CHICAGO (WLS) — A key laboratory previously relied upon by prosecutors for marijuana-related DUI testing in Chicago and its suburbs has ceased conducting tests on human samples. However, the repercussions of the faulty results continue to unfold.
Over a year has passed since the I-Team uncovered the testing scandal at the University of Illinois-Chicago, yet questions persist regarding the accountability of scientists and laboratories involved.
ABC7 Chicago is now streaming 24/7. Click here to watch
In the courtroom, forensic science evidence often carries significant weight. For some defendants, it can be the pivotal factor between imprisonment and acquittal.
The issue at the University of Illinois-Chicago’s Analytical Forensic Testing Laboratory (AFTL) has potentially impacted over 2,000 individuals, leading to case dismissals with the possibility of more in the future.
The controversy centers on inaccurate blood and urine tests that aimed to determine illegal levels of marijuana in DUI incidents.
This laboratory debacle is serving as the inaugural significant challenge for the newly established Illinois Forensic Science Commission, which is led by Executive Director Amy Watroba.
“The commission is actively working on examining issues related to what occurred at AFTL laboratory,” she said.
The 14-member body is designed by law as an advisory board. It has no legal authority to sanction rogue analysts or order a lab to shut down.
But the commission is taking a stand issuing a scathing statement challenging UIC’s attorney-authored report, saying it is “insufficient to address the allegations” and suggesting a “fundamental lack of understanding of forensic toxicology.”
Watroba said, “The commission felt it was important to respond.”
In a written statement, the university said, “UIC remains committed to upholding the highest standards of laboratory research integrity and compliance. The Illinois Forensic Science Commission’s statement and recommendations reflect its views and analysis. We are carefully reviewing its assessment. “
DUI attorney Donald Ramsell has been vocal about the commission and his frustration by its limitations.
“It was great that the Forensic Science Commission called out the lab for their additional layer of a cover up of their misconduct. Unfortunately, the Forensic Science Commission doesn’t have the power to do much more than post a position paper,” Ramsell said.
And Ramsell worries those overseeing AFTL at the time of the testing errors will not be held accountable.
“The lab is now closed, but nothing prevents it from restarting at this time. Furthermore, those analysts have now scattered and are offering expert testimony, private consults and working at other crime labs,” he said.
Most states don’t have an independent agency dedicated to oversight and auditing of forensic science.
The president of the National Association of Forensic Science Boards, Kermit Channell, told the I-Team that state boards with or without enforcement powers still bring value to the public.
“I think it’s all about transparency. There has to be, you know, good understanding of the issues and problems, and there has to be correct, effective corrective action when something does go wrong,” Channell said.
Channell went on to say the most effective commissions do have statutory teeth to enforce their findings.
“I think that boards do need some kind of power to enforce things, whether it’s a corrective action going through whatever the situation might be. No one wants someone to be wrongly accused and convicted of a crime that they didn’t commit,” Channell said.
READ MORE | DuPage County state’s attorney dismisses marijuana DUI charges after faulty blood tests
The I-Team traveled to Texas to explore what is considered the gold standard of forensic science accountability.
In downtown Houston, inside an unassuming high-rise building is the Houston Forensic Science Center, led by Dr. Peter Stout, the center’s CEO and president. He said real accountability for labs in Texas was born out of a history of forensic fiascos so significant that they required legislative intervention.
“The worst crime lab in the country. That’s what this laboratory was,” proclaimed Stout.
To combat a history of poor testing and bad science, the Texas legislature created the Forensic Science Commission in the early 2000s to independently oversee, and if necessary, penalize labs and scientists for bad science.
It also made the Houston forensic lab independent of the Houston police. More recently, Texas passed a law requiring an online portal to disclose forensic evidence to both defense attorneys and prosecutors at the same time.
Stout said, “It changes the dynamic between law enforcement, prosecution, the courts, and the feds. You’re going to get an independent answer from the laboratory, and you might not like that answer.”
Inside the lab, where tens of thousands of cases per year are processed, Stout said getting the forensic science right is vital to the criminal justice system.
“It is disproportionately impactful evidence. And we’ve got to take it seriously, that the controls, oversight, the quality of that matches the expectation that people have.”
Stout also weighed in on the evidence provided in Illinois by the UIC forensic lab for marijuana DUI cases, saying it “pains him.”
“It is really easy for labs without the framework around them to end up in some really unfortunate place,” Stout said.
The I-Team also traveled to Austin, where the Forensic Science Commission reviews allegations of forensic misconduct.
One member read from newly filed paperwork about a lab worker accused of inappropriate behavior.
“The complaint alleges that the analyst withheld information from the defense and exhibited bias,” the paperwork said.
Members took official action against that former Texas lab scientist for poor forensic drug testing, barring them from future employment in a state lab.
Lynn White Garcia, the commission’s general counsel said, “We were able to really look at that and say OK, that’s enough for us, and we’re going to take action to make sure that this person is not employed anywhere else in the future.”
It is that power to penalize that leads to better forensic science presented in court, Stout told the I-Team.
But to get this kind of commission with oversight authority, the power to investigate and take action against bad forensic science, it takes legislators who are ready to act.
That is something that could be accomplished in Illinois with its own evolving Forensic Science Commission.
Watroba said Illinois’ commission, which started meeting in 2022, is effective through policy initiatives, incident analysis and helping with new legislation.
But she acknowledges the relatively young group could eventually change with public demand and action from lawmakers.
“A good commission is structured in such a way that it is designed to evolve, adapt and grow as the needs of the community and landscape it serves changes. So yes, Illinois’ commission is designed to evolve,” she explained.
The commission called on UIC to initiate a comprehensive audit of the now shuttered human toxicology lab, made by an independent agency with forensic science expertise.
Watroba said they have not yet received a response.
Copyright © 2026 WLS-TV. All Rights Reserved.
