The Results Are In: Forensic Labs Under Prosecutorial Control Are Problematic
UPDATE: September 29, 2025 | A previous version of this post said that if the Board of Commissioners grants the funding request, “the CCSAO would no longer rely on the ISP Crime Lab for forensic support.” A representative of the State’s Attorney’s Office provided the following clarification: “The forensic portion of the lab [would] be experts that assist ASAs in understanding, presenting, and appropriately requesting forensic evidence from certified, accredited labs. . .We are seeking funding for a lab that will assist our ASAs with digital evidence and technology. There [would] be no scientific forensic testing done at CCSAO.”
State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke has expressed that establishing an in-house forensics lab is a funding priority for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office. Here’s an explanation of why in-house forensics labs are problematic.
At the Cook County midyear budget hearings, State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke outlined key funding priorities in her office, including a push to establish an in-house forensics lab within the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office (CCSAO). The proposed forensics unit would create a digital forensics lab to store enormous amounts of data from phones as well as trial technology to convey evidence to the jury, and also add attorneys, investigators, and a firearms specialist to existing staff. State’s Attorney O’Neill Burke argued that Cook County’s prosecutors need a centralized, in-house forensics lab to manage the increasing volume of evidence, from crime scene photos and videos to phone location data.
Currently, the CCSAO already has several forensic personnel but heavily relies on the Illinois State Police (ISP) Crime Lab for forensic support, as they handle most physical and digital evidence. The ISP Crime Lab has come under fire for a number of reasons, from using evidence with “inaccurate or unreliable test results” to mislabeling specimens, destroying samples, not disclosing evidence of innocence, and other gross misconduct. Independent forensic labs, such as ones relied upon by the Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender, also regularly have scandals for impropriety in adhering to scientific standards and providing accurate results, which can lead attorneys astray and result in horrific outcomes for people in the criminal legal system. For example, Injustice Watch recently reported that a University of Illinois Chicago lab, contracted by the Public Defender’s office, returned inaccurate results for cannabis testing for many years, resulting in false and misleading arguments. There’s no information to suggest that a new CCSAO forensic unit would be any more reliable, efficient, or better staffed.
The conflict of interest is clear: A forensic lab in close proximity to prosecutors can create institutional pressures or foster biased practices that undermine scientific integrity and contribute to the production of unreliable or inaccurate science. In 2021, a study from Cornell found that even minor biases, more likely to occur in forensic units housed within prosecutors’ offices, can accumulate and significantly affect trial outcomes. To mitigate these risks, experts recommend safeguards like blind verification and limiting exposure to case details, both of which are easier to implement in independent forensic labs.
Evidence shows that, in general, forensic labs are already more accommodating to prosecution, whether through frequent communication, prioritizing cases at their request, or shaping reports to meet their needs. Indeed, at a 2011 Senate hearing, experts emphasized the need for mandatory disclosure of forensic evidence. Likewise, a report from the National Academy of Sciences explicitly recommended that both the prosecution and defense have equal access to forensic evidence and the ability to assess and challenge it independently. This would clearly not be the case if the forensic unit producing evidentiary findings were housed within the CCSAO.
This points to a larger issue: forensic labs lack accountability in Illinois. Even after the establishment of the state’s first Forensic Science Commission, created in response to a backlog in DNA testing for murder cases, there is “no authority to investigate complaints, shut down labs, discipline analysts, or issue legally binding findings,” according to Injustice Watch. The Commission recommends that labs issue amended reports and notify prosecutors whenever they find that testing has been inaccurate; unfortunately, their recommendations have no legal bearing.
The public has no reason to trust that the CCSAO will follow these guidelines. State’s Attorney O’Neill Burke’s administration has already rolled back Do-Not-Call and disclosure lists, which were integral to protecting accused people’s rights. These kinds of lists prevent prosecutors from calling police officers with known credibility issues as witnesses on the stand. Given the historical issues with wrongful convictions in Cook County, the choice to roll these lists back shows a lack of concern for conviction integrity and doesn’t bode well for the State’s Attorney’s commitment to future police oversight.
Best practices in forensic science have been well-established for over a decade; instead of creating new hurdles, Cook County should align its forensic services accordingly. The most critical step is to set up structural independence of forensic labs from prosecutorial and law enforcement control. The current system is under the Illinois State Police, meaning it is not independent from law enforcement, and providing funding to the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office to manage their own forensic unit would worsen the risk of bias. It’s essential that defense attorneys have equal access to forensic services and the ability to critique forensic results. Following best practices for unbiased, equitable, transparent, and rigorous forensics is the only way to protect the integrity of evidence and public trust in the justice system.
Blog post written by Emily Drevdahl & Maya Simkin