BOSTON, August 14, 2015— The Massachusetts Appeals Court today rejected the appeal of a drug dealer convicted by jurors who were fully informed of malfeasance by disgraced former chemist Annie Dookhan, Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said.

The Appeals Court affirmed the 2013 conviction of TRAVIS CURRY (D.O.B. 9/16/85) on charges of distribution of Class A substance and possession with intent to distribute a Class A substance. 

During his  jury trial in Suffolk Superior Court, Curry’s defense attorney presented evidence that drug evidence found in Curry’s possession was tested in April 2011 by Annie Dookhan – a now disgraced former chemist at a Department of Public Health drug lab.  The evidence was subsequently retested by another chemist after Dookhan’s malfeasance came to light.  The second chemist confirmed that the substance was heroin and testified at trial.

“This defendant had every opportunity to argue the reliability of evidence, and the jury had every right to reject that argument,” Conley said. “In fact, juries have consistently voted to convict in cases like this one. Today’s decision sends a message to offenders that they will not benefit from the so-called ‘Dookhan Defense’ when the full weight of the evidence proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In his appeal, Curry argued that, as a result of the misconduct at the former DPH lab, prosecutors failed to meet their burden of proving that the substances were illegal drugs.  In a decision authored by Justice Andrew R. Grainger, the Appeals Court today struck down these arguments and found that Dookhan’s mere handling of a drug sample did not render the drug evidence insufficient.

“There was no evidence presented at trial that Dookhan mixed substances from different suspects or that she adulterated anything other than samples after they were extracted from the substances seized from suspects. The chain of custody of the substances on which Saunders’s subsequent testing was conducted was properly entered in evidence at trial,” the justices wrote.

The justices also found that prosecutors provided Curry with all appropriate discovery materials regarding Dookhan’s misconduct, her role in the initial testing of evidence in the case, and results of the subsequent testing.  Curry’s attorney presented evidence of Dookhan’s actions at trial.  The jury found – and the Appeals Court affirmed – that there was sufficient evidence of Curry’s guilt.

“[A] defendant who elects a trial will have the opportunity to present evidence, but not the benefit of a presumption, of misconduct in his or her particular case. That is precisely what this defendant received: a trial in which his defense focused on impeaching the reliability of the drug evidence presented by the Commonwealth,” they wrote.

Prosecutors presented evidence and testimony to prove that on Feb. 9, 2011, a Boston Police officer bought two bags of heroin from Curry during a transaction at Curry’s home.  He was placed under arrest and found to be in possession of another baggie of heroin.  Because Curry was wearing shorts and a t-shirt, a relative was allowed to provide him with warmer clothing.  Inside a pocket in the pants provided, officers found additional baggies of heroin and a knife.

Assistant District Attorney Vincent DeMore of the DA’s Narcotics Case Integrity Unit argued the case on appeal.   Curry was represented on appeal by Jacob Stone.

–30–

All defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.