Repository Collection 03

An Independent Review of the SBI Forensic Laboratory

REPORT ENTRY

Last Revised • July 2, 2026

An Independent Review of the SBI Forensic Laboratory is an independent review commissioned by the North Carolina Attorney General to examine the policies, practices, and quality assurance procedures of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation Forensic Laboratory. The report documents significant findings concerning laboratory operations, evidence handling, oversight, and recommended reforms. The Supplemental Motion cites this report in support of allegations concerning forensic practices and the reliability of evidence discussed throughout Statement of Facts A.

Related SMAR Citation

Paragraph 7: “[An Independent Review of the SBI Forensic Laboratory. Chris Swecker, Attorney at Law; Michael Wolf, Consultant. 2010]”

Paragraph 9: “[Swecker and Wolf, 2010]”

Source Name

An Independent Review of the SBI Forensic Laboratory

Author(s)

Chris Swecker
Michael Wolf

Publication Date

2010

Verification Authority

Independent Review of the SBI Forensic Laboratory (Swecker/Wolf Report)

Source Location

North Carolina Digital Collections

Highlighted Pages

3–4, 7–8, 10–12, 21–26

Referenced in the Supplemental Motion

Page 10-11, 10-12, 21-26, Paragraph: 7, 9

Source Status

✔ Case existence and citation verified.

✔ Full opinion obtained for inclusion in the binder.

✔ Publicly available source

✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive

Cited to Support

Paragraph 7: May's allegation that the North Carolina Attorney General ordered an independent review of the SBI Forensic Biology Section following the exoneration of Gregory Taylor by the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission; that the review was conducted by Chris Swecker and Michael Wolf; and that the resulting Swecker-Wolf Report documented concerns regarding SBI laboratory practices. May cites this report as the foundational source for his subsequent allegations concerning forensic misconduct, reporting deficiencies, and systemic failures within the SBI Crime Laboratory, including those affecting evidence analyzed in his own case.

Paragraph 9: May's allegation that a limited review of the SBI Crime Laboratory's DNA program uncovered serious deficiencies in forensic analysis and reporting practices. Specifically, Swecker and Wolf found "serious errors on the part of DNA analysts" and concluded that laboratory practices between 1987 and 2003 raised concerns that material and potentially favorable evidence may have been withheld or misrepresented. May cites the report to support his claim that the problems identified within the SBI laboratory were systemic rather than isolated incidents and that those deficiencies may have affected criminal prosecutions throughout North Carolina, including cases in which SBI forensic evidence was presented against capital defendants such as himself.

Supporting Documents

Original Document

Link to the original document.

View Website →

Highlighted Research Copy

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

View PDF →

Continue Your Research

Return to Statement of Facts A

Continue browsing the sources cited throughout Statement of Facts A.

Browse Sources →

Return to Source Verification Archive

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

Browse Archive →