expensive problem to fix. That's progression for American Cities!
5
One more example of the bias and corrupt complicity of crime labs, along with other "experts" in the manufacturing of fake evidence for the prosecution. The purpose of the "justice" system is to convict and break the accused, not find the guilty, and certainly not dispense justice. One after another the fields of forensic "science," from fingerprints, fibers, blood spatter, bite marks, etc., have been demonstrated to be utterly unscientific. This is without including the dishonest planting of evidence by the cops. A lab technician in Massachusetts was convicted for falsifying tens of thousands of results to favor the prosecution. Undoubtedly she was the tip of the iceberg. Incredibly 'law and order' types who defend this criminal system of mass frame-ups are actually supporting the real criminals going free.
6
We did nothing wrong but we're paying her $1m. Right. Kudos to Dr. Stajic who recognized that if the wrong person is convicted that also means a guilty person goes free.
20
Dr. Mechthild Prinz is one of my professors and I had no idea that she was forced out of her position at the OCME. I also interned at the toxicology department this summer and it's virtually impossible to find the validation results for the OCME methods. The Office needs to provide more transparency about the protocols they follow so that people can mount an adequate defense. This is one of the biggest DNA labs in the country and the people have to have confidence that they're providing accurate results. Stuff like this erodes public trust and for good reason!
24
In other words, officials at the OCME lied about this study. In my mind, this raises the basic question about what else they've lied about and whether innocent individuals may have been convicted as a result of those lies.
25
An Office of Medical Examiner should be neutral not biased towards the prosecution.
19
It is very sad that there are so many people who will do anything to get a promotion, keep their job or just go along to get along. And it is especially grievous when it results in innocent people being incarcerated.
25
The criticism this lady received from colleagues I'm sure reflected her gender as well. Chauvinism can be expensive.
17
@R.Terrance Both the medical examiner and the lawyer mentioned are female FYI.
4
Please do a follow up investigation on why those responsible for Dr. Stajic's removal are still on the job.
This kind of abuse of power have to have consequences!
50
@Jo Jamabalaya And, if they are no longer employed by the public, what firms hired them? You should not be allowed back into the field after sending potential innocents to jail.
Actions like this need to have career-ending consequences.
5
“The medical examiner’s office had claimed it had done such a study, but refused to release it.“ Then we are told that this was a lie. Please tell me that the persons responsible for lying about this have been fired. Ms. Stajic is owed a debt of gratitude for following both science and her conscience.
59
Hooray for Ms Stajic who was just doing her job, but what was the fate of those who couldn't stand her push back & forced her removal? Were they reprimanded in any way, or were they just given a pass & comfortably remained in their jobs?
18
There should be a Marina Stajic Award for forensic people questioning and trying to validate "forensic proof". Especially when they do it against odds and only wielding the powers of decency, responsibility, and common logic. There are too much innocent people in jail because of mumbo-jumbo hair analysis or blood spatter analysis claims. And for most people, "they found his DNA", is enough to be 100% sure about someone's guilt. If you come from the assumption that an innocent person in jail, and a guilty person running free is the worst possible judicial deal for any society, then people like Ms. Stajic are public heroes.
20
Of course there were “unrelated concerns”. I’m sure that after she questioned the accuracy of the test they watched her like a hawk. “You went to the restroom twice several mornings. You gave a low job performance rating to this person (she’s my friend “). “ Your computer has a strong password but not an impossible to remember password”. “You worked overtime but didn’t charge us for it”. Yes, I know about those “concerns”.
21
Terrifying. For the sake of political expediency, and a prosecutor's "batting average," Garbage Science was putting innocent people behind bars while criminals walked free. And law enforcement continues to wonder why a large part of the citizenry doesn't trust it?
16
Bravo, Ms Stajic!
15
Until now I had never understood why judges were so reluctant to allow DNA evidence into court back in the 1990's.
Occasionally, that evidence exonerated the falsely accused, but judges refused to allow jurors to hear it. The judges did not understand DNA and they knew very well the juries would not either. They'd have to take something on faith.
It has been widely known juries are incapable of understanding basic science and medical practice which is why most malpractice cases are travesties of justice.
Dr. Stajic apparently raised one of the most basic scientific questions: Can a test be validated? What are its powers and limitations?
Clearly, her bosses and the whole super structure above her were more concerned with their own personal agendas than with the protection of the integrity of the system of justice they were sworn to uphold.
18
"Ms. Stajic was concerned that incorrect use of the DNA testing technique could lead to wrongful convictions, she said. But her bosses took her questioning in a different light."
What other light could there possibly be? The question of wrongful convictions goes to the very fundamental values of our justice system: conviction must be based on guilt which is proven beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. In the end, nothing else matters.
It is time to put "justice" back into the system.
13
Whenever a new scientific technique is used in a criminal prosecution, it is not automatically allowed. First, it must pass a procedural hurdle. The defense will be granted a Dauber hearing at which the judge will decide if the expert evidence (mostly based on actual testing) is sufficient to establish the new procedure’s reliability.
So, either the defense was never made aware that this new procedure was used to analyse the DNA, or that no defense attorney ever asked for a hearing (which would be very unlikely) or that the prosecutors’ witnesses misled the court at a Dauber hearing. That the underlying science has apparently never been released is deeply troubling.
One way or another, the five District Attorneys in NYC need to look into this (and really should have started their inquiry the moment the whistle was blown) to examine how many of their cases are affected.
There are several missing - and very important - elements that have yet to be reported in this story.
13
@Charlie in NY The types of citizens this questionable science targeted were not those that can afford reasonable counsel. They were those represented by over-worked and under-paid public defenders.
A public defender in NYC makes around $50,000 per year, wildly under any other lawyer job, and can handle 70+ cases simultaneously.
4
@Charlie in NY It's a Daubert hearing, and it's only held if there's a motion on the expert's qualifications or the admissibility of the evidence, so, as Erik notes, it's unlikely to be requested if there's no time or money to make the argument.
2
Did the medical examiner's office claim that it had conducted the study in an official court filing? Isn't that perjury?
12
I attended a criminal trial that used low copy number DNA evidence. The techs from the OCME testified that this testing had been validated by state regulators and that process was described not in great detail, but to an extent.
Do I believe OCME staff who testified under oath or do I believe a lawyer who has an economic interest in claiming that the testing was never validated? I think I'll believe the OCME staff.
The issue was never can you get sufficient DNA to link the sample to a specific individual. Presumably, you could do that with a sample that consists of a single cell.
The issue is when you have a mixed sample of more than one person, the OCME used software called the forensic statistical tool to produce the ratio that says how likely it is that this sample came from X person. Defense attorneys have disputed the accuracy of that tool.
I've seen defense attorneys offer some truly horrific defenses and I've seen their clients walk free due to those defenses. Now we're to believe that DNA evidence cannot be trusted? Cut me a break.
3
@Duncan Osborne: Why did you attend this particular trial? I’m guessing you had an interest in the outcome.
2
@JMJackson I was writing about it for a local LGBTQ newspaper.
1
DNA testing can be very powerful when used correctly and if processing procedures are rigorous in order to avoid sample contamination. But it is not infallible especially when an agency is invested in a particular outcome. The problem is that the OCME lied when they said they had conducted an independent study when they hadn’t. Then they turned on the person who expressed concern. Bad policy, worse ethics.
4
I wish that there were a million more people like Marina Stajic in government (federal, state, and local). So, many people in government do absolutely whatever is necessary to keep their jobs and turn a blind eye to injustices.
"Ms. Stajic was concerned that incorrect use of the DNA testing technique could lead to wrongful convictions, she said. But her bosses took her questioning in a different light."
13
Dr. Stajic was right to stand up and ask for the validity of the DNA test. She is a scientist foremost, and stood up for the truth, that was her job. There were probably personal reasons for her firing as well. It is frightening to think there are probably many in jail right now who are innocent.
16
@tFH NYC
Yes, see
https://www.wired.com/story/DNA-transfer-framed-murder/
3
"“However, based upon our legal assessment of the case, we determined that a settlement was in the best interest of the city.” Legal speak for "we'll lose big if we continue to make such claims to a jury of her peers." Dr. Stajic did the right thing; the city did not. And they wonder where the lack of confidence in city leadership originates?
35
One million is not enough. Standing up for right takes a lot of guts and stamina.....and time.
21
She is a hero for standing up to ensure that the results gave the correct answers. She did her job and got fired. Shame on her boss, she is owed more than a million dollars, how about an apology and thank you for doing the right thing. In America if you do not have the money to sue wrong doers, you can not win no matter if you did the right thing.
Money, to often means , Justice.
46
The system vs the human- chalk up one for the human.
20
Bravo to Ms Stajic! One can only hope that there are many more like her willing to risk her job and career to protect others.
Our hero in this story gets a million dollars but apparently not even apology instead we hear the villains did nothing wrong because though she had been there a long time there were issues in how she ran her laboratory! There may be more mud slung her way but she can stand tall and know she did the right thing.
I hope she still has her seat on that commission, we need more people like her protecting us.
One has to assume they finally did the study and it showed the test had major flaws. To be so arrogant to put something out there, something that could send people to jail, destroy lives etc and not even test it!
Hopefully some people will get relief from possible wrongful convictions. Will some criminals possibly go free, of course, that's why they should have done their job correctly.
20
Three years of her life. For simply asking that a (phantom) report be published. And what happened to those that lied about that nonexistent study? Where were they for three years? And where are they now?
77
"The medical examiner’s office had claimed it had done such a study [proving that the method had been validated], but refused to release it." That says it all. That is NOT science, that is snake oil!
With REAL science a study and its data are PUBLISHED in the open for all scientists to INDEPENDENTLY scrutinize and validate. That is how REAL science works.
Ms. Stajic and Mr. Scheck were completely right to side with REAL science and TRUTH by voting to release the study.
light of day
peer scrutiny
34
Settlement, schmettlement. Why are those who raised such a fuss about her objections still working for New York (eh, Sampson?)? Sounds as if the super secret Proctology Attack Squad is still ruling the roost in some form.
29
Official horse hooey is very thick at the Office of Chief Medical Examiner in New York City. Common folk call it lies! Sad that Marina Stajic was fired great that she got compensation for questioning these DNA methods.
17
It would be nice to know if the juries or judges were ever told that the DNA evidence presented was based on a very small sample. Small samples mean very unreliable results. Now the State of NY has 11 years of convictions under a cloud. How much will those retrial cost the state?
Why do people write such stupid things in email? A lawyer wrote "she sucks" and the head of the agency basically said she wants her dead? Maybe this is why there was a million dollar payout. Clean up your act!
17
As the saying goes: "Science doesn't care what you think" or in these cases who you "think" is guilty.
Having your conviction rate go up and up by denying science is no different from having polluters deny the science of global warming.
26
It wasn’t always like this. In 1960 a new FDA employee insisted on more testing before approving a drug that was already in use in Europe and Canada. Despite pressure from the drug’s manufacturer, Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey withheld approval for thalidomide, keeping it off the U.S. market. She and her assistants were supported by their FDA superiors.
Erring on the side of caution, especially in science, should not be punished
44
The political hacks who forced Dr. Stajic out of her job should be fired. They should be personally billed for the $1 million settlement. I don't want my city taxes to go for that illicit purpose, basically a coverup of bad practices used to help police and prosecutors clear cases by pointing to "the usual suspects". Now we will will also have to foot the bill for the litigation that will follow when people convicted with the tainted evidence from the Low Copy Number DNA tests begin to appeal their convictions.
87
This is a hot button topic as it implies yet another instance where a person can be falsely convicted and the guilty walk free. But I feel short on details. It would be helpful to have more info about the test, how it is/was done, monitored, and cross checked so we can better understand what was wrong here. Is it that it is inaccurate. Can be tampered with? Also. As it was phased out are we to assume, believe there is some new improved protocol? The last thing we need in criminal justice is more things we cannot trust about it.
11
As described in this article, this DNA technique could, at best, only exclude a suspect. And then, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. So, bravo! Dr. Stajic.
22
I have had a bit of experience with lawyers who worked for my company and lawyers who have worked against me. All would say the same thing. We are settling because of cost, not because we are wrong. I dislike the lawyers who work for me with blind faith because I pay them and opposing lawyers because none are concerned about truth or fairness. I do despise lawyers.
10
@hd As a lawyer, I can say that not all lawyers have blind faith. I have told clients that their cases are weak and they should not bring them or should settle quickly. Many lawyers believe in truth and fairness. You need new lawyers.
9
Do not despise lawyers- realize the system needs change.
6
@hd
Why have you hired lawyers who act as you describe?
Why wouldn’t you make it part of your interview process to discuss your expectations that your views will be challenged by your lawyers as needed?
Did you use due diligence when you hired these people? (Hopefully you haven’t hired someone’s niece’s third cousin’s BFF.)
Theoretically, as the boss, you are able to rid yourself of these folks.
Defense lawyers: are they doing their jobs as their employers want them to? Not something anywhere under your control.
2
Whistleblower or honest person beware. The evidence is clear: the crush to comply with organization norms is nothing short of crushing. Raising questions or disagreeing invites rejection, retaliation, and whatever else hostility one can name. Dissenters end up looking like a hunter's clutch at day's end.
30
So what has happened to those individuals who were convicted using this unscientific, dubious evidence? Surely their convictions are under review?
60
@Davina Unlikely unless they were convicted of murder.
1
This story is especially frightening because we have been told that DNA results are indisputable.
Now we have learned that they weren't 100% reliable with the specific technique in question.
It means that all cases involving this technique now must be reviewed. If there is anyone who has been falsely convicted because of this, who is in jail because of this, then an incredible injustice has occurred.
I cannot be more grateful that Ms. Stajic exposed the truth, that the study of this technique had not been done as was claimed. Without her, the truth would never have been revealed.
76
@Marc I think you must watch the CSI series. I used to but they distort the science and I finally gave up on them annoyed at some of the nonsense. A full DNA sequence is very strong evidence but some of the techniques used with less than ideal samples are less reliable yet still good evidence, better than blood type for example but even the best DNA evidence can run into oddities such as chimeras (I think there was a CSI episode highlighting this situation LOL) or twins or extraordinary long odds. A good case should have some corroborating evidence. That being said, I believe DNA is the best tool that has ever come along for criminal investigations. Is also worth noting that even the less reliable tests can conclusively prove that someone is not guilty of a crime.
7
@Mel
I don't watch CSI and actually I never have. I was commenting on the obvious problem with this specific technique if it isn't reliable, and the clear injustices that result, but especially to the exposure by Ms. Stajic that the study hadn't been done and how helpful she was.
The truth is, not all of us get our information from scripted television programs. We should focus on the real world here. CSI is irrelevant.
2
@Mel- T.V shows over exaggerate forensic sciences. Just ask any forensic scientist. Best advice: Stop watching these ridiculous shows.
2
Congratulations to this brave public servant who spoke truth to power. Truth is important, justice is important, and rigourous scientific methodology is important.
99
If, as Nicholas Paolucci claims, "The chief medical examiner’s decision was justified and appropriate,”then why are they settling for $1 million? The question answers itself.
What I'd really like to see someday is a mayor of New York City who truly cares about ethics and will scrub our city government of the pernicious institutionalized corruption that has become routine.
Unfortunately, much of it resides in our criminal justice system, the prosecutors' offices, law enforcement, and even the medical examiner's office, which means it's even more imperative to clean house.
As much as someone like Mayor de Blasio touts himself as a progressive, his definition of "progressive" doesn't jibe with my belief that true progressives should advocate for progress. Otherwise, what's the point of saying you're progressive? The buck stops at Mayor de Blasio's desk and that is true for every city employee, department, and division that reports into his office.
I voted for de Blasio because I'm a progressive and I believed he was better than the other candidates, but c'mon New York, we can do better than Mayor de Blasio! There's got to be a true progressive out there who is truly invested in making things better all New York City residents.
I'm tired of the Democratic Party telling us that the Hillarys and de Blasios are the most we can hope for when corruption is a systemic problem in government that isn't being addressed. Government can and should work better for the people.
28
@Bill I'm not sure why you're blaming this on Bill de Blasio. The vote that got her fired happened in 2014, approximately when he took office.
15
@Paul Kolodner Seriously?
Because the subsequent litigation and response from the city and the Medical Examiner's Office was devised under de Blasio's watch. The fact that our mayor has allowed the ME to continue to defend this indefensible conduct IS of course de Blasio's fault. Here we are on April 24, 2019 and the city and the ME are still bobbing and weaving. If de Blasio was an effective manager, heads would have been rolling, but instead we've still got the status quo, don't we? I mean, they switched to another protocol but the same people are steering the ship, aren't they? Did de Blasio punish anyone? Of course not. Why? Because de Blasio is mostly a status quo politician who goes along to get along.
Why are those dots so difficult to connect?
4
What about Chanel Lewis's conviction? Wasn't this case hinged on a small sample of dna? I'm very troubled by the prosecution and the judges seeming rush and clamoring for this verdict, even though there seems to be credible evidence of jury misconduct.
20
@Interested
He confessed.
@John Ehrhart
What a novel idea, that the confession...
>of a then-19-year-old black male with cognitive challenges
>to the murder of a white woman
>in one of the most racist neighborhoods in NYC,
> by a jury some of whose members have publicly acknowledged being anxious to wrap up deliberations quickly and go home,
>in a trial run by a judge wearing a purple tie all during the trial for the murder of a woman whose favorite color was said by her family to be purple,
>and who had stated he would keep the jury there without a break for as long as it took for them to deliver a verdict
...might be at the very least, cause for concern.
8
@Interested
Yes. See https://www.wired.com/story/DNA-transfer-framed-murder/
1