EDITORIAL: Legal challenges

From the “better late than never” department, a group of defense lawyers announced last week that they plan to more aggressively challenge dubious test results used to elicit plea bargains for suspected drug crimes.

An investigation conducted by the Review-Journal and ProPublica, a public nonprofit journalism organization, revealed last month that Metro officers routinely employ chemical field tests to identify illegal substances even though the process is unreliable. Without ever running additional analysis to guard against false positives, prosecutors then use the results to pressure a defendant into a guilty plea rather than risk a trial and potentially lengthy sentence.

To make matters worse, the evidence is then destroyed after the plea is entered, making it virtually impossible to conduct analysis after conviction.

The approach, which often targets poor or minority suspects, raises serious questions about fairness and due process and increases the risk of putting the innocent behind bars.

But now the Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice has set up a committee to study options for disputing the technique in court.

Las Vegas Judge Joe Bonaventure, chief judge of the justice courts, which hold preliminary hearings, noted that the defense enjoys the right to dispute evidence. But he said any additional delays necessitated by such challenges in these low-level drug cases might lead to defendants languishing in jail. “If the defense now does want to challenge the reliability in a specific case,” he said, “it really might extend people’s time in custody.”

In fact, justice doesn’t always operate on a convenient timetable. But specifically, Judge Bonaventure’s comment raises a host of additional issues surrounding the fairness of the bail system for low-income suspects.

At any rate, the fact that defense attorneys are now giving this matter the attention it deserves bodes well for eventual reform.