Office of the Attorney General
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Maura Healey
Attorney General
Investigative Report Pursuant to
Commonwealth v. Cotto, 471 Mass. 97 (2015)
April 1, 2016Introduction
tn Apr 2015, the Massachusetts Supreme udial Cour (‘ICY published ts
Kevin, Burnham a farmer nactis evidence oer at the Spring Pace Department, hasbeen
charged by tha AGO forthe alleged thf of esl $400,000 rom the eidence room. Buran ws
Sraigned Hampden County Superior Cour on the charges Larceny Over §250(6 coos), nation of
MS. 266690, and Lareny Ur $250 (1 cont in violton of MG. 266 § 30. Burnham waste
novos evidence atte st tne Sprghel Pole Lepore Tom aprons 2984 un
‘etrerent on 25,2018. Burnham oversaw the storage end salelaepirg of rugs deg paper,
nf eashseedin dg eae, Burstm war acon charge of the disbursement of money when a cse
{hisd. The AGO ivestpton reveled that between December 2008 and Jl 2014, aura legeay
"Moe cash totaling amor §406 00 rom exdence envelopes n more than 170 drug ears. The
‘investigational uncovere@ more than 160 empty evdence envelopes in wich sla roney shuld have
‘bean found, Pres lease, Office afte Aterey General, Foret Spring Pace Oe Araigned fer
‘Agel Stealing Hea $40,000 ror dence Room anoary 1, 2016 (nf wih A),samples a alter time, This method was Farak’s preferred method of taking drugs from
the SPD samples because she did not have to worry about damaging the evidence bag --
‘she could pull the bag open, remove the drugs, and then heat seal t again over the
‘orignal seal mark (1 at 266-168; at 102)
7. Farok's Interaction with Law Enforcement, October 2012
Frak’s taking of standards and samples for her personal use continued into 2012,
In the wake of the misconduct ofa DPH Chemist, Dockhnan, atthe Hinton Laboratory, the
[MSP assumed control ofthe Amherst Lab on July 1, 2012 (3 at 27,85). Then-Governor
Deval Patrick ordered the Hinton Lab tobe closed on August 30, 2012 (1 at 183).** During
‘his time, Farak was using crack cocaine heavily—muitple times per day while at the Lab
‘and at home (1 at 148,159,174-175,385). In October 2012, the MSP inspected the
[Arsherst Lain order to assess the work ofthe Lab and move the Lab toward being fully
accredited (1 at 185; 5 at 26). Members ofthe MSP interviewed Farak and the other
chemists during their vist. During the recent AGO investigation, Farak testified that she
smoked crack cocaine on the moming ofthe MSP inspection and then aso at lunchtime,
prior toher 1 pum. interview. According to Farak, during the course ofthe fifteen to
twenty minute interview, there were no Suspiclons ever raised about her use of drugs (2
9185-187).
Farak had another close interaction with the MSP on January 18, 2013. Farakwas
scheduled to testy in a criminal trial atthe Hampden County Courthouse, She indicated
‘that she had a ‘pretty fair amount of crackin her ca.” Taking advantage ofthe
2 Germ A, Cunha, Ofc ofthe inspector Gener Comm. of A, Investigation of the Org Labrator st
‘he Witar A Hinton State Lab ste 202-0121 [Maren 4, 2018).
19‘opportunity during the lunch break, she went out to her car, ae lunch and “got prety
high However, when MSP members spoke to her in the Hampden County Courthouse
about the trial for which she was scheduled to testify, the police never suspected her of
being under the influence nor made any comment about her appearance or demeanor (1
188-189)
8. Lab Personnel Discover Something Is Wrong and Alerts Police; Farak is
Arrested
(On January 17, 2013, Chemist and Lab evidence officer Salem discovered that drug
samples from two diferent SPD cases were missing.” The fist sample had been assigned
to Farak for testing, Forakhad tested the sample on January 4,2013 and had issued a
cetiicate of analysis, However, there were no drugs. The second sample had also been
‘assigned to Ferak for testing. Farak had not yet issued the certificate of analysis. Salem
looked through the rest of the SPD batch from the relevant date but did not find the
drugs. Before Salem went home forthe day, she looked through the other batches inthe
‘evidence safe bute
not find the two missing samples. The next morning, Frak left the
Lab around 8:00am. to go tothe Springfield District Court to testy at atrial. While
Farak was gone, Salem, who had aerived at work rouné 8:30 xm. tol her supervisor,
onchet, about the missing samples. Hanchett and Salem fookelfor the missing
samples in other places in the Lab, Including Inthe temporary safe where Farak and her
5 Stn ested tothe procadires that werein leet the Lab during the rlevant tine frame. When 2
potee department brougt ras to th ab fo be tested the samples wee batched sccordng tothe
[eparonen and dae on hich he samples were brovgh in. Toe samples were not reared to the
‘biting epatmet unt i of he sales nthe bath were tested ano drg certs was
(Senate foreach some Slr tse tht content wth the requirements of er ob as he
‘Sidones ffcer she nrmolcolcted llth dug erates fr abate, verified that they matehed
the apyreprate drug ssl, ar then prepared tebatch tobe pcked up bythe submitng department
(eattie-ns),
Frcolleague Pontes stored the samples that they were processing. Hanchet also checked
the data from the mess/spec to confirm whether Farakhad completed the analyses of
both ofthe missing samples, Hanchett found that Fara, in fat, had tested oth samples
ané that they were both postive for cocaine (4 at 98:9),
onchett went to Fara’ workstation to lok forthe samples, When he pulled
‘open the fist cabinet, Hanchet discovered a white pasticbin with aplastic bag of
cocaine, chunks of wan lik substance Ina sauce, whit chunks in another saucer, a
peste, and drug paraphernalia. Hanchett continued to look fr the missing samples in
Farak’s workstation, where he found a manila envelope contalning the packaging forthe
‘wo missing samples. The samples were properly labeled with the appropriate sample
number, but the heat sealed packaging had heen sliced open and the contents in the bogs
looked strange to him. Upon visual inspection of the bags, Hanchett noted that one
sample appeared tobe 2 half and hal miture of two efferent substances, and the other
id not appear tobe cocaine a al
anchet called Major lames Connolly ofthe MSP to notify him of what he had
‘iscovered, The Amherst Lab was immediately shut down, and Major Connolly and his
team went to the Lab to Investigate further. Once there, they instructed Hanchett to
perform preliminary drug analysis onthe tw drug samples and the bag of cocaine that
hhad been found inthe plasticbin, Hanchet then performed a more complete analysis of
the samples (5 tS), With regard to one ofthe samples, Farakhad concluded inher lab
notebook that the substance was ccsine in fre-base form and had not noted any
significant impurities inher analyss. However, upon re-testing, both sarnples were found
rnottobe cocaine. (S at 50-51),
a{As the Investigation unfolded, it appeared that Frak ha tampered with
additional samples, Faak’s car was located a the Hampden County Courthouse and,
pursuant toa warrant, searched in the early morning of January 19,2033, Several tems
were seized from the car, Including controled substances.
Farak was arrested later that day and was subsequently indicted bya Special
Suffolk County Statewide Grand Jury on April 1,013. On January 6, 2024, Farakpleaded
_lty to four counts of Tampering with Evidence in ioation of M.GA 268 § 13 four
counts of Larceny of Contralled Substances from a Dispensary, in volation of M.G.L 6
‘90¢ § 37; and two count of Unlawful Possession ofa Controlled Substance (lass Bin
violation of MG. ¢.94C § 24. The Court, Mary-Lou Rup, 1, sentenced her toa term of 2-
years in the House of Correction, eighteen months tobe served and the balance to be
suspended for five years.
“Testimony of Other Witnesses
In addition to Farak other Amherst Lab employees testified before the gran jury.
Each witness testified to his or er lnlvgual observations of Farakas wellas various
practices and procedures atthe Amherst Lab, In ation, a witnes from an MSP drug,
la tested In regorltoher observations ofthe Armberst Lab.
‘A. Testnony of Amherst Lab Superior, Jomes Hanchett
4. Hanchett’s Testimony about Farak
Hanchett testified that he worked alongside Farak after she transferred from the
Hinton to the Amherst Lab in 2004. At that time, Hanchett was a senior chemist with a
supervisory role aver the less experienced chemist although not yet the Lab's
supervisor), so he was actively testing drugs inthe Lab and sat approximately twelve feet
2‘away from Farak, Hanchettdescrived Forakas 2 “meticulous” employee ané “deckcated j
‘oherwork She handle ll he evidence wel. Everything was always “packaged
neaty [and] marked and labeled neath” She kent her workstation meticulous, she was
“a smart gl [and]... rusted employe,” and she “did great}ob.” He explained that
no police officer or Assistant District Attorney had ever complained about Farak’s work (4
3886.87, 104)
[Although Farak id some ofthe testing slighty itferently than he and the other
“merst chemists, Hanchett did not see 2 need to offer her any atonal training
because she had been ful trained at the Hinton Lab. Inany event, asher time atthe Lab
continued, Farak began to adopt the Amherst Lab's methods, with the exception of how
she kept her personal notes (4 at 75,78, 80-83).
Hanchett never noticed anything ifferent about Farak until the last few months
‘of her employment atthe Lab (4 at 77-78). He testified that starting in the late summer
or early fall of 2012, Farak’s production “dropped” and he noticed other changesin her
‘work, a5 well. “The condition of her laboratory bench was. .. (had beer] very meticulous
[but twas... getting messy, ... stacks of paper [were] not being filed property].
{and he] could see something deteriorating in her habits.” (4 at 83). Inaddition, her
physical appearance was “deteriorating” and “the way she was dressing... [was a5
though] she was letting herself go" (4st 92). He “noticed ke] near the end fof her
employment] she seemed to be awful nosey {sic} about what was coming in. She wanted
to know large samples that were brought in... trafficking cases” (8 at 105). Hanchett
would keep track of the number of samples that each chemist tested anc the type of
‘amples that they were testing ona monthly basis. These records were kept in-house at
athe Amherst Lab and the overall testing numbers, but not each individual chemist’ work,
\vas reported to Hinton. Hanchett began to review al of Farak’s output at the Lab and
referred to Lab records to show her that her work was deteriorating in comparison to her
‘output during prior months and years (4 at 8485).
2. Hanchett decomes Lab Supervisor inthe Amherst Lab; Typical Procedures
In une 2008, Allan Stevenson (*tevenson”}* retired from his postion as lab
supervisor and Hanchett was promoted to Chemis land the main supervisor of the |
[Amiherst Lab (8 at 11), Hanchett then undertook several new responsibilities. He was
responsible for making sure all substances were analyzed properly, seeing that chemists
followed certain drug protocols that were in place atthe Amherst Lab, and ensuring that
the Lab was adequately staffed during working hours. In addition, he was responsible for |
the maintenance ofthe drug testing instruments (GC/MS}, ths lst responsibility
‘occupying about 25% of his time (4 at 11-12).
“There was an extremely high backlog of cases a the Hinton Lab and so once a
month, Hanehett would drive from the Amherst Lab to the Hinton Lab and bring about
two to three hundred drug samples, a majority of which had been submited by various
easter counties of the Commonwealth, back othe Amherst Lab so that the Amherst Lab
could conduct testing and help alleviate the Winton Lab's backlog, There was a backlog at
the Amherst Lab, too, but It was not as bad as the Hinton Lab's (4 at 13),
Upon arrival atthe Hinton Lab, Hanchett would meet with the assigned evidence
officer, who would give him alist of samples that he would bring back with him tothe
* Severson, age 62, warnarvewedby AGO investigators, Stevenson a Fast was wellqatiid here
_woremeprblems with er work and no one compshes about er Headed tha she was let ard kept
toner
oy‘Amherst Lab fr testing. Hanchett would then go through each sample by hand to make
sre that the samples that he had in is possession corresponded with the list that he had
‘received, The Hinton Lab evidence officer would then “scan”
Ithe samples to record
“which samples were leaving the Hinton Lab and being transferred into the possession of
anchott ho In tre, would sien form acknowledingisreelpt of them, Upon
arrival atthe Amherst Lab, personnel woulé enter the samples int the computer
inventory nd place the drgsin the vault for assignment t the individual chemists. |
Testing ofthe Hinton “overflow” had ocurred fr approximately fifteen to twenty years
and was usually done during chemist" overtime when the DPH budget alowed (4 at 14-
16.
3. Hanchett’s Testimony about Laboratory Stondards
Drug testing laboratories use drug “standards” inthe GC/MS wile testing to
confirm whether the drug sample fs controled substance under MG... 94C.*
anchett testified that a “primary standards something purchased froma drug or
chemical company {and that has been certified as to what is” In ether words the
primary standard was essentially a “known” substance that would be tested against the
“unknown” polce-submitted samples. Types of “standards” thatthe Lab would order for
this purpose included heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, nycodone and “ust about
cevervthing” The GC/MS instruments inthe Lab each maintained an interna brary that
‘would record its analysis ofthe standard That information would be retained within the
instrument for future reference during substance analysis (4 at 33,35, 60-61).
* chapter 4C of the General Lave the “Corral Setsances fe" af the Commonweath of
Massachusetts, Ths chapter set out the applabectntions, asain, and cumin pena or
tho possesion, dation an afiing of pranited contol) substances.
25anchet, by then the supervisor of the Amherst Lab, was responsible for ordering
allof the standards forthe Lab. Before him, that responsibility had been Stevenson’ (the
previous supervisor's). A Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") license authorized the Lab to
purchase these drugs from various companies. Hanchet testified that the Lab had
approximately two hundred standards. There was never regular audit ofthe standards
at the ArerstLab unt the MSP took over the Lab In ly 2012. Shortly thereafter,
Hanchett prepared a new DEA license aplication to purchase standards, and was notified
that certain regulations required the performance of two Inventories a year and thatthe
standards had tobe storedin a drug vault, Prior to July 2012, however, the Lab had
stored the standards in an unlocked meta fle cabinet and refrigerator. The standards
were refrigerated because they had alimited shel ie (@ t 38,50). The refrigerator
‘could not be locked, nd it stores approximately 20 standards.
Before sly 2082, everyone had acces to these standard, according to Hanchet.
‘The storage cabinet was located on the far side of the laboratory, away and not readily
Visible from the testing Benches. Although the cabinet was locked the key was accessible
bya Lab employees. Te standards were in both liquid and powder form, but Hanchett
‘estimated that approximately 95% of them were in powder form (4at 32-37). The price
of standards varied based upon the stte-2uthorized vendor andthe laboratory
Frequently, there were budget problems atthe Amherst Lab and the DPH would resist
requests to order certain supplies, including standards (4 at 23,35).
In those instances, Hatchett explained, it was necessary to “make... new
standards (at 38), Frequently, he would make “secondary standards” when the Lab
ran aut ofthe primary standard that had been purchased from an outside vendor (4
6147), He manufactured these secondary standards by taking an “excess sample from 8
large tracking case,” He would complete an “extraction process where he would take
the excess sample, mixit with hydrochloric acid and chloroform extract to get rid ofthe
contaminates... back extract ito purify t up and then erstalize tout” (4 at 48). The
nal af that process would be to remove all adulterants or “cutting agents from the
police-submitted sample in order to produce the purest form ofthe drug for use as 2
standard. Hanchett would always run this “secondary standard” through the machines to
‘confirm that the new standard was inthe purest form possible. He admitted thet
sometimes there were “co-contaminates [that they] couldn't get riéof all the time but it
wasn'ta problem because it never interfered withthe sample sel.” He was confident
that these secondary standards were almost as good, or the same as, the primary
standards (4at 49)
Hanchett would make only small amounts ofthese “secondary standards,”
however, because they were not as stable asthe standards purchased from various
‘outside vendors and laboratories, and they always needed to be stored in the
refrigerator. The other Lab employees were aware that Honchett was manufacturing the
secondary standards but they did not do so themselves (4at 48-54, 111), Sometimes, the
‘other chemists atthe Lab would alert Hanchett when the secondary standard was
“breaking down” oF was “running out,” and he would then take it upon himself to make
‘more (4 at 122). He would “put aside two to three hundred miligrams of heroin or
cocaine from polie-submitted samples) ...and kefep tin the refrigerator... sealed in
plastic, [He] hada backlog of itso [he] would be ready to go if he] needed! to make the
net standard” (at 112-113}. if he was planning in advance to make the secondary
astandard, he would leave it out Yon top of his] bench sealed ina plastic container." He
took this step so thatthe substance would “come to room temperature and bela ite
easier to weigh" (438133)
Ins testimony, Hanchett maintained that, when he joined the Lab in 1977, the
creation and use of these s0-aled secondary standards was a regular and acepted
practice, He believed thatthe Hinton Lab was producing secondary standards as wel. Me |
testified that, t some point, he had even made heroin standard forthe Hinton Lab (4at
58), He had never had a particular conversation with anyone at the Winton Lab about the
use of secondary standards, but he assumet that the supervisor of the Hinton and
Aamberst Labs, uae Wasi ("Nasi"), was aware ofthe practice: “Ym sure she ke},
yes. L-youknow, sometimes we told her we could, you krow, cout purchase
drugs so used secondary standards” In deseibing her reaction, Hanchet sad she
conveyed her acceptance of the practice, (435).
4. Honchett’s Testimony about the Amherst Lab's Protocols and Securiy
“The Amherst Lab was not an accredited forensic laboratory under the DPH (4 at
23). Itwasnot until the MSP took over the Amherst Lab in July 2012 thatthe Lab began
tomove toward full-accreditation (4 at 108-108) Although Hanchett had made attempts
to-seek accreditation for the Amherst Lab earlier, he was told by the DPH that there was
‘not enough money in the budget to carryout the process (4 at 29). Athough Hanchett
did attempt to follow the standards set forth by the Scientific Working Group forthe
Analysis of Sele Drugs ("SWGDRUG") he admitted in his testimony thatthe Lab dd
' syaonu works to improve te aul of the fren examination fxd chug ant respond to
the nets the fren commas by stppartng the development of international acxpted minimam
28‘not meet the SWGDRUG criteria in areas such asits paperwork maintenance oF
processing, andis storage and receipt ofvarlous substances. He acknowledged thatthe
Lab was “weak" in some ofthese areas but sad thatthe Lab “Just didn‘thave the
‘manpower or the time to handle’ all or the money to” satisfy all of the SWGDRUG
requieoments (8 3t 9-30).
anchett also testified regarding “blanks” “Blanks” are solvents thatthe Lab ran
‘through the GC/MS in order to clean out any traces of contsinments or remaining drug
residue after test had been performed. Faure to take this step would frequently resuit
in “carry aver" from the previous tests), which would have to be distinguished by the
Individual chemist (4 8 114) After the MSP assumed control ofthe Amherst Lab, the
[MSP required that a blank be run after every sample was tested (4at 108). The previous
procedure atthe Amherst Lab had been to run a blank after every five to ten samples that
were tested, butt was largely lft to the discretion of the individual chemist doing the
test (4at 74),
Hanchet testified that the Lab did have a model Standard Operating Procedure
(S0P"|in place. It was developed inthe mid-1980s by a professor from Northeastern
University who went to both the Amherst and Hinton Laboratories to set up procedures
‘or analyzing drugs. The Amherst Lab “more or less followed the|] procedures that
[werel recommended” Those procedures included a preliminary test and =
confirmational test. fan putting it allinto documentation” (4 at 30-31). Hanchett
“Tondar denne bet practices within the ineratonl community, and providing resources tol
Ibboratres moet these standart ww sear or
cary overs res om prev tat that rears in the GC/MS lesa an” ram vcueh to
“clan tha maeinels| ant alow et aft theres ona subeeqent test,
23recalled that since he had begun working atthe Lab in 1977 the Northeastern professor
had been the ony individual who had ved the ab to set any type of poley or
procedure for analyzing suspected narcoties (31). Hanchet indicated thatthe
“Amherst (and Hinton) Labs were in “deplorable caneitlon” He sald, “It was nota good
‘environment to be working under, Equipment hoods were broken, not fe, [and not
replaced... [The DP ust ett go for so long. they dit have the money" (4at 28)
Security at the Amberst Lab was non-existent, and Hanchettindieated that he had
‘iced concerns to the OPH about this lack of security (a 24-25). Infact, the building
that housed the Lb (the Mori Bullding) also contained an “auitorium that was used by
Lass students that was onthe net floor. So between the main office and the
laboratory was a corridor that everyone had access to" (4 at 25). Access tothe Lab was
possible by use ofa key ora swipe card that was given to each employee. Employees
ould use the key or swipe card interchangeably andthe swipe card did nt keep a record
ofthe employaes who entered or their entry times (5 at 17). Further, there were no
cameras located inthe Lab (6 at 90), Every chemist had access twenty-four hours a day
and seven days a week. Every chemist also had access to all the workstations, the work
station safe (where the Lab kept samples overnight they were stl belng tested), the
drug vou, the standard cabinet, the standard refgerator, andthe computer inventory
system, Hanchet stated that the Lab employees wore forbidden from doing any typeof
testing when there was only one person atthe Lab, but that was posible to break that
rule when “nobody's there” to enfore itor report the misconduct (8 90-91). The
ofies ofboth Hanchett and Salem were located acros the hal frm the Lab and there
\was no way they could monitor the testing (4 at 91). Henchett admitted that although
30‘the chemists were not supposed to assign samples to themselves for testing, the practice
‘was possible due to the unfettered access all employees had to the diferent areas ofthe
tab (4at 104-205).
5. Hanchett’s Testimony about the Testing of Cass E Substances a the
Amherst Labs
Hanchet testified tothe manner In which chemists atthe Hinton and Amherst
Labs would test and classify substances that were believed to fll within the definition of
‘a Cass E substance asset forth M.G.L. ¢.94C § 32, namely substances in pill form 3* He
explained that the Lab did nat perform a chemical analysis of mst Class E substances.
Instead, any analysis was simply done visually (at 63). Essentially the chemists
Identified the samples by relying on the colors and markings onthe individual ils and
‘comparing those to their desk reference materials. Hanchett explained that where the
chemist was not able to identity the pill by any individual markings, the pill would be run
through the Gas Chromatograph and f that produced a result, the pill would then be tun
through the Mass Spectrometer and compared to that machine's Ubrary of substances
Hanehett testified that this procedure usualy would be adequate to determine the
chemical make-up ofthe individual pil (4 at 64).
sjtotaw tins x Gass Esvtanee as “a Any compound matte or preparation containing ny of
the folloninelinied queries of arco drugs, whi salinude one oF more non-arcoti ave
‘nedinlInpetentsmsufcen progoion te carter upey svc vinr, x peparton
‘tluole medina quale ther tan thse poner by te macali draclone 1) Not more than 200,
lens of odie per 09 millers ope 10 grams 2) Ntrmere than 10 grams of
tycocedene po 00 liters or per 00 pram 3} Nat more an 100 millers of etnyimorphine per
{comers ope 200 gare Net rare than 2 Siler ef ephenowlt nd not ss than 25
rrcrogramsf ergine sulfate per dosage uit () Hot more than 100 ila of pm per $00
‘titers oper 100 par) Presertin args oer tan Tose ineloded i Cases, , GO, and
‘hein (ofthe Oats” MG. Le 94031 (2016),
a1Hanchett aleo indicated that there would be frequent discussions between
chemists atboth the Hinton and Amherst Labsif an unknown pill was submitted to the
Lab, Oftentimes, chemists would classify pill asa Class E drug based simply upon those
conversations (as opposed to any actual testing), or based upon a belief thatthe pill may
have been, or was. 2 “preseried” drug under Chapter 84C §32(1)(d)" Hanchett testified
that listing al ofthe Class E drugs covered by the statute would have been impossible; he
estimated that there may be atleast 10,000 Class E drugs in enstence (4 at 67).
In adcition, Hanchett nated that “it took alot longer to analyze Class E drugs
because [there were usualy} 2 lot of them,” because they were "not easyt test," and
‘because they requlred “more complicated tests.” At the same time, however, there were
countervailing “time constraint.” So, visual identifications were “just easier.” Possibly
for those reasons, Hanchett testified, someone “up top"
the Lab—though not Hanchett
himself—had “decided tat. the chert] were going to analyze Css Es by visual
‘amination ony! (42 63-65).
8, Testimony of sharon Salem, Chemist and Evidence Officer
Sale, wio had worked a the Amherst Lab for 25 years is currently employed by
the MSP in the Criinalisies ad Crime Scene Units, based in Springfield, Massachusets
She holds a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from the University at Massachusetts,
“Amherst, She began her careerin the DPH as a chemist assigned tothe Amherst ab (Sat
8) Atthe time ofthe closing ofthe Amherst Lab, her tle was Forensic Chemist Mand
she was the evidence officer fr the Lab. In that capacity she did not analyze any
The ated the Pan Deak Reference "OR" to deny pin the Lab. ta pil wasted a3
prevebe drugin the POR meant tat tone me or another twas controled under the Federal OFA
[et fond thercorewoulbe considered als (60,
32substances, She held the postion of evidence officer for approximately seven years and
continued in that role after the MSP took over the Amherst Labin July 2012 (5 at 5-6)
1. Solem's Duties Regarding Police-Submitted Samples
Salem testified that a police officers brought evidence tothe Lab, she would log
the evidence into the evidence computer, In making these entries, she would “rely on
what the police were telling her] forthe most par.” She would “eyeball” the sample
"but for the most part [she] hed to take thelr word! for it (5 at 5). Salem further
indicated that in her experience as an evidence officer, there were never any large
liserepancies between the quantity that the police reported as coming in and the
‘quantity that the chemists ukimately determined (5 at 26)
‘Salem testified that she sometimes also picked up samples of suspected narcotics
fom the Hinton tab and transported them back tothe Amherst Lab for testing.
[According to Salem, the Hinton Lab frequently gave the Amherst Lab more simple cases
to test and stayed away from the more dificult or “trafficking” cases. According to
Salem, the Hinton Lab made this choice so thatthe Amherst Lab “could do more of them”
(52033)
2, Solem’s Duties Regarding Security atthe Lab
‘As for security, Salem indicated that Lab employees could access the Lab and the
rug vault by either a key oF swipe card given to them, She indicated thatthe key could
bypass the swipe card and vce versa. Furthermore, any employee could access the Lab
and all secured areas within the Lab, day or night, without being detected (5 at 43-48).
Salem had never seen any type of log recording the names of those who had entered the
Lab but she noted that the University of Massachusetts was the entity that was
3responsible forthe “larm sytem and the card swipes” (5 at 17}, Adding to what Salem
saw asa lack of security, was what she also believed tobe # lack of oversight by the DPH
in regard tothe Amherst Lab. She was ofthe view that there was never a requirement 10
submit eports of any type tothe DPH regarding the work atthe Amherst ab,
Furthermore, in the couse of Salem's employment, supervisors from the DPH would vst
the Amherst Lab infrequently, Salem recalled that they had ited only “once or tee”
in er years at the lb (5 t 60).
Salem testified that chemists at the Amherst Lab could asign samples to
themselves but it was “frowned upon” (5 a 20). Every chemist had acess to the
computer inventory system and, a5 Salem admitted, someone could manipulate the deug
inventory onthe computer system (5 at 63). Frequently, Farak or Pontes would approach
thor Hanchett or Salem forthe assignment of samples. Occasionally, according to
Solem, Honchett would assign samples to himself becouse he was inthe Lab before
anyone else (5 at 2). Salem stated that fa batch of samples was assigned to a particular
chemist and that chemist was unable to finish the testing, the protocol was to store the
samples ina shared safe at the workstations. Both Farak and Pontes had acess to that
safe, which was secured only by an “old-fashioned combination lock" (5 a 2223)
3. Salen’s Testimony Regarding Stondards at the Lab
Salem testified that everyone also had acess to the standard atthe Ames Lab
and thatthe Lab store the standard na locker that was out of view from the chemists!
‘workstations (Sat 25) She alo noted that “working standards” were kept in
refrigerator inthe Lab (5 st 26).Salem described working standards or secondary standards as those that were
“made from samples that were submitted by police departments.” Typically, “any
leftover sample would be utilized to be made into a standard” (5 at 27). She Further
Indicated that only Hanchett would make the secondary or working standards and the
{nb would usualy store them in the refrizrator (5 at 27-28). Saler stated that after
forimal MSP audit, the use of ‘secondary standards” stopped (Sat 37). Ata certain point,
Salem stated, Hanchett noticed thet some ofthe standards that had been acquired from
outside labs were at lower levels than “he thought they should be” (Sat 3). Hanchett
‘was concerned about this dscrepaney and first brought it to the attention of Salem. He
confronted both Farak and Pontes about the isue. They denied any knowledge ofthe
problem and Hanchett did not pursue the matter further, Salem stated that Hanchett
‘was concerned about “wrongdoing” but did not have any proof that misconduct hed
‘occurred. This incident occured “sometime after the state police aut of the} lab in
‘October of 2012, but before the DEA came to inspect [the Lab] for [ts] licensure under
the state Police” (5 at 3).
4, Solem’s Testimony Regarding Evidence Bags
Salem also testified about the chemists Initazing of evidence bags. When she
‘was analyzing drugs prior to becoming the evidence offcer atthe Amherst tab, her own
practice was toni the bags only after they were sealed (5 at 54). Salem was not aware
ofthe specific practices of the other chemists atthe Lab, or whether anyother chemist
\would initia a bag before or after the substance to be placed inthe bag had been
analyzed. She conceded the possibility that some ofthe chemists may have been
35Initiating empty evidence bags s0 that when they finished their analysis, they could seal
right throueh the initia but she was not certain
5, Solem’s Testimony About the Testing of Class Es
Salem indicated that the certification of Class E substances was done visually using
‘the PDRs, if the substance remained unknown after visual inspection, It would be run
through the GC/MS in an attempt to discover its properties. Salem was not sure whether
the individual chemists had any particular practices as to how they would test Clas €
‘rugs. She acknowledged that a substance could be classified asa Class E drug by
mistake, but didnot believe that ab employee would deliberately miscassfy 2
substance (5 at 56-57)
6, Salem's Testimony about Accreditation
Salem testified thatthe Amherst Lab was not acredited, Although there had
been some discussion about having the Lab accredited, the funding was never in place to
take the steps needed todo so and the DPH “never made ita priority.” One ofthe Lab's
shortcomings for accreditation purposes, was that the DPH never had any formal, writen
policies or procedures in place (5 at 30). Salem testified that there were no set drug,
protocols atthe Amherst Lab and that any policy or procedure was conveyed or leamed
“by word of mouth" (5 #9). “[Aln accreted lab,” Salem explained, follows a strict
uideline as to what is standard practice, what [an analyst's] paperwork would] show,
[and] what testing [would be] dane on a particular item..." nan accredited lab,
“everyone [would be] on the same page and doing the same type of testing and working
® Satemasthe ont hemi rom the ab that mentone ths races
36‘towards the same goal.” In short, “falcereditation standardizes all the practices" (5 at
30."
7. Solem Testimony Regarding her Observations about Farak
Salem tested that she did not notice any problems with Farak until the last few
‘months that Farak worked in the Lab. She noticed that Farak was losing weight, was
moody," and was leaving the Lab more frequently during the day, but she did not
‘observe any other “dramatic changes.” She did not note how frequently Farak was nat
presentin the Lab, Salem stated that there was positive feedback about Farak’s
testimony from various Assistant District Attorneys and nothing negative (5 at 42-43),
. Testimony of Rebecca Pontes, Chemist
Pontes had worked atthe Amherst Lab for eight and one half (8) years. She Is
currently employed by the MSP Inthe Criminalistes Unit in Springfield, She holds 2
‘bachelor's degree in biology from the University at Massachusetts, Dartmouth, She |
began her career in the DPH as a chemist assigned tothe Amherst Lab. At the time ofthe
losing ofthe Lab, her title was Forensic Chemist Il and she was one ofthe main chemists
analyzing substances that police submitted tothe lab. She continued in that role after the
[MSP took over the Amherst Lab in July 2012 (5 at 65-66)
1, Pontes's Testimony about Drug Testing
\when Pontes arrived atthe Amberst Lab in May 2004, she was trained by
Hanchett. She described the training as “individualized on-the-job taining.” She had
5 in adn, the po and procera the Arharst ab fore samcwht fom those flawed at
the non Lao (5 a2), slr sified tht he testing atthe ion Lab "was alot more complicate”
‘eleingto the wo choi sate hat wasn lac (5 t 32). The two-chenst system ceqied theft
‘Chom todo petnsy testing witout the seo ary mscinery. The second chert woul perfor at
‘he conratory testing onthe GC/MS. Tis equrement became more felt she emits became
‘enue totes eout to ter work, ana as a eu he Hinton 3 cessed hat procedure
apreviously worked at an environmental lb (2 company named Rhode Island Analytical,
where she used instrumentation similar to that atthe Amherst Lab to test environmental
samples, Hanchett walked Pontes through the steps ofrecelving the samples, weighing
them, sampling them, and running them on the GC/MS (5 at 70-71. A the beginning of
heremployment, she was only allowed to test vegetable matter unt she was deemed to
be “proficient,” a desgnation that allowed her to test powders and other substances (Sat
71-72), Pontes stated that it wos possible to complete many marlhuana tests on an
average work day, atleast in part because those tests were simple. By contrast, with |
powdered samples, (9, cocaine, the weighing, sampling and actual esting would take
alot longer, “from half an hour to forty minutes” (5 at 72-73). Pontes stated that Farak
and she di the vast majority of the testing atthe Lab, Hanchet did test some
substances, but only the larger and more complicated ones (5 at 73-74), Pontes testified
‘that Salem was the evidence officer atthe Amherst Lab and assigned the samples to each
chemist fr testing (5 at 76)
2. Pontes's Testimony ebout Security tthe Lab
Ponts testified that, for the majority ofthe time she was tthe Lab, employees
‘accessed the Lab by key or swipe card and only one ofthe two had to be used, Pontes cid
not now there was a mechanism by which etry int the Lab was tracked. She added
that there was an alarm system Inthe Lab that was set at night and which had to be
cisarmed with a securty code in the morning. Employees were able to enter the Lab at
“any time ofthe day or night, twenty-four hours a day (5 at 77-78). The drug locker oF
‘vault that contained all the police-submitted drug samples was in an area near Hanchett
and Salem's offices, across the hallway from the Lab. Employees could access the drug
38‘aut inthis area by using the same swipe card or key that employees aso used to gain
access tothe Lab area (5 at 78). Tere was no written or spoken policy concerning wha
could or could not enter the safe (Sat 78). There was also another safe located inthe Lab
Insel. It was used for overnight storage of any samples thatthe chemists had na fished
testing That safe was located alone a wal nthe mide of the Lab and had a dal
combination to secure tat eight. Allemployees atthe Lab ae the combination tothe
safe (81-82). Pontes testified that she never left an open bag Inthe “overnight sae
Inste
she used the safe for samples that she had not yet opened or that she had
complated” and had “sealed up ateady” (Sat 62), Pontes also noted that there was a
computer inthe evidence room, and that everyone had acess oI though the entry ofa
single passcode that was the same for every employee, She indicated that someone
could possibly change the weights of the submitted samples inthe evidence computer (5
28100)
2, Pontes's Testimony about Stondords
Pontes indicate that the Lab used both primary and secondary or “prepared
standards.” The primary standards were “known manufactured, known standards that
{the tab] would gt rom a manufectuer and keep] n a locke storage area” (5 at $5). &
chemist would use these standards as a benchmark “to test against unknown substances”
(5.at 5), They were in both powder and iui form. Pontes did not recall how many
such standards were on hand tthe Amberst Lab (5 at 85). These primary standards were
kept along withthe “prepare standards’ na rtrigeratorin the Lab that was closest to
Honchett’s workstation. (5 2t 85-86).
39Pontes explained thata “prepared standard” is standard that was a powder
that is] diluted in quid form tobe used onthe instrumentation.” Hanchett mace these
prepared standards at his workstation in the Amherst Lab (5 at 8687), Hanchett would
‘make these prepared standards by using a small sample from known substances thatthe
police had submitted for testing (5 # 8}. Pontes tested tat i she noticed 3 prepared
standard runnin low in the refrigerator, she woul tel Hanchett ( at 88), She recalled
Honchett confronting her and Fara about mising standards atthe Amst Lab --he
‘expressed cancer about these missing standards and wondered what could have
happened to them. He aso asked Pontesf she was making her own standards. Both
chemists denied going int the standards cabinet and refrigerator and Pontes denied ever
‘making her on standard. She was trying to “wrep her bran” around how standards
could go missing (5 at 110-111),
4, Ponts's Testimony about Evidence Bogs
Pontes testified that she never pre-ntaled her bags before completing her
analysis onthe substances. She would always resal the evidence bag wth the polee
submited sample, an then intial and date the bag (5 at 82-83). She Further ndeated
that the Lab required all the chemists to date and intial the evidence bags. She observed
Forak achere to this procedure and did not recall she ever observed her pre-
al
evidence bags ($ at 83). Pontes described the evidence bags or “KPAC” bags as "heavy
plastic type bags that you would... hes seal” (Sat 83).
{In adaltion, Pontes would occasionally act as the evidence office for the Amherst
Lab. She recalled that some police departments would deliver samples tothe Labin open
5 yeacis rand thas quent wed nthe food and dug Instr or packaging.
40evidence bags. She remembered that the police departments from East Longmeadow
and Springfield followed tis practice, and tha the bags from Springfield, in particular,
had to be resealed atthe Lab (5 at 98-99).
5, Pantes’s Testimony about Lab Protocol
Pontes testified that when she first started working at the Amherst Lab, part of
her training involved writing notes based upon her observations of Hanchett’s analysis of
the substances, Because she had experience rom her pror employment} writing
standard operating procedures, Hanchett had asked her to “write an SOP™ for each
controlled substance that [the Lab] came across (5 at 103), although there may have |
‘been some informal or unwritten SOPs already in place atthe time Pontes started
"working atthe Amherst Lab. However, Pontes believed thatthe SOPs that she drafted
"were very close in ther terms to those that would be found in an accreted laboratory (5
{at 103) she indicated thatthe policies set forth by SWGDRUG were avallable to her at
the Lab for her review, if necessary (5 at 104).
6, Glass E Substances
Pontes testified tothe classifications of certain types of substances atthe Lab, |
specifically Class E drugs. She indicated that Class drugs were identified by visual
inspection only (5 at 112), The substances “would come in as tablets and they would
hhave identiving marks on them’ (5 at 113). A chemist would identify 2 gven pill by
‘consulting a reference gulde, On the infrequent occasions when a police department
submitted a pill or substance that was net inthe reference guide, the chemist would run
the substance through the GC/MS (5 at 113). Pontes recalled one specific drug named |
* Sop er standard operating procedure.
a"070." she recalled that 0ZP was 2 federally controlled substance but not controlled
Under the state drug laws, “It could have been classified ata Class E...or reported that
‘twas not cassfied with a note that ft was federally controlled. The Lab had no polices
set in place concerning the classification of B2P." However, Pontes was certain that she
hata dceusion with Hanchett regarding that issue (Sat 114-115).
7, Pontes’s Testimony Regarding Her Observations of Farak
Pontes testified that she worked alongside Farak dally for over eight years. Pontes
‘maintained that she did not find anything unusual about Farak’s demeanor or physical
appearence. Although Pontes considered Farakto be “odd” “there wasnt anthing that
stood out” She thought Farak as od because Farak would fnsh Pontes’ sentences
‘and wasjust “uly” (Sat 95). Pontes indcated that towards the lst few months of
Forak’s employment, Farak was leaving the Lab frequently for long periods of ime.
However, Pontes would never question Farak about where she went. Pontes assumed
that “she may have gotten a coffee oF went tothe bathroom” (5 at 96). Pontes recalled
that no member of law enforcement had ever made a comment to her regarding Fark’s
work(5 at 105)
She described Fara’s work as “very good," nating that “Ther notes [were] very
neat and methodical, [and] she kept everything organized as fr asher cas les went” (5
196), Pontes sid that Farak’s workstation was “neat” but her desk area was a Ite
ressier” (97). Occasionally Farak would show interest inthe types of samples or the |
‘quanthy of samples that Pontes was testing (5 at 96-97).
‘apis aves at eg in he estnony of MSP Cie Laboratory Manager of Forense Cems,
Brooks.
aD. Testimony of Nancy Wong Brooks, Massachusetts State Police
Brooks is employed at the MSP Crime Laboratoryand isthe Manager of the
Forensic Chemistry Section, overseeing several units: the Drug llentifcation Uni; the
Office of alcohol Testing: and the Post-Mortem Toxicology Unit, Before managing the
aforementioned divisions, she was the Supervisor f the Drug lentication Division of
the MSP, located in Sudbury, Massachusetts. She received a Bachelor of Sclence degree
in Chemisty from the University of Wisconsin, Maison. Sheisa member ofthe
Clandestine Laboratory of investigating Chemists anda member of the New England
Assocation of forensic Scientists. In ation, she hasbeen qualified as an expert the
state of Wisconsin and testified in the states of New Hampshire, Vermont, end
Massachusetts. In her 20 years as a bench chemist, she has examined over 30,000,
samples and authored 10,000 reports. she curently overses al forensicunts located at
the MSP drug labs in Suabury, Maynard, and Springtel, Massachusetts (6 at 4).
41. Brooks's Testimony Regarding the Amherst Lab
‘The MSP had recently taken over control ofthe Amherst Lab from the DPH on July
1, 2012 when Brooks frst had the opportunity to visit the Amherst Lab in October 2012,
“The purposes of her vst were to conduct a cursory autor site assessment ofthe Lab; to
review protocols; to evaluate some ofthe case work that the chemists performed: to
evaluate the instrumentation inthe Lab and to discover what would “need to be
obtained in order fr [the Lab] to become aezredited because the Lb] wfas} not
‘accredited a that time” (6a 2628),
Brooks testified that there were aot of steps thatthe lab needed to take to
become accreites (6a 28). There wee few written protocols place at the ume (at
4327), She was of the opinion that the Lab's GC/MS instrument “was of an older
‘generation. Some of t was at least ive years old. The laboratory itself was definitely
‘eminiscent of an academic laboratory” (6 at 28). Brooks added that “as a former
“chemistry major, [she] did't see too much difference between when [she] was in
cherisry lab twenty years ago and in the Amherst lab" (6a 29). Brooks noted, for
‘example, that there were deficiencies such as "hoods being out of order atthe time” (6 at
28). She indicated that there were two safesin the Amherst Lab: one for temporary
storage and another larger, secured evidence storage room safe in the administrative
area ofthe Lab (6 at 30).
2. Brooks's Testimony about Accreditation
‘Brooks state that a lab becomes accreted through a multi-step process. The
Jab fist submits an application to an accrelting body for forensic drug laboratories, the
‘American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Accreditation Board, also known as
ASCLO/LAB* (6 at 89}, The ASCLD/LAB reviews the submitted application along with the
submitting lab’s writen drug protocols. Members of ASCLD/LAB do an on-site review of
the lab, ineluding a review of protocols and case files and they make a ste facility
assessment. The members seek to determine whether the lab has adequate space to
perform analytical examinations; mechanisms for tracking evidence throughout the
phd” Iesed ding chemical exactions for see) reason. The hood vetates the area wnete te
‘erin s eeu that ay fames or uxt are cacled oat. The extraction woul take pace under the
Droteconslty goss. trample of yp erections incude ang components ut fate othe
‘roporton of substance ving hestng erent (2 29,
SSReaoyun ters aurecatin proses wich any cme laboratory flung ee scare ané
emputeroensies poe) ot ores sence breath alco aleratio preyram proving covered
‘ver may outa n onder to drsnstate tha hel techeal operons and overall management
System mec 80/1 17025-2005 requirements and apeabe ASCLD/LAnteratonl supplemental
Feauiteets Arca Scetyo Cre Laboratory Decors /abortory hereto Board
(ASCLO/LAB: tpn sed oh. eghhow to become ceded ost vsted Moreh 3, 2016,
4laboratory; anda safe enviranment for analysts to work. In addition, they review lab
protocols to ensure that the methods being used, as well asthe conclusions being formed
by the analysts are scientifically sound; inspect the instrumentation and assess how well
thas been maintained and review security protocols
lab seoking accreditation must also have a DEA license in order to handle and
‘acquire controlled substances for testing. Aside from that license, the lab should also
have a DPH registration (6 at 8-10),
‘The ASCLD/LAB offers two different types of accreditation programs: the
ASCLO/LAB Legacy Program and the ASCLD/LAB International Accreditation under the 180
117025 Supplemental Guidelines” (6 at 8-10). Brooks indicated thatthe “international
Supplements were far more comprehensive. Under the orginal Legacy Program there
\were one-hundred and fifty (150) criteria that were reviewed fora lab. Under the
International Program Supplemental [a lab is} reviewed on ... approximately four=
‘hundred (400) eritera... all of which [the lab] must pass” (6 at 1).
3. Brooks's Testimony about the Massachusetts State Police Laboratories in
Sudbury and Springfield
‘The two MSP drug labs, located in Sudbury and Springlield have been accredited
since 2002. The labs first were accredited under the ASCLD/LAB Legacy Program. The
[ASCLO/LAB subsequenty awarded the labs the international Acreitation under the 0
417025 Guidelines, both described above (6 at 10). Brooks explained the general ayouts
ofthe two labs and ther features. Inthe Sudbury lab, thare are approximately ten to
® panecan Sockety of Ge sseratryDrectrs/tbocator Acedkation Board (ASCAD/LAB)
utpfunew ate ab opntermatons testing prota) lst sted March 31,2026),
45‘twelve chemists and four supervisors. In the Springfield lab, there ae two chemists, with
{an addtional one ia tainng and one superior
When evidence is brought into the Sudbury or Springfield drug ab for testing, the
Individual or entity that seeks the testing must complete certain paperwork. Evidence
control personnel wil recive hats the paper andthe substance, andig the sample
{nto the lb’s Laboratory Information Management System. The system records the
name the submitting agency, any agency case numbers, and any subject names. The
evidence officer also willecord the gross weight ofthe sample ands packaging, The
evidence oficer does not “inventory” the samples because the bags re not opened
Instead the officer visually verifies that the substance described bythe ageney is pretty
‘uch consistent with what the lotfcr] sels in [the] sealed plastic bag” (6 at 16). The
samples then assigned a unique laboratory case number and aba code spaced onthe
‘evidence bag. The purpose ofthat procedure isto track evidence throughout the
laboratory (6.15) Each analyst ashi or her own personal bar code so thatthe lab can
track the progression of the sample from the submitting ageny tothe chemist an back
to the vault (6a 15). Everytime a semale moves from one location to another, lab
‘worker must scan the sample. The ab retains electronic records regarding this
movement (6 at 20)
samples are stored in a deve vault. Inthe Sudbury lab, the dru vat i located In
a secure area within the evidence contol unit and there isa safe within the vault where
the substances ae actually kept. Inthe Spring ab, the vats secured within the
laboratory Both labs follow the exact same procedures forthe storage, handling, and
testing fal police submitted samples. Evidence control personnel atthe lab must
a6retrieve any item thats ready for testing (6 at 13). I, for any reason, evidence personnel
‘are not available to retrieve evidence from the vault, an analyst wth authorization wall,
enter the vault along with the primary chemist to remove the evidence bin using his/her
swine card, This procedure is known as “ual entry" andl an electronic record is kept as to
that entry and.as to allother entries (6st 32),
Inthe Sudbury lab, the samples are assigned and prioritized for testing based
"upon how soon the results ofthe tests are needed in court (6 at 15). When the lab
assigns samples toa chemist for testing, the samples are taken from the vault and