INDIANAPOLIS – Results of about 500 blood samples that were retested as part of a sweeping investigation of drug testing problems at the state toxicology lab aren’t being made public even though they’ve been shared with prosecutors.

Attorneys for the State Toxicology Department denied a public records request for the results, which are considered the most conclusive indicator yet of how bad the problems at the lab might be, the Indianapolis Star has reported.

The state took over the lab from the Indiana University School of Medicine after independent audits found evidence of sloppy work and unacceptable levels of errors in tests that police and prosecutors use to evaluate evidence for criminal cases. Audit results released in June found that nearly a third of the lab’s positive cocaine test results were not conducted in accordance with acceptable scientific standards. Those findings followed audit results released in April that showed a 10 percent error rate among positive marijuana tests conducted over the same period, from 2007 to 2009.

The findings have raised questions about whether people have been convicted of crimes based on evidence that is flawed.

Defense attorneys angry

The state has shared the results of the retesting with prosecutors, but Executive Director Larry Landis of the Indiana Public Defenders Council said he is frustrated by the lack of public disclosure.

“I still have no idea of the nature and scope of the deficiencies,” Landis said. “The fact that they are sharing that information only with prosecutors is unacceptable.”

Landis said the state could reveal the nature of the problems without disclosing individual case information.

“To hide behind the shield of privileged information is inexcusable,” he said.

A three-member toxicology advisory panel appointed by Gov. Mitch Daniels recommended in July that the results of the retesting be sent to prosecutors, defense attorneys and the public.

Indianapolis defense attorney John Tompkins said there’s an obvious reason the results, which have been available since mid-December, aren’t being publicly disclosed.

“If the results were good,” he said, “they would be telling us.”

The retesting ordered by the advisory panel was prompted by a technical review of thousands of cases from 2007 to 2009 in which the department initially reported positive findings.

That review looked only at paperwork from the original tests and did not involve retesting samples.

Fran Watson, a professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, said sharing the results publicly is vital to preserving the integrity of the legal system.

“The more open they can be at this point, the more they are open about how this happened, who it happened to and why it will never happen again,” she said, “the more faith people will have in the system.”