The UIC Analytical Forensic Testing Lab used broken equipment and discredited methods to convict 2,200+ people of cannabis DUI across 17 Illinois counties

Between 2016 and 2024, the Analytical Forensic Testing Laboratory at the University of Illinois Chicago tested blood and body fluid samples for cannabinoids in more than 2,200 criminal cases across 17 Illinois counties. The lab used discredited scientific approaches and faulty machinery to produce test results that were then presented as reliable evidence in DUI prosecutions. The lab's lead toxicologist, Jennifer Bash, was found by an accreditation agency to have given 'inaccurate and unqualified testimony' about the meaning of lab results. In January 2025, DuPage County State's Attorney Robert Berlin exonerated 18 people and dropped one pending DUI case based on the lab's testing. The Illinois Forensic Science Commission subsequently blasted UIC for inadequately investigating its own lab, finding that a university-commissioned report downplayed the scale of the crisis. Every one of those 2,200+ defendants faced real consequences: license suspensions, job losses, insurance rate increases, criminal records, and in some cases jail time. A cannabis DUI conviction can end a career for anyone who drives professionally, including truckers, delivery drivers, rideshare workers, and salespeople. These people were convicted based on test results from equipment that did not work properly, interpreted by an analyst who gave testimony that exceeded what the science supported. For the 18 people exonerated so far, the damage is done: lost jobs, legal fees, and the stigma of a DUI conviction that followed them for years. The remaining 2,100+ cases have not been systematically reviewed. This problem exists because there is no federal oversight body that audits forensic testing laboratories used by local prosecutors. The UIC lab operated for eight years using methods that the broader forensic toxicology community considered discredited. Accreditation, when it exists, is voluntary and self-reported. The lab's problems were known internally for years. Warnings were ignored because the lab was cheap, convenient, and produced the results prosecutors needed. Universities that operate forensic labs face no meaningful accountability when their work product sends innocent people to jail. The structural incentive is for labs to maintain relationships with the prosecutors who send them business, not to rigorously validate their methods.