Questions about firearms analysis at Virginia’s state crime lab in Roanoke are putting past cases under scrutiny—and could create more work for local courts, prosecutors and defense attorneys.
WDBJ7 reports that 374 Roanoke cases have been flagged for review following problems involving a firearms examiner and a second employee who verified findings. That number represents cases identified for review, not 374 convictions proven wrong.
The concerns began with a failed proficiency test in 2024. Subsequent reviews also questioned whether some conclusions identifying a particular gun as the source of fired evidence were adequately supported. Statewide, DFS identified 2,173 comparison cases handled by one former examiner and 497 handled by another for possible reexamination, according to VPM.
WHAT COULD THIS MEAN FOR ROANOKE?
In a shooting prosecution, a firearms comparison can help connect recovered bullets or cartridge cases to a particular weapon. Local attorneys reviewing these files will need to examine how much the prosecution relied on that evidence, what other evidence supported the case and whether the original items remain available for retesting.
The review could lead to challenges to convictions or requests for new trials in individual cases. Being on a review list does not automatically erase a conviction or establish someone’s innocence.
There could also be consequences for current investigations. In its June 2025 notice, DFS confirmed that firearms and toolmark comparisons had been removed from the Roanoke lab’s accreditation scope and were being transferred to other regional labs. The department warned that the reduced capacity would further affect backlogs and turnaround times. The notice said other work, including NIBIN entries and firearm function evaluations, continued in Roanoke.
ADDITIONAL LEGAL INFO:
Virginia law provides a process for seeking a writ of actual innocence based on qualifying nonbiological evidence. However, the legal standard is demanding: the new evidence, considered alongside the existing record, must establish that no rational fact-finder would have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A problem with an examiner’s work, by itself, does not establish that every conviction involving that examiner meets that standard.
For Roanoke defendants, victims and their families, the central question is what a review of the evidence shows in each individual case.