

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Prosecutors responding to ACLU litigation have provided lists that, for the first time, identify more than 24,000 drug cases worked on by convicted chemist Annie Dookhan, in which people were convicted or had other adverse dispositions. These Dookhan cases appear to account for an astounding 25 percent of all drug prosecutions that led to conviction in the seven counties that used the Hinton State Lab during Dookhan's tenure, and one in six of such drug prosecutions in the Commonwealth over a 10-year period. Although nearly five years have passed since Dookhan's misconduct was first uncovered at the Hinton Lab, and several months since Dookhan's release on parole, this is the first time prosecutors compiled lists of the people and cases affected by the scandal.
The vast majority of the defendants in these 24,000 cases have not received any official notice that Dookhan worked on their case, let alone legal representation to help them challenge their tainted convictions. Yet their tainted convictions have brought years of jail time, as well as harsh collateral consequences, including deportation from the United States and difficulty finding employment or housing.
These revelations follow last week's report from the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, written at the request of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which found that Massachusetts is also confronted with a second enormous lab scandal arising from misconduct by chemist Sonja Farak at another state drug lab, in Amherst. According to the Attorney General, Farak used drugs daily during her eight years on the job, and her misconduct likely affects thousands more cases.
"It has taken five years and a lawsuit just to get a list of Dookhan's cases, and that list exposes the war on drugs in Massachusetts as a massive house of cards," said Matthew Segal, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "The misconduct during the Dookhan-Farak Era is of course shocking, but the broader issue is the spectacular failure of the war on drugs in Massachusetts. Over the last decade, Massachusetts has convicted thousands and thousands of people of drug crimes based on tainted evidence. Those people deserve justice, and the Commonwealth needs to address its own addiction--an addiction to addressing the problem of drug use through prosecution instead of treatment."
"This new information and the latest drug lab scandal in Massachusetts show that a case-by-case approach to this massive problem cannot serve the cause of justice or restore the integrity of our criminal justice system. We need a comprehensive solution," said Dan Marx, attorney with Foley Hoag LLP.
Anthony Benedetti, chief counsel of CPCS, said, "Getting to this point, where persons will be identified and contacted has taken far too long, and unfortunately, it is a prime example of justice delayed is justice denied." According to Benedetti, CPCS will do everything in its power to attain justice for those harmed by Dookhan and her tainted drug samples, but added, "Finding, contacting, and then providing counsel in the more than 24,000 cases will be impossible to accomplish within any length of time that would be consistent with due process. This impossibility is especially clear when it comes to providing counsel. Unless there is a comprehensive remedy, CPCS would be asked to recruit, train, pay, and provide support to a small army of lawyers qualified to represent the thousands of Hinton Lab clients whose cases have been affected. Such an effort could not be carried out within any reasonable period of time, would cost millions of dollars, and cause incalculable damage to CPCS, its clients, and the criminal justice system."
"Massachusetts has provided an unfortunate example for the entire nation," said Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "Nationwide, the drug war has failed to reduce drug addiction, but this astounding series of revelations highlights the ways in which it has also sown injustice. The war on drugs has created the perfect conditions for the abuses and problems we see on a huge scale in Massachusetts. This shows why it is time to end the punitive war on drugs and shift instead to a system of treatment for drug addiction, not incarceration."
The new data reveals important information about the extent of the drug cases tainted by the Dookhan scandal and about the challenges of using a case-by-case approach to try to remedy the wrongful convictions of the Dookhan-Farak Era:
* From 2003-2012, Dookhan's work accounted for approximately 24,481 cases in which prosecutors obtained adverse dispositions (including guilty pleas) for drug charges, including:
- Approximately 2,255 cases in Bristol County
- Approximately 1,322 cases in the Cape and Islands
- Approximately 4,216 cases in Essex County
- Approximately 3,540 cases in Middlesex County
- Approximately 2,361 cases in Norfolk County
- Approximately 2,097 cases in Plymouth County
- Approximately 8,690 cases in Suffolk County
* Dookhan's work appears to have accounted for about one-third of the cases in which prosecutors secured drug convictions (or other adverse dispositions) in Suffolk County, and at least one-fourth in Essex and Norfolk Counties.
* Dookhan's work accounted for approximately one-quarter of the drug prosecutions that led to conviction in the seven counties that relied on the Hinton Lab, and one-sixth of all such drug prosecutions in the Commonwealth.
* Although Dookhan was caught committing misconduct in June 2011, it took nearly five years and the Bridgeman suit for district attorneys to produce these conviction lists.
* District attorneys have not said when, if ever, they will produce similar lists of Farak convictions. But if the Farak scandal is half as big as Dookhan's, then about one in four drug convictions in Massachusetts over a decade will have been based on tainted evidence.
BACKGROUND
In May 2015, the SJC ruled in Bridgeman that Dookhan defendants have the right to challenge their convictions without fear of further punishment, and the SJC sent the case to Justice Botsford to determine how defendants would be identified and notified of their rights. This week's production of case lists results from that process. Under SJC case law, each of the defendants in these 24,000 cases is entitled to a presumption that Dookhan committed misconduct in their case.
Massachusetts SJC Justice Margot Botsford required state prosecutors to produce lists of Dookhan defendants in Bridgeman v. District Attorney for Suffolk County, a case brought by the ACLU of Massachusetts, the national ACLU, Foley Hoag LLP, and the Committee for Public Counsel Services. After the filing of the Bridgeman case in January 2014, county district attorneys twice declined requests by CPCS, the state public defender agency, to help identify Dookhan defendants.
Justice Botsford held a hearing on May 11 to discuss these findings, as well as the need to notify defendants. While the hearing marked a further step in the ongoing effort to identify and notify Dookhan defendants, it raised broader questions about the feasibility of addressing such large drug lab scandals on a case-by-case basis. The ACLU has long called upon the SJC to implement a global remedy for cases affected by misconduct at the Hinton drug lab.
For more information about Bridgeman v. District Attorney for Suffolk County, go to:
https://aclum.org/cases-briefs/bridgeman-v-district-attorney-for-suffolk-county/
For more information about the Farak scandal, go to:
https://aclum.org/uncategorized/shocking-misconduct-amherst-drug-lab-lasted-eight-years-tainting-thousands-convictions/
For more information about the ACLU of Massachusetts, go to:
https://www.aclum.org
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666"This president's authoritarianism is a real and living threat to our democracy and it demands vigilance, and resistance from us all."
On the fifth anniversary of President Donald Trump's supporters storming the US Capitol over his reelection loss, and nearly a year after he pardoned those insurrectionists, congressional Democrats and other critics condemned the Republican leader's escalating assault on the country's Constitution and democracy.
"On his first day back in office, Trump pardoned more than 1,500 January 6 rioters, including violent criminals who bludgeoned police officers," Christina Harvey, executive director of the progressive group Stand Up America, said in a Tuesday statement.
"The message is unmistakable: Those who break the law for Trump are rewarded with pardons and protection, while those who enforce the law are punished for doing their jobs," she said. "That leaves all of us less safe. The American people deserve better."
Ahead of the anniversary, US House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) released two related reports: Where Are They Now: The Perpetrators of January 6th and the Defenders of Democracy Who Stopped Them, and One Year Later: Assessing the Public Safety Implications of President Trump's Mass Pardons of 1,600 January 6 Rioters and Insurrectionists.
On Jan. 6, 2021, bloody insurrectionary violence interrupted the peaceful transfer of power.Today, America is still caught in an epic struggle between selfish forces of rule-or-ruin autocracy & the unyielding defenders of constitutional democracy all over America.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Jamie Raskin (@raskin.house.gov) January 6, 2026 at 9:40 AM
Raskin—a former constitutional law professor who notably led Trump's historic second impeachment in the wake of the Capitol attack—also penned a Tuesday op-ed in the New York Times, arguing that January 6, 2021 "never ended."
The congressman highlighted that since returning to the Oval Office, Trump has "punished law enforcement officials en masse for doing their jobs," installing "insurrectionists in the highest ranks of the Department of Justice" and conducting a "bureaucratic purge—with firings and permanent demotions—of hundreds" of Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and prosecutors.
"These moves at the Justice Department," he wrote, "have cost the government thousands of collective years of investigative and prosecutorial experience, demoralized the civil service, and reduced our government to the moral level of a gangster state."
Raskin further pointed out that the president "granted clemency to dozens of people who had committed or been accused of violent and horrific crimes after January 6, such as plotting the murders of FBI agents, resisting arrest, assault, rape, burglary, stalking, stabbing, possession of child sex abuse materials, and DUI homicide."
Raskin also joined several other House Democrats—including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY) and Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.), who chaired the select committee that investigated the Capitol attack—for an unofficial Tuesday morning hearing that featured testimony from former law enforcement, state officials, and other Americans who witnessed the MAGA mob violence.
Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also plan to mark the anniversary outside the Capitol Tuesday evening. In a morning floor speech, Schumer noted that event, recounted his experience with the "mob of rioters," stressed that "we must never relent on speaking the truth" about the attack, and slammed the pardons as "among the most sickening things Donald Trump has done in office."
"These pardons were an explicit endorsement of using violence to get your way," Schumer said. "That is who Donald Trump is at his core: a man who’s happy to see violence work in his favor, to get what he wants. And in this chamber—especially in the House of Representatives—too many Republicans remain silent in the face of obvious evil."
Separately, Schumer has spoken out against Trump's recent illegal violence abroad: a boat-bombing spree that has killed over 100 alleged drug traffickers in international waters and the weekend abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, which resulted in dozens of deaths.
"For two long hours we heard yesterday from the administration, and what we heard was little more than wishful thinking and no real answers," he said Tuesday. "We got no clear answer to any of the four questions I've been asking the administration for days."
"First, how many troops are we going to commit to Venezuela? Are there any limits? No answer," Schumer explained. "Second, for how long will we be committed to running Venezuela? No answer. Third, how much is this all going to cost? They said they had no cost estimate. And fourth, what country is next? Is Colombia on the table? Are we going to invade a NATO ally like Greenland? Where does this belligerence stop? I was very troubled, very troubled by their answer on this as well."
Schumer pledged Monday that this week he and other senators would force a vote on a bipartisan war powers resolution "that will affirm Congress' authority on matters of war and peace when it comes to Venezuela." So far, neither GOP-controlled chamber has been able to pass such a measure related to Trump's march toward war with the South American nation or his boat bombings.
On Saturday, Trump attacked Venezuela. Five years ago Trump attacked our Capitol. If Trump had been held accountable for the Jan 6 attack, there would've been no attack on Venezuela-nor anything else from this second term. My new article deanobeidallah.substack.com/p/the-straig...
[image or embed]
— Dean Obeidallah (@deanobeidallah.bsky.social) January 6, 2026 at 10:04 AM
In a Tuesday statement about the January 6 anniversary, Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the advocacy group Public Citizen, pointed to not only Trump's abduction of the Venezuelan leader but also how he's trampled on the rights of Americans, including by trying to deploy the National Guard in various US cities.
"Five years ago, a sitting US president incited violence against our nation in a shameless attempt to overturn a democratically held election. This day must live forever in our memory, so that we continue to seek accountability for the perpetrators and work tirelessly to safeguard our democracy from future lawlessness," Gilbert said. "As we reflect on the solemn anniversary of the insurrection, we must grapple with the reality that the same president is back in office."
"And that his disdain for the rule of law and disregard of the US Constitution are more brazen than ever, amplified by endless incendiary rhetoric and reckless actions," she continued. "From the unwanted and unlawful military deployments of the National Guard to US cities to the indefensible and brazenly unlawful kidnapping of a foreign leader for the benefit of fossil fuel corporations, this president's authoritarianism is a real and living threat to our democracy, and it demands vigilance and resistance from us all."
Jessica Plichta told a reporter that it is "the duty of us the people to stand against the Trump regime" just before she was arrested.
A 22-year-old woman who was detained for several hours by police in Grand Rapids, Michigan on Saturday after speaking out against President Donald Trump's invasion of Venezuela had allegedly "obstructed a roadway" and failed to obey officers—but she described an arrest in which the authorities appeared to be suspicious of her for protesting at all.
Jessica Plichta, a preschool teacher and organizer, told Zeteo on Monday that police officers repeatedly asked her why she was at a protest in Grand Rapids' Rosa Parks Circle, where hundreds of demonstrators spoke out against the US military's abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores—a violation of international law that has garnered worldwide condemnation.
Plichta had just finished speaking to a reporter with local ABC News affiliate WZZM about her opposition to the US invasion of Venezuela when two city police officers came up behind her and placed her under arrest.
It is "the duty of us the people to stand against the Trump regime, the Trump administration, that are committing crimes both here in the US and against people in Venezuela," said Plichta just before the officers appeared on camera behind her.
Grand Rapids police arrest an antiwar activist live on air while taking an interview denouncing US military aggression in Venezuela pic.twitter.com/Zm16aFRDxq
— BreakThrough News (@BTnewsroom) January 5, 2026
Plichta told Zeteo, “I don’t think it’s a coincidence that as soon as I finished an interview speaking on Venezuela, I was arrested—the only person arrested out of 200 people."
She told the officers she was "not resisting arrest" as they led her toward a police car. A bystander approached and asked the police what Plichta was being detained for.
The officers replied that she had been "obstructing a roadway" and was accused of "failure to obey a lawful command from a police officer."
BREAKING: IN GRAND RAPIDS MICHIGAN, at approximately 5:30pm today, GRPD arrested local organizer Jessica Plichta on camera during a post-march press interview.
Plichta was sought out and targeted specifically by
GRPD for helping lead a U.S. Out Of Venezuela rally at Rosa Parks… pic.twitter.com/Uj6fLVba80
— Private IcedC81 Politics (@PvtIcedC81Pol) January 3, 2026
Plichta told Zeteo that the police drove her away from WZZM's cameras and then took her out of the car, patted her down, and confiscated her belongings. The officers told her she had been "making a scene" and asked her about her involvement in the protest: whether she was Venezuelan, "what she had to do with Venezuela," and what she was doing at the protest.
She also told Zeteo that the police asked her for the names of other demonstrators.
She was asked again what her connection to Venezuela was after she was taken to Kent County Correctional Facility, where she was held for about three hours and released after outcry from her fellow organizers.
"We are so accustomed to, and used to, repression when we speak out on anti-war topics,” Plichta told the outlet. “When we speak out for Venezuela, when we speak out for Palestine, we expect the police to want to shut that down.”
A spokesperson for the Grand Rapids Police Department told Zeteo that protesters had "refused lawful orders to move this free speech event to the sidewalk and instead began blocking intersections until the march ended," and said Plichta "was positively identified by officers," allowing for her arrest.
Though Plichta remained calm when she was arrested and suggested that she had taken her detention relatively in stride, supporters expressed shock that she had been targeted for speaking out against Trump's attack on Venezuela—which is broadly unpopular across the United States.
"What in the Gestapo is going on in Grand Rapids?" asked Brandon Friedman, a former Obama administration official.
Friedman pointed out that among elected Democrats, there appeared to be little if any outcry over Plichta's arrest for participating in a peaceful protest.
If this happened to a conservative organizer, Republicans would make her a hero, a household name and a congressional candidate.Elected Democrats just pretend it isn't happening.
— Brandon Friedman (@brandonfriedman.bsky.social) January 5, 2026 at 11:29 AM
“Protesting in this country is sacred," Plichta told Zeteo, "and so it is important that our rights are protected and that we are not criminalized for peacefully protesting in a world full of escalating violence."
"They've been pretending that this made-up thing was real for a year. But now that they'd have actually to demonstrate its existence in court, they're going to cram it down the memory hole."
One of the central claims the Trump administration has used to justify the overthrow of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and describe his government as “illegitimate” is the allegation that he is the leader of a multinational narco-terrorist organization known as “Cartel de los Soles.”
But now that the Department of Justice (DOJ) must prove the allegation in court following the US military's kidnapping of Maduro last week, prosecutors are backing off the claim and, in effect, admitting what critics had long protested: that Cartel de los Soles is not, in fact, an organization at all.
In the months leading up to the illegal US invasion that plucked Maduro from power, the Treasury Department and State Department both designated Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist organization.
That allegation originated from a 2020 grand jury indictment of Maduro, drafted by the DOJ during Trump’s first term. The document described the Cartel de los Soles as a “Venezuelan drug-trafficking organization comprised of high-ranking Venezuelan officials.”
As the New York Times explained back in November:
There’s a big catch with the impression created by the Trump administration’s narrative: Cartel de los Soles is not a literal organization, according to a range of specialists in Latin American criminal and narcotics issues, from think-tank analysts to former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) officials.
It is instead a figure of speech in Venezuela, dating back to the 1990s, for Venezuelan military officials corrupted by drug money, they say. The term, which means “Cartel of the Suns,” is a mocking invocation of the suns Venezuelan generals wear to denote their rank, like American ones wear stars.
It is for that reason that the DEA's annual National Drug Threat Assessment, which describes major trafficking organizations in detail, has never mentioned Cartel de los Soles. Nor has the annual “World Drug Report” by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
Nevertheless, the claim that Maduro was at the helm of an international terrorist cartel was a core justification the Trump administration has used over the past year to legitimize pushing him out of power.
"Maduro is NOT the President of Venezuela and his regime is NOT the legitimate government," said Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a post on social media in July. "Maduro is the head of the Cartel de Los Soles, a narco-terror organization that has taken possession of a country. And he is under indictment for pushing drugs into the United States."
Such a portrayal was useful when attempting to drum up support for US aggression against Venezuela. But now, Maduro stands on trial in the Southern District of New York, where a jury will decide his guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented after he pleaded not guilty on Monday.
Elizabeth Dickinson, the deputy director for Latin America at the International Crisis Group, told the New York Times that the designation of Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terror organization was “far from reality,” but that “designations don’t have to be proved in court, and that’s the difference. Clearly, they knew they could not prove it in court.”
Following Maduro's abduction by US forces on Saturday, the DOJ released a new indictment. While it still accused Maduro of participating in a drug trafficking conspiracy, it totally abandoned the claim that any organization called "Cartel de los Soles" actually existed.
To the extent that any such group does exist, the indictment says it's not as a criminal organization, but as "a culture of corruption in which powerful Venezuelan elites enrich themselves through drug trafficking," and a "patronage system run by those at the top."
But even a day after the new indictment fatally undercut his claims, Rubio continued to insist on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Cartel de los Soles was a “transnational criminal organization” and that “the leader of that cartel,” Maduro, “is now in US custody and facing US justice in the Southern District of New York.”
"They've been pretending that this made-up thing was real for a year. But now that they'd have to actually demonstrate its existence in court, they're going to cram it down the memory hole," marvelled Derek Davison, a Washington-based researcher and writer on international affairs and American politics.
Ben Norton, editor of the Geopolitical Economy Report, wrote on social media that the administration's abrupt abandonment of one of its central justifications for war demonstrates that "the entire US war is based on lies."
While the initial phase of Trump’s ramp-up of military aggression against Venezuela was premised, with scant evidence, on the need to prevent alleged drug boats from reaching the US, President Donald Trump has now said explicitly that the administration’s goal is to take control of Venezuela’s massive oil reserves and hand them to US-based companies.
"It never had anything to do with drugs. Venezuela's role in the global cocaine trade is small and insignificant, and it has absolutely nothing to do with fentanyl (which is actually responsible for many drug-related deaths in the US, unlike cocaine)," Norton said. "The Trump administration's repeated invocation of the fake 'Cartel de los Soles' was its version of the weapons of mass destruction lie used by George W. Bush to try to justify his illegal invasion of Iraq."