Crime lab closure is start of big cleanup

Shutting down Nassau County's crime lab amid ever growing indications of a scandal is not the ending. It's the start of cleaning up a mess that raises doubts about getting a fair trial in Nassau.

That may be why Kathleen Rice, Nassau's district attorney, reached out to the U.S. attorney's office last week - and again Friday, when the lab was completely shuttered.

But while Rice is to be commended for her aggressiveness in trying to determine what happened at the lab - even as defense lawyers and legal experts call for an independent look at the lab - there's also a need for outside scrutiny.

The problem isn't just with the lab's shoddy science, or the quality of some of the evidence it produced, dating back to 2007. It is deeper, more troubling than that.

On Thursday, for the first time, the lab's former head, under oath during a court hearing, said he had told supervisors years ago about problems at the facility.

One day later, Rice and Edward Mangano, the county executive, announced that the already partly shuttered lab was closed because, according to Rice, of "supervisory activity and potentially intentional personnel conduct."

It's hard, based on that statement alone, not to get a whiff of a possible cover-up - although Rice and Mangano certainly weren't going that far Friday.

Still, it's essential that an independent investigation delve into what went wrong and why it took years for the lab's considerable problems - finally, finally - to surface.

The stakes are enormously high because the right to a fair trial is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

But what happens if the lab evidence in a case is wrong? Or if an attorney can't pursue a reasonable defense because the lab asserted that wrong evidence was right?

What happens to a defendant who, years ago, may have been wrongly convicted? Or lost a job because of their record - or even the right to vote?

With the lab's closure, everything is up for grabs now. Every conviction, in every case dating back at least to 2007. That includes driving while under the influence, manslaughter and everything in between that relied on evidence from the tainted lab.

The Constitution guarantees a presumption of innocence, with the burden of proof resting on prosecutors. Rice said there was no indication, as yet, that work in all parts of the lab may have been compromised.

But, based on revelations about lab operations that seem to be surfacing almost daily now, who knows for sure?

"It is a sad thing to shut down the lab, a necessary thing, but a sad thing," said William J. Kephart, head of the county's criminal courts bar. "The implications are staggering."

And even that's an understatement.

Rice was right to go to the U.S. attorney's office early on. She said that her office's investigation has, as yet, turned up no indication of potential federal violations. But she said she would continue to let the U.S. attorney's office know what was going on.

Rice did not, however, reach out to the state attorney general's office, she said, and a spokesman for the office confirmed Friday.

But she shouldn't rule out asking assistance from Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who beat Rice in a primary for the post last September.

There may come a time during Rice's investigation, Kephart pointed out, where there could be a conflict of interest if an investigation leads back to the district attorney's office.

For now, Rice said, an outside lab will do Nassau's work, which is a good thing - and likely an expensive one, too, for the cash-strapped county.

But for cases wending their way through the system now; and for thousands of convictions dating back to 2007, the work of prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys is just beginning.