DNA SCANDAL EXPLODES — FORMER FORENSIC ANALYST SENTENCED TO 10 YEARS AFTER MANIPULATING EVIDENCE

Yvonne “Missy” Woods spent nearly three decades handling evidence for Colorado investigators. Now her actions have forced authorities to reexamine hundreds of criminal cases.

A former Colorado forensic analyst has been sentenced to 10 years in state prison after admitting to manipulating DNA data in criminal investigations — a scandal that has shaken confidence in the state’s forensic system and thrown hundreds of cases into question.

Yvonne “Missy” Woods, 66, was sentenced Tuesday, September 8, after pleading guilty in June to four felony charges: cybercrime, first-degree perjury, attempting to influence a public servant and forgery.

Her misconduct occurred over a period stretching from 2008 through 2023, during her career as a forensic scientist with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

But investigators say the full scope of the damage only became clear after a seemingly small discovery.

THE DISCOVERY THAT UNRAVELED EVERYTHING

The investigation began in September 2023, when a CBI intern discovered missing DNA data in a sample Woods had processed in 2018.

That discovery prompted a broader review of her work.

Investigators eventually identified 53 cases containing false or misleading laboratory reports associated with Woods.

The consequences were particularly significant in cases involving women and children who had reported sexual assault.

Of the 53 cases, 41 never resulted in criminal charges, including 32 involving women and children who reported sexual assault, according to prosecutors.

Prosecutors said Woods deleted values indicating the presence of male DNA and subsequently issued reports stating that male DNA had not been found.

That meant investigators could lose opportunities for additional testing, comparisons and further investigation.

HUNDREDS OF CASES CAUGHT IN THE FALLOUT

The scandal was not limited to the 53 cases containing false or misleading reports.

Authorities said Woods also manipulated values in laboratory notes in hundreds of additional cases.

Those changes did not result in false reports, prosecutors said, but they nevertheless raised questions about the reliability and integrity of forensic work performed by Woods.

Her work touched cases involving serious crimes, including homicide, sexual assault and robbery.

The criminal investigation, however, found an important distinction.

Prosecutors said there was no evidence that Woods created false DNA identifications, false comparisons or false positive results.

Instead, investigators found that she manipulated existing data and records in ways that could affect how evidence was interpreted and whether additional investigative opportunities remained available.

ONE MURDER CONVICTION WAS ALREADY VACATED

The consequences have reached the courtroom.

Twelve of the false laboratory reports were connected to cases in which criminal charges had been filed against suspects.

Three of those cases went to trial.

One ended in a conviction, while two resulted in acquittals.

Prosecutors said Woods’ guilty plea to perjury was connected to false testimony she gave during the trial that resulted in a first-degree murder conviction.

At least one murder conviction has since been vacated amid questions surrounding Woods’ work.

In another development, prosecutors have reviewed cases in which Woods’ involvement could undermine confidence in the evidence presented against defendants.

The fallout has also included plea agreements and dismissed cases.

Of the remaining nine cases tied to false reports, prosecutors said six resulted in plea agreements, two were dismissed and one remained in warrant status.

WARNING SIGNS HAD APPEARED YEARS EARLIER

Perhaps one of the most troubling aspects of the scandal is that concerns about Woods’ work reportedly existed long before the 2023 investigation.

According to an internal CBI review, a colleague questioned aspects of her testing as early as 2014.

In 2018, Woods was temporarily removed from DNA-related work after concerns about data manipulation surfaced.

She ultimately remained with the CBI until November 2023.

The revelation has raised broader questions about how the agency handled warnings about a forensic scientist whose work could influence the outcome of criminal investigations.

“I FAILED THAT RESPONSIBILITY”

During Tuesday’s sentencing, Woods apologized and accepted responsibility for her actions.

She acknowledged that she had been entrusted with evidence capable of affecting defendants, victims, families and courts.

Her apology, however, could not undo the consequences now facing investigators, prosecutors and families whose cases passed through her laboratory work.

Judge Andrew Poland described the misconduct as intentional and particularly serious because Woods held a position of extraordinary trust.

The judge ultimately sentenced her to 10 years in state prison.

COLORADO FACES A FORENSIC CREDIBILITY CRISIS

The case has left Colorado authorities facing a massive task: determining what must happen to the cases touched by Woods’ work.

Officials have undertaken reviews and reforms within the state’s forensic laboratories in an effort to restore public confidence.

The financial consequences could also be enormous. State officials have estimated that the response to the scandal could cost more than $11 million.

CBI Director Armando Saldate said the actions of one employee should not define the many forensic professionals who continue working for the agency.

But the damage is difficult to measure.

DNA evidence is often presented as one of the most powerful forms of evidence in a criminal investigation.

When the person responsible for handling that evidence is found to have deliberately manipulated data, the questions do not stop with one laboratory report.

They spread across the cases, the victims, the defendants — and the justice system itself.

Now, as Woods begins her 10-year prison sentence, Colorado is left with a far bigger question:

How many cases can still be trusted without another look?