The ongoing issue of lousy crime lab standards/results in IN. The state supreme court set up their own review:

Court: Indiana toxicology lab results flawed
Legal system prepares to handle appeals of drug convictions involving test results
indystar.com

The Indiana Supreme Court confirmed Monday that the state Department of Toxicology provided incorrect test results for use in criminal cases, setting a course for what almost certainly will be legal challenges.

The full extent of testing problems at the lab remains unknown, but a task force headed by two judges from the Indiana Court of Appeals found at least five cases where retested samples “did not reveal any of the substances originally reported.”

A report issued by the Supreme Court about the task force’s work said about 500 other samples were either inadequate for retesting or showed some presence of drugs or “a successor substance.” But the report didn’t address one critical issue: whether test results from those samples would meet the scientific and legal standards to stand up in court.
……
…The problems have been downplayed by a three-member panel appointed by the governor to oversee the lab.

Newman said he is still concerned about characterizations that problems auditors found were merely those of “protocol” and didn’t affect physical testing.

“You really can’t separate protocols from results,” Newman said. “They’re bound up together.”
…..
The most likely approach to challenging testing results is through a legal process called post-conviction relief. It is a way to appeal convictions based on new evidence.

The court’s statement said the process “should provide a vehicle for individuals to seek relief from a guilty plea conviction based on a possible State Department of Toxicology Lab test error.”

Legal experts said that removes an obstacle that often prevents defendants from even receiving a hearing.

Prominent Indianapolis defense attorney John Tompkins said it is significant that the court stepped in and addressed the post-conviction relief issue.

“There might be trial courts that say, ‘That’s not an issue,’ ” Tompkins said. “This makes it clear that what the Supreme Court saw justifies a post-conviction hearing. This says it’s legitimate. That’s nice to see.”