Houston DWI cases under review
42 trials at risk due to ‘unreliable’ expert testimony
The Harris County District Attorney’s Office has been ordered by the Texas Forensic Science Commission to review dozens of DWI cases overseen by a veteran county scientist because of questions about her honesty while testifying under oath.
In a report released Friday, the commission said Fessessework Guale, who worked for the medical examiner’s office for 10 years, repeatedly testified that she received a different master’s degree than what she earned and made other mistakes while testifying in criminal trials.
Officials said Guale testified in 42 cases.
“Due to the unreliable nature of Guale’s testimony regarding key scientific concepts, any case in which she provided testimony should be reviewed by the (district attorney’s office) and defense (lawyers) to assess the materiality of the testimony to the case outcome and determine whether any legal relief is appropriate,” the commission wrote in a 748-page report. “This is especially critical for those cases in which the resulting (blood alcohol content) was on the border of the statutorily defined legal limit.”
Guale resigned from the Harris County Institute of Forensic Science — informally known as the county medical examiner’s office — after the discrepancies surfaced in September 2016. She could not be reached for comment Friday. The forensic commission, based in Austin, does not have authority to require a person’s appearance and did not question Guale.
Tyler Flood, who was president of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers
Association in 2016 when the organization filed the complaint that led to the commission report, said past cases of DWIs, intoxication assault and fatal crashes in which drivers are accused of being drunk could be reversed because of the findings.
“This is big and could give relief in some cases,” the defense attorney said.
Flood said he spearheaded the complaint after going through more than a dozen trials in which Guale, the state’s principal blood expert, misrepresented her credentials.
“The citizens of Harris County deserve better and they don’t like to feel like they’ve been lied to by state witnesses,” he said.
‘Did not measure up’
The commission investigated whether Guale’s testimony rose to the level of perjury, and reported that a Harris County grand jury had evaluated the situation and declined to bring criminal charges against her.
When the allegations arose in 2016, the medical examiner’s office stood behind Guale’s qualifications. On Friday, they said her bona fides were not good enough.
“We honor our reputation and integrity. Dr. Guale’s credentials did not measure up to our expectations,” Crime Laboratory director Roger Kahn said in an email. “We are grateful to our executive staff, our quality system and the Texas Forensic Science Commission for resolving these lapses in an effective way.”
The District Attorney’s office responded to questions about the report by saying the previous administration, under Devon Anderson, advised defense lawyers to review their files to determine if Guale’s testimony could be material to their client’s cases.
“They are the ones that will have to raise the issue,” a spokeswoman said.
On Friday, Flood also blasted the judges who presided over the cases at trial.
“In all of these cases that Guale testified in, the judges allowed her to get away with testifying about ‘junk science,’” he said. “While I know judges have a hard job to do, this should be a call to attention that they should be more cautious in their rulings, and judges need to have a certain level of skepticism about any scientific evidence being presented.”
During dozens of appearances on the witness stand, Guale had testified that she earned a master’s degree in toxicology. The state commission noted that she has a master’s in physiological science from Oklahoma State University, and had completed coursework in toxicology.
She has a bachelor’s degree in animal science from an Ethiopi- an university and has a doctorate of veterinary medicine from the same university.
‘Not guilty’
Flood and other defense attorneys accused Guale of lying about her qualifications to persuade juries to convict suspects.
Flood particularly criticized Guale for her testimony on “extrapolation,” which is an estimate of intoxication hours after a wreck or arrest, based on a person’s blood-alcohol level when tested.
“Some of these people are not guilty,” he said when he lodged the complaint. “They’re below a .08 (blood-alcohol content) at the time of driving.”
The commission sided with Flood and wrote that Guale provided unclear and contradictory testimony regarding extrapolation and absorptive state.
For example, in two trials she said the time of first and last drink was the “most important” or “most crucial” variable for extrapolation. But in three other trials she said such information was not necessary.
In transcripts attached to the report, the commission also pointed out that Guale voluntarily testified to or agreed with an attorney’s representation of inaccurate information.
“It is difficult to determine whether these are attributable to her imprecise communication or an actual lack of knowledge in the subject area,” the report states.
She also testified that side effects for two drugs, the sedative Xanax and a narcotic called Tramadol or Ultram, are present only when the drug is not used as prescribed.
“This is another example of inappropriate testimony regarding key concepts in toxicology,” the commission wrote.