More than 2,600 Firearm Cases under Review after Failed Proficiency Test at Virginia Crime Lab

An analysis of over 2,600 firearm comparison cases in Virginia has been going on for more than a year because of one mistake on a four-item proficiency test. That one mistake on a four-item proficiency test has led to an ongoing review of more than 2,600 firearm comparison cases in Virginia. The state’s Department of Forensic Science (DFS) has urged prosecutors and police to re-evaluate cases investigated by two former analysts at its Roanoke, Virginia, Western Laboratory. Officials say each case will be reviewed on its own merits and that none of the convictions were necessarily wrong. Nevertheless, it is one of the bigger quality issues involving the guns that came to light in a U.S. state criminal lab this year.

The numbers are taken from notices issued by DFS since 2025. The department told the local prosecutor and law enforcement that one former examiner worked 2,173 cases and a second former employee worked 497, who confirmed her findings should be considered for re-examination. This is about 2,670 cases. Bullets and cartridge cases taken from a crime scene can be compared to the one in question to see if it was from the same gun, and can have real value in shooting and murder trials. The localities hit hardest with the most cases are Danville (500), Roanoke (374), and Lynchburg (309), WDBJ reports.

The difficulty started with a proficiency test in January 2024. Agency documents say a firearms supervisor at the Western Laboratory misidentified one of the four items. DFS started a corrective action plan on Feb. 27, 2024. The supervisor and a second forensic scientist, who acted as her verifier, were taken off comparison work for retraining. The supervisor made the decision to retire prior to the completion of the plan. The verifier completed retraining in July 2024 and went back to casework. There are some local reports of both employees failing the test. The agency’s paperwork states it was the supervisor who missed the item and that the verifier’s work was subject to a subsequent check.

That second review was the start of another front. In 2025, an internal review of the case files suggested that there was not enough evidence to support an identification made on two bullets in one case. Re-examination revealed the correct answer was “inconclusive.” Her authority to do firearm comparisons was revoked, and she was decertified by former DFS director Linda Jackson in January 2026. Later, in November 2025, a different DFS examiner looked at a case and arrived at a different, but materially different, conclusion. A recovered bullet from an autopsy had been deemed by the original verifier as being unsuitable for comparison. The second examiner concluded that it was not the same gun that fired the other bullets in the case because of a different kind of rifling. DFS deemed the change to be major as it was almost a trial and would need extensive further research.

All firearm comparisons were suspended and Western Laboratory is no longer accredited for firearm comparisons in April 2025. It has also ceased to conduct toolmark examinations. Those tests are being referred to the Central Laboratory in Mechanicsville, the Eastern Laboratory in Norfolk and the Northern Laboratory in Manassas for cases. In April 2025, DFS contracted an outside company, Ron Smith & Associates, to review samples. The department sent out 105 case files to outside evaluators as of Oct. 5, 2026. DFS was the only agency to rework at least four of the cases, and later results in two of the 89 returned cases. The contract will also be expanded to enable remote examination of the firearm evidence as this can be tricky to obtain for older cases. This is a no-time-limit assignment.

DFS director Alka B. Lohmann, who assumed office on Aug. 1, has been honest about the issue. She told VPM News she was concerned and she could not have been any less concerned. The agency wants a detailed investigation into all dubious cases, and even those it doesn’t consider dubious, in order to rebuild confidence, she said. She also gave an explanation of how such problems can occur. The agency then attributed the issue to the phenomenon of “contextual bias” and subsequently expanded the cause to a “drift” from the general procedure the agency uses to assess the adequacy of marks to establish a source. Firearm comparison is subjective,” Lohmann said. “When you’re making a comparison, you have to determine how much match is enough to identify the firearm. If an examiner only checks the work of one other examiner with the same threshold, then they may get off track from the rest of the team. Another source of potential bias when examining proficiency tests is that the examiners are instructed to view these tests with a similar lens to casework; however, since the tests have known answers, there can be some bias.

Prosecutors have been directed to review the lists, determine which cases involved a gun, and inform defence attorneys and defendants. DFS chief deputy director Amy Jenkins said it’s dependent upon whether a review or re-examination is requested, and whether the evidence is still available, because of its role in a conviction. Re-examination is conducted upon request by DFS, and the examiners performing the re-examination are not provided with the original examiner’s notes or conclusions. The agency has been asked to look for additional evidence by law enforcement, prosecutors, defence attorneys and defendants, and some prosecutors have asked for it to be re-examined before trial and before the state attorney general’s office. Commonwealth’s Attorney Roger Brooks reported that his office in Carroll County checked its records and circulated the notion to defense attorneys to then inform their clients. Commonwealth’s Attorney Marsha Garst said that her office was helping with requests for retesting in Rockingham County.

The review will likely not reverse every case, but could create more work for the courts, prosecutors and defense attorneys as they determine if the testimony of a gun was central to a conviction,” former US Attorney John Fishwick told WDBJ. This evidence can sometimes be of huge importance to a jury, especially in murder trials when the matching of a bullet with a gun can be vital. Depending on the case, it may be retested or even retried in some cases. The vast majority won’t just be sent away, officials say.

References:

1. WDBJ7. “Failed test at Roanoke crime lab flags thousands of convictions for review.” October 26, 2026. https://www.wdbj7.com/2026/10/26/failed-test-roanoke-crime-lab-flags-thousands-convictions-review/
2. Mirshahi, D. “More than 2,600 Virginia crime lab cases sent for new review.” VPM News, October 21, 2026 (updated October 26). https://www.vpm.org/news/2026-10-21/virginia-dfs-lohmann-western-laboratory-firearms-crime/
3. The Roanoke Star. “Failed Proficiency Test at Roanoke Lab Leads to Review of Thousands of Firearm Cases.” https://www.theroanokestar.com/news/failed-proficiency-test-at-roanoke-lab-leads-to-review-of-thousands-of-firearm/
4. Virginia Department of Forensic Science. “Review and Status of Corrective Actions: Western Firearms.” https://dfs.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/Firearms-SAC-Subcommittee.pdf
5. Virginia Department of Forensic Science. SAC Director’s Report, October 2025. https://dfs.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/SAC-Directors-Report-OCT-2025.pdf