Deseret News
Thursday, July 31, 2003

Depot technician is found guilty of 7 federal charges; Stockton man to be sentenced for falsifying data

By Joe Bauman
Deseret Morning News

David James Yarbrough was convicted Wednesday night on seven of eight federal charges alleging he falsified information concerning effectiveness of air quality monitors at a federal chemical weapons facility near Stockton, Tooele County.

The single count for which he was not found guilty involved one of the air monitoring devices. Five other charges for which he was guilty involved submitting false data for such devices. The remaining two charges concerned his causing false reports to be filed with the federal government that inaccurately showed monitors were working correctly at the Chemical Agent Munitions Demilitarization System, a facility which is part of Deseret Chemical Depot.

U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell set sentencing for 2:30 p.m. on Oct. 10. Maximum possible penalty is five years in prison for each count in which he was found guilty.

During closing arguments Wednesday, prosecutors and defense both argued that protecting safety was the central issue in the case and both claimed that was what their side was attempting to do.

Prosecutors said that in June and July, 2002, Yarbrough, a resident of Stockton, caused false information to be fed into computers evaluating the performance of protective air monitors at CAMDS. The research and development facility uses deadly chemicals in the search for better ways to destroy arms containing nerve and mustard agent. Yarbrough was the head of the monitoring section when the plant was undergoing baseline tests on air monitoring equipment.

Monitoring stations at the Chemical Test Facility and the Filter Farm had failed baseline tests previously. Yarbrough was carrying out subsequent work called recertification tests when, both sides agree, he asked a statistician to use data that he personally had compiled.

Yarbrough provided his worksheets with figures on the success of monitor devices in detecting samples, rather than have her use operational logs that were recorded when technicians checked the monitors. When the statistician fed operational log numbers into a computer, five monitors failed the tests; when she used his figures, they passed.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott J. Thorley charged that "because of a personal need to get this baseline passed," Yarbrough wrongfully manipulated the system. The government claims figures were changed and records vanished.

Yarbrough told differing stories about what happened, Thorley said.

He added that showed Yarbrough knew he had committed a crime. "Why else would he lie?" he asked.

"We have heard every day in this trial that life is in the balance," with workers and neighbors depending on accuracy of the air monitors, Thorley said.

Earlier in the day, Yarbrough took the witness stand. When Thorley asked him whether he had the statistician use different numbers, Yarbrough said, "Yes, meaning I used the passing challenge."

Rather than the first challenge test given to a monitor, which may have failed, he used the first passing figure. The defense contends that with recertification tests, only the daily passing grade need be evaluated.

Defense lawyer Earl Xaiz argued that improved safety was Yarbrough's motives. He acted to get the monitors working so that they would be safe, Xaiz said.

"Why would he jeopardize the safety of not only the people who worked in that facility, but himself?" Xaiz asked.

Proof that Yarbrough was not trying to deceive anyone is that the continuous baseline test that followed in the filter farm followed the usual method and all but one of the monitors passed.

According to the regulations, he added, during the recertification tests, only a daily passing score had to be recorded, allowing technicians to adjust the devices and get them working. That is contrary to the government's contention that the first challenge of the day, pass or fail, had to be recorded.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Y. Hirata responded that Yarbrough lied to an investigator, Rick S. Clyde. "He tells Mr. Clyde a falsehood, that these are personal sheets, these are scratch paper," and that Yarbrough did not know of others using the data.

Why would he conceal what he was doing, if he was following the rules? Hirata asked. And in a later meeting with other employees and supervisors, why didn't he explain that? "True to form, he tells another falsehood," he said.

"Why would he lie if the truth would set him free?" Hirata asked. "You know why."