Dr. W.J. Woodford, Ph.D., Drug & Alcohol Issues in the Law - References

Published court cases in which Dr. Woodford’s testimony is referenced

Forensic Comparative Testing

Forensic Comparative Testing -- Georgia Bureau of Investigation's new State Crime Laboratory Facility, January 7, 2003

Testing of breath, blood, urine, hair and other substances
	Elliott v. Laboratory Specialists, Inc., No. 91-CA-266, 5^th Cir Court of Appeal, State of Louisiana, Page 2, "At trial Mr. Elliott presented testimony of two individuals, James Woodford, Ph.D. in chemistry and a drug testing expert and John Morgan, M.D., medical professor and Director of Pharmacology, City College of New York, another drug testing expert. They concluded that the protocol and methodology of LSI was scientifically inadequate and failed to meet the scientific standards as accepted in December 1985." See also, Willis v. Roche Biomedical Lab, 21 F.3d 1368, 1994.
	United States v. Jackson, 64 F.3d 1213 (8^th Cir. 1995). Page 1216, "At his sentencing hearing, Jackson offered transcripts of the testimony of three witnesses, Warren James Woodford, Dr. Clinton D. Kilts, and Dr. John Holbrook, who testified in United States v. Davis, 864 F.Supp. 1303 (N.D.GA.1994), appeal pending (No. 95-8057 11^th Cir.), to support his argument that cocaine base and cocaine are the same substance.
	Federal Bureau of Prisons, Central Office Appeal (Coats, Reg No. 08247-056-D, 1981), "More fundamentally, there is evidence (Dr. Woodford’s letters and affidavits) that the testing procedure is highly suspect and the claimed 99+% accuracy rate is dead wrong."
	United States V. Mance, 26 M.J. 244, 1988, Page 4, "The only defense evidence admitted came from Dr. James Woodford, an expert organic chemist. He questioned the validity of the testing procedure used on appellant’s urine and stated that he himself would not rely on the data in the report to conclude that appellants’s sample had contained marijuana metabolites."
	State of North Carolina v. Cothran, No. COA94-1432, 1995, "At trial, defendant presented the testimony of Dr. James Woodford, a chemist, who was found by the trial court to be an expert in medicinal chemistry and in alcohol and blood testing devices."
	United States v. Booker, No. 95-1747, 70 F.3d 488, 1995. Page 36, "The scientists who testified were James Woodford, a defense witness, John Marshall Holbrook, an expert called by the court, and Joey Douglas Clarke, a scientist employed by the Drug Enforcement Administration who was called by the government. The three witnesses agreed on a number of basic points concerning the chemical properties of cocaine and cocaine base, of which we will take judicial notice."
	United States v. Newsome, 998 F.2d 1571, 1993. Page 4, "The intervening testimony between this colloquy and the declaration of a mistrial was limited to the conclusion of Birchfield’s cross-examination and the voir dire of the defense’s expert, Dr. James Woodford."
	United States v. Ricky Davis, Criminal Action No. 1: 93-CR-0234-JOF (decided 26^th October, 1994). Order, page 3, footnote 2, "Dr. Warren James Woodford was called by the movant. Dr Woodford has a doctorate in chemistry and has undertaken postdoctoral studies in medicinal chemistry."
	Chaney v. Southern Railway, 847 F.2d 718, 1988. Page 4, "Dr. Woodford testified that the EMIT test is nonspecific and ideally used as an initial screening test because it serves as an indicator of THC, the chemical which gives marijuana its intoxicating effect, could be in the urine, but does not directly measure or identify the presence of THC."
TOP

Drug-tainted money and dog alerts
	United States v. Six Hundred Thirty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty-Eight Dollars ($639,558) In United States Currency, 955 F.2d, 1992, Page 714, footnote 2, "Dr. James Woodford, testified that 90 percent of all cash in the united States contains sufficient quantities of cocaine to alert a trained dog."
	United States v. Carr, 25 F.3d 1194 (3^rd Cir, 1994). Page 1215, footnote #6: "Dr. James Woodford, testified that 90 percent of all cash in the United States contains sufficient quantities of cocaine to alert a trained dog."
	United States v. U.S. Currency, $30,060.00, 39 F.3d, 1039 (9^th Cir. 1994). Pate 1043, "(referring to testimony of Dr. James Woodford that ninety percent of all cash in the United States contains sufficient quantities of cocaine to alert a narcotics detection dog);"
	United States v. $5,000 in U.S. Currency and $9,750 in U.S. Currency, 40 F.3d 846 (6^th Cir. 1994). Page 849, "Dr. James Woodford testified that 90 percent of all cash in the United States contains sufficient quantities of cocaine to alert a trained dog."
	United States v. Saccoccia, 58 F.3d 754 (1^st Cir. 1995). Page 777, footnote #18 The court permitted Dr. Woodford to, "describe the report’s conclusions and to indicate that he had relied on those findings."
	United States v. Barnhardt, 1993 WL 127094, *24 (M.D.Tenn.). Page 22, "(stating that Dr. Woodford testified that, as a result, bills may contain as little as a millionth of a gram of cocaine, but that is many times more cocaine than is needed for a dog to alert."
TOP

Human perception of odors
	State of Washington v. Remboldt, 64 Wn. App 505, 827 P.2d 282, 1992. Page 508, footnote #3, "I was interested in the selective perception that Dr. Woodford talked about. And I can accept that as being something that is a — it is real. If someone suggests a particular odor might be smelled, that individual might well smell it even though it might be something else."
TOP

Identification of controlled substances
	United States v. One parcel of real estate at 2208 Sunrise Key Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Case No. 92-6794-CIV-UNGARO-BENAGES (decided September 14, 1993). Page 3 of Report and Recommendation, "Claimant presented testimony of Dr. James Woodford, an expert in the field of marijuana identification. Woodford testified unequivocally that it would be impossible to observe the cannabis plants at issue from a helicopter at five hundred feet. Unlike the Government experts, Woodford in fact did replicate the May 18, 1992, overflight of Zreid. Woodford’s overflight of Claimant’s residence at five hundred feet corroborated his expert opinion concerning the impossibility of observing the marijuana plants at issue from five hundred feet."
	Aycock v. State of Georgia, 146 Ga. App, 489, 1978. Page 491, "The defense presented Dr. James Woodford, an organic chemist, who described the common procedure for obtaining hash oil."
	United States v. Pilling, 721 F.2d 286, 1983, Page 10, "In this case the court reported became ill and subsequently died. The missing portion involved the testimony of one Warren James Woodford."
	United States v. Welna, 998 F.2d 599 (8^th Cir. 1993). Page 600, "Dr. James Woodford, a chemist, testified for the defense that Welna’s "grow operation" was not a sophisticated one, and that probably only twenty-five to thirty of the 285 plants were usable."
TOP

[ home page \| curriculum vitae \| biography \| contact form ]