Repository Collection 03
State v. Derrick Allen Order of Dismissal
Durham County Superior Court, File Nos. 98CRS 55208, 98CRS 7979-7980
CASE ENTRY
Last Revised • July 4, 2026
This court order documents judicial findings regarding forensic reporting practices within the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation Forensic Biology Section. The Order of Dismissal in State v. Derrick Allen found that laboratory reporting practices concealed favorable forensic evidence and contributed to significant due process concerns, providing judicial support for the allegations discussed throughout Statement of Facts A.
Related SMAR Citation
“[State v. Derrick Allen, Durham County Superior Court, File Nos: 98CRS 55208, 98CRS 7979- 7980; Order of Dismissal]”
Case Name
State v. Derrick Allen
Citation
Durham County Superior Court, File Nos. 98CRS 55208, 98CRS 7979-7980
Date
December 10, 2010
Entered March 9, 2011, nunc pro tunc to December 10, 2010
Verification Source
State v. Derrick Allen Order of Dismissal
Source Location
Order of Dismissal Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-910 and 15A-954(a)(4) and the United States and North Carolina Constitutions
Highlighted Pages
1, 27, 29, 37, 44, 45
Referenced in the Supplemental Motion
Page 13, Paragraph 15
Source Status
✔ Original Order of Dismissal obtained and verified
✔ Relevant holding highlighted
✔ Publicly available source
✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive
Cited to Support
Lyle C. May alleges that misleading forensic reporting within the SBI Forensic Biology Section was not the result of isolated misconduct by individual analysts, but rather stemmed from an institutional policy that affected criminal cases throughout North Carolina, including the forensic evidence presented in his Buncombe County prosecution arising from the July 1997 murders in Asheville, North Carolina. The Order of Dismissal in State v. Derrick Allen is cited to establish Judge Hudson's findings that Agent Jennifer Elwell's reporting practices were consistent with a designed SBI laboratory policy that obscured or failed to clearly report test results favorable to defendants. May relies upon these findings to support his claim that the SBI maintained a systemic pro-prosecution bias, that favorable forensic evidence was deliberately concealed through laboratory reporting practices, and that the credibility of SBI forensic analysts was substantially undermined in criminal cases where they testified on behalf of the State.
Supporting Documents
Original Court Order
Link to the original court order.
Highlighted Research Copy
Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.
Continue Your Research
Return to Statement of Facts A
Continue browsing the sources cited throughout Statement of Facts A.
Return to Source Verification Archive
Return to the main Source Verification Archive and explore additional sections of the Supplemental Motion.