Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Former CBI forensic scientist Yvonne Missy Woods, facing one hundred
and two felony charges for falsifying lab results in a
sexual assault cases after her twenty nine year history with
the bureau.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Woods is accused of fifty eight instances of criminal misconduct,
including charges of a cybercrime, perjury, forgery, and an attempt
to influence a public servant. The allegedmist conduct could cost
over eleven million dollars. Criminal defense attorney Scott Robinson joins
us now in the KA Common Spirit Health Hotline.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Scott, we appreciate you coming back on with us.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Of all those charges that I just read, what in
your legal opinion is is by far the most egregious.
Speaker 4 (00:34):
Well, there's no question what the most serious is, which
is cybercrime. And it would apply in this case not
because she destroyed a computer, but because she altered results
on a computer. It's a class too felony. It actually
has an aggravated potential sentence for forty eight years, but
the presumptive range has a maximum of twenty four years.
(00:57):
That's in terms of seriousness. In my view as a lawyer,
I think the most important charge is perjury. You can't
have people testifying falsely in criminal cases where people's lives
are at risk, people's lives are at state, you really
owe it to everybody and to the public to testify truthfully,
and apparently she did not do so.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
Scott, Obviously, a number of affected.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Cases may be the simplest answer to that's just the
extent of how many cases are involved.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
But going a little bit further into detail.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Are there any other reasons of why why it took
so long for Woods to face these charges?
Speaker 4 (01:36):
Well, I think they were really putting together the details
of the various cases. We're talking about a total of
about fifty eight, actually fifty six instances that are outlined
in the affid David, and that took a while. Her credit,
Woods was cooperative with the officers, although when interviewed use
(02:00):
the word disconnect over and over as those who was
observing as a third person observing an individual's conduct, and
that she was disconnected from her work. That may there's
really no proper excuse for the situation that may have
shepherdized pending criminal cases, and this is important prevented the
(02:23):
filing of otherwise valid sexual assault cases.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
I know there's fifty eight instances of this but could
there be more Scott that they find? Is they do
more due diligence and discovery? And I guess they're all wrong.
But does the number of that matter? Is one the
same as fifty eight?
Speaker 3 (02:40):
I mean, is it? Or is the preponderance of it
make it what? It is? So so egregious?
Speaker 4 (02:46):
If I said fifty eight, I misspoke. I think they're
fifty six, okay, but out of the may whether it's
fifty six, one hundred and fifty six or one, it's
serious business. But the reality is to do it over
and over and over again. That kind of repeated malfeasance
is definitely far more serious than a single instance of
(03:08):
bad judgment.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
You mentioned how when she was interviewed she used the
word disconnect often, So have we learned a little bit
more of if this was just simply laziness or manipulative in.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
Any way, It's pretty clear that she had no intent
to influence the cases, because she had no personal interest
in any of the fifty plus cases being discussed. So
it's not that I think it's a combination of laziness and,
(03:39):
most importantly, from her perspective, the desire to be viewed
as the superstar of the CBI DNA lab. She did
more analyzes, wrote more reports, testified more often than anybody
else in the CBI, And I think she enjoyed that
status and taking a few shortcuts along the way certainly
(04:01):
increases the number of cases you can handle.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
I don't know if you can answer this, and if
you don't want to, I total respect us. Have any
of these cases something that you've worked on or touched on,
or have you had to engage ever in your work
with the Missy Woods?
Speaker 4 (04:13):
No. And it's ironic because I actually had a fairly
extensive knowledge of DNA technology and its application of criminal cases.
But the last time I had a DNA case with
a CBI, Missy Woods was not the analyst who was involved.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
And Scott, it sounds like yesterday when she was in court,
the main debate back and forth was talking a little
bit about her bond. It sounds like she's currently out
on bond. But can you explain a little bit of
what a surety bond is and what was the back
and forth that we saw.
Speaker 4 (04:44):
With that sure We see a lot more cash only
bonds being set by judges, particularly in serious cases, most
probably and first to be murder cases now that bond,
now that such individuals are bond eligible. A cash only
bond means exactly that somebody's got to post fifty thousand
dollars With a charity bond, it's a matter of having
(05:04):
a bondsman. Typically ten percent is the premium and you
usually have to well, you have to post collateral, whether
it's a house or two cars, whatever you have. Bail
bond people are in it, you know, it's a business
for them. They want to make sure they get paid
and they want to make sure that when they put
the money out that the individual appears. But she appears
(05:26):
to be an extraordinarily good risk for a bail bond
company since the minutes she found out that there was
a warrant, she was out of state at the time,
immediately flew back to Colorado and reported to the jail.
So that I think that's the main reason the judge
authorized the bail bond. Alternative bail bonds, you know, are
(05:50):
usually about ten percent. But it is a competitive business,
and there's nothing that it prevents a bail bond company
from charging at lower rate with a a little risk
to famine.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
It's got more philosophical than it is legal as we
get out of here with you on this, this calls
into question everything does for the CBI.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
Does it make somebody in your space their job harder?
Speaker 2 (06:10):
And will anybody on either side of the law, whether
they're defending somebody in this space or whether you're trying
to exonerate what will? Will this just cast a pall
in call into judgment anything does that comes from the
Colorado Bureau of Investigation, And with DNA, I.
Speaker 4 (06:25):
Think it's limited to DNA analysis. I think an individual
testifies about firearms and ballistics, for example. I doubt that
judge leave them permit across examination about what a single
lab analyst in the DNA lab did. But it's certainly
going to paint the CBI DNA lab for years to come.
(06:50):
It's not decades. And that's really the same because we
have relied on that department for years for a variety
of forensic sciences via DNA fingerprinting, fiber and hair. We've
been relying on those for decades and to think that
(07:12):
something as critical as DNA has been monkeyed around with,
that's really discouraging, disheartening, and quite frankly disappointing.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
Criminal defense attorney at Scott Robinson, thank you so much
for your insight on this this morning,