Repository Collection 03

State v. May Trial Transcript

ARTICLE SOURCE ENTRY

Last Revised • July 9, 2026

This Source Verification Page documents the archived News & Observer article cited in Claim I of the Supplemental Motion. The article reports on public statements made by former SBI analyst J.T. Taub concerning historical SBI laboratory reporting practices and documents additional reporting regarding SBI analyst Brenda Bissette. The article is cited to support allegations concerning forensic reporting practices relevant to the Defendant's case.


Related SMAR Citation

"[Ex-SBI analyst defends withholding test results", News & Observer, August 20, 2010]"


Article Name

Ex-SBI Analyst Defends Withholding Test Results


Author(s)

Mandy Locke & Joseph Neff


Publication

The News & Observer


Publication Date

August 20, 2010


Verification Source

Archived copy of "Ex-SBI Analyst Defends Withholding Test Results"


Source Location

Originally published by The News & Observer; archived copy located through Google Groups.


Archived Article

View Archived Article →


Original Publication

Original News & Observer URL (No Longer Active)


Referenced in the Supplemental Motion

Page 44, Paragraph: 90 - 91


Highlighted Pages

1–2


Source Status

X Original News & Observer article not located through the newspaper's current website

X Archived copy obtained, reviewed, and verified through Google Groups.

X Article content identifies publication by The News & Observer on August 20, 2010 and attributes authorship to Mandy Locke and Joseph Neff.

X Included within the Source Verification Archive


Cited to Support

May's allegation that SBI analysts routinely omitted negative confirmatory serology test results from laboratory reports; that former SBI analyst Jed Taub publicly defended the practice by stating that negative confirmatory results were not reported because analysts could not be certain blood was absent; and that Taub attributed any resulting misunderstanding to defense attorneys rather than the laboratory. May relies upon this article to support his claim that SBI analysts involved in his case subscribed to laboratory reporting practices later criticized for concealing potentially favorable information from defendants and their counsel. The article is further cited because Taub participated in the forensic examination of evidence in the Defendant's case and publicly defended the reporting practices examined during the SBI laboratory review.

Paragraph 91:
Brenda Bissette “botched blood evidence in a capital murder case swapping the victim and suspect's blood sample.”

Supporting Documents

Original Article

Link to the Google Groups article.

View Website →


Highlighted Research Copy

Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.

View PDF →


Supporting Documents

Currently Available

No copy of the cited trial transcript pages has been obtained for inclusion within the Source Verification Archive.


Future Updates

If these transcript pages are obtained through court records, appellate records, counsel, or other authorized sources, they will be added to this page together with highlighted research copies.


Continue Your Research

Return to Claim I

Continue browsing the sources cited throughout Claim I.

Browse Sources →

Return to Source Verification Archive

Return to the main Source Verification Archive and explore additional sections of the Supplemental Motion.

Browse Archive →