Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday April 27 2019, @06:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the got-to-play-by-the-rules dept.

Submitted via IRC for ErnestTBass

She Was Fired After Raising Questions About a DNA Test. Now She's Getting $1 Million.

Officials from the chief medical examiner's office in New York City were furious when they heard that Marina Stajic, one of their longest-serving laboratory directors, had openly questioned whether they had sufficiently verified the reliability of a novel form of DNA testing being used in criminal cases.

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.

"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.

Ms. Stajic, who was fired from the medical examiner's office about six months later, sued in 2016, claiming she was pushed out in part because she had challenged the controversial DNA testing technique. On Monday, the city agreed to settle her case for $1 million.

Ms. Stajic, 69, said she felt vindicated. "As a forensic scientist, I am fully aware of the importance of validating each study," she said in an interview. "My concern was if that study was not done, there could be wrongful convictions. And if the wrong people were convicted, that would mean the wrong person would be walking free."

[...] Ms. Stajic's case, even without going to trial, shed light on the inner workings of a city agency that is often assumed to be untouched by political pressure. But the case's bigger legacy may be one bit of information that her attorneys say came out in the lawsuit: They said it proved the city had never performed the study of the DNA technique as it had claimed.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 28 2019, @03:45AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 28 2019, @03:45AM (#835843)

    Enterprising lawyers may be interested in advising people convicted using this technique of their rights?