Angiulo: The Long Term Impact of the Hinton Drug Lab Crisis

Monday, November 03, 2014

Leonardo Angiulo, GoLocalWorcester Legal Contributor

When the Hinton drug lab crisis first struck, people in the court system and the general public were staggered by the impact that the improper actions of one individual could have. For many people the questions of how and why a technician would falsify thousands of drug certificates to convict criminal defendants in state court were consuming. For other people, the question of what the court system would do to address the issue was equally pressing.

As time passed details came to light of how the wrongdoing occurred, the offending party was prosecuted, and is ultimately serving a sentence of her own. What did not change, however, is that there were and are a group of people incarcerated for drug offenses based on drug certificates that may have been falsified. The Appeals and Supreme Judicial Courts of Massachusetts have begun piecing together their response to the crisis through cases that come before them.

The most recent precedent dealing with Hinton drug lab certificates, Commonwealth v. Gaston, was published this week by the Massachusetts Appeals Court. While it may not be the first case on the subject, and probably won't be the last, it is a concise look into how complicated untangling this knot can be for defendants and the trial courts.

In Gaston the court addressed a matter that was not purely drug related. According to facts found at trial, the defendant was found to have possessed firearms and ammunition as well as certain items alleged to be crack cocaine. At the Appeals Court hearing, the defense addressed several issues. What appears to have resonated for the judges was the question of whether, or not, the defendant's motion for new trial should have been allowed.

The court's basis for ordering the new trial focused on both the central role of the tainted drug certificate from the Hinton lab as well as the role the offending technician played in falsifying drug test results. With this set of facts the defendant was entitled to a "conclusive presumption that egregious government misconduct occurred in" his case. With this decision the court is acknowledging a fundamental defect in the process leading to this and other, similar verdicts. Not only are they identifying the fault, but they are acting on it as well.

In doing so, they are taking control over what they have the power to. The court cannot change that a verdict was entered using drug evidence we now know was subject to questionable methodology. They also could do nothing about the conviction that was entered on the gun charge they ultimately affirmed. What they finally decided they could do was return the case for a new trial on the drug portion of the charges.

As with any human endeavor the criminal justice system is not perfect. It is, however, an effort of passionate people that will work to correct any defect that challenges its function. In this most recent case the appeals court has risen to the challenge of ensuring accused get exactly what the Constitution promises: due process and a fair trial.

Leonardo Angiulo is an Attorney with the firm of Glickman, Sugarman, Kneeland & Gribouski in Worcester handling legal matters across the Commonwealth. He can be reached by email at [email protected].

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Email to a friend Permalink

Angiulo: The Long Term Impact of the Hinton Drug Lab Crisis

Related Articles

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Most Popular Articles

Sign Up for the Daily Eblast

Sign Up for the Daily Eblast