CRM 341 Key Concepts Module 7

Transcription

1 Key Concepts of Chapter 3: CRM 341 Key Concepts Module 7 Introduction Forensic specialists and fingerprint examiners collect and analyze physical evidence (fingerprints) Evidence Testimony, writings, material objects, or other things presented to the senses offered to prove existence or nonexistence of facts Physical Evidence Material objects that can: o Establish whether a crime occurred o Identify perpetrator o Establish relationship between crime and perpetrator o Clear the innocent Types of Evidence Direct Evidence Witness testimony to personal knowledge derived from one of the five senses o Sight, hear, smell, feel, or taste o Example: I saw John climb in the window Proves fact directly without inference Circumstantial Evidence Indirect evidence Physical evidence such as fingerprints Proves principal fact indirectly through a medium of other facts Example: John s fingerprints found on inside of window ledge of burglarized house, inferring John climbed in window Inference Deduction, which jury makes from facts provided Just as strong or stronger than direct evidence o Depends on credibility of witness o Example: Poor eyewitness vs. confident forensic specialist Rules of Evidence Chain of Custody Combination of documented links between collection of evidence and presentation as evidence at trial Done by properly marking or packaging physical evidence and accounting for it until presented at trial Necessary to insure evidence presented in court is same as evidence collected at crime scene, and in relatively same condition The Exclusionary Rule Eliminates evidence from court that has been obtained illegally or in an unreasonable manner Example: Investigator enters house without a search warrant and seizes evidence; court

2 rules search was unreasonable Fruits of the poison tree Probative Value Evidence must be relevant and have a tendency to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is before the court o Low probative value attributed to prints found on object a suspect has legitimate access to o Higher probative value attributed to prints found on jewelry inside house a suspect has never had legitimate access to Key Concepts of Chapter 5: Introduction Hundreds of court rulings have accepted finger, palm, and sole print evidence Courts have recognized and accepted the basic tenets of fingerprint identification, uniqueness, and permanence for nearly 100 years Judicial notice offered to fingerprints within courts of the U.S. Everyone s fingerprints are different and are sufficient to stand alone for identification First courts to acknowledge fingerprint evidence were in India Emperor v. Sahdeo, 3 Nagpur, L.Rep. 1 (1904) The papillary ridges presented by the surface of the skin on the palms of the hand and soles of the feet, have been ascertained to be the most important of anthropological data. Parker v. Rex, (Australia) 14 C.L.R. 681; 3 B.R.C. 68 (1912) A fingerprint is therefore in reality an unforgeable signature United States Court Decisions People v. Jennings, 254 Ill. 534 ; 96 N.E ; 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) First landmark case recognizing the reliability of fingerprints in the U.S. Testimony from 4 fingerprint experts on the basis of fingerprint identification there is a scientific basis for the system of fingerprint identification and the courts are justified in admitting this class of evidence. State v. Kuhl, 42 Nev. 195, 175 Pac Supreme Court of Nevada ruled during an appeal of a conviction for the robbery and murder of a U.S. Mail stage coach driver Palm prints were admissible as evidence There is no basic difference between fingerprints and palm prints. Commonwealth v. Bartollini, 299 Mass.503, 13 N.E. 2nd 382, cert. denied 304 U.S Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled on an appeal that soleprint evidence is no different from fingerprint evidence There was ample evidence that footprints, like fingerprints, remain constant throughout life and furnish an adequate and reliable means of identification. Piquett v. United States, 81 F.2d 75,81 (7th Cir. 1936) This court will take judicial knowledge of the well recognized validity of fingerprint identification testimony. Grice v. State, 142 Tex. Crim. 4, 151 S.W. 2nd 211

3 1941 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on a burglary conviction based solely on evidence of a partial fingerprint found on a pane of glass It has occurred to us that instead of the state being called upon to offer proof that no two finger prints are alike, it may now be considered in order for those taking the opposite view to assume the burden of proving their position. United States v. Magee, 261 F2d 609, 612 (7th Cir. 1958) Obviously, there can be no more reliable evidence of the identity of a defendant than his own fingerprints. Key Concepts of Chapter 6: Court Challenge - Daubert 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 U.S. Supreme Court ruled that trial judge was gatekeeper to prevent junk science from entering courtroom Trial judges now use 4 factors ( Daubert factors ) to determine if evidence is reliable and scientifically valid o Testing and validation o Peer review o Error rate o Acceptance in the relevant scientific community Court Challenge - Frye Major change from the previous standard Frye v. United States 293 F. 1013, 1014, D.C.Cir Allowed scientific evidence if it had gained general acceptance in the particular field Court Challenge - Daubert Daubert factors only apply in Federal Courts and certain state courts that use same standards (currently 30 states) Daubert has resulted in new challenges on the scientific validity of fingerprint evidence Court Challenge - Daubert U.S. v. Bryon Mitchell, Criminal Action No , U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania First Daubert hearing challenging fingerprint identification During motion hearing to suppress fingerprint evidence, a number of defense witnesses testified to the unreliability of identifying partial latent prints found at crime scenes U.S. v Bryon Mitchell Judge ruled fingerprint evidence satisfied Daubert requirements None of the defense experts were allowed to testify before the jury during actual trial Defense motion to exclude the fingerprint evidence in the armored car robbery was denied Decision was upheld at the appellate level

4 Court Challenge - Daubert Anthony Golden v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. CV CAS., U.S. District Court for the Central District of California 1999 Second Daubert hearing on fingerprint evidence Civil rights lawsuit involving death of a citizen (Golden) by deputy sheriffs Golden v County of Los Angeles Golden s fingerprints found on a handgun and on inside magazine found at scene Plantiffs alleged that gun was not Golden s and had been planted Motion to exclude the fingerprint evidence mirrored motions during U.S. v. Bryon Mitchell One of the allegations used to try to discredit the fingerprint evidence was that there was no national standard for identification and therefore not reliable Standards followed by the Los Angeles Sheriff s Department included SWGFAST s training standards for latent print examiners and their quality assurance guidelines which included verification of identifications Judge denied motion to exclude the fingerprint evidence Using Daubert to Challenge FP To date, approximately 40 Daubert challenges to fingerprint identification have been unsuccessful Fingerprint examiners must be aware of Daubert factors to gain acceptance of scientific evidence California does not use Daubert as guideline scientific evidence Often legal attacks occur on individual examiner and procedures examiner followed Seminars and web sites now offer challenges to Daubert Fingerprint Evidence in Court Fingerprint evidence easily satisfies the Daubert factors Fingerprint identification validated through hundreds of years of scientific research and testing Peer review of the science takes place in the form of verification Error Rates of FP Examination Error rate can be of two forms: The science The individual examiner Error rate of science is virtually zero No possibility of a duplicate fingerprint Error rate of individual examiner may be questioned A well trained, prepared fingerprint examiner should have no problem responding to a legitimate question

5 Key Concepts of Chapter 11: Introduction AFIS has largely phased out most manual classification filing systems for fingerprint storage and searching Automated storage and computerized searching enables law enforcement to access fingerprint files from remote locations using Livescan technology Livescan is a digital scanning device used to capture fingerprints electronically and identify suspects detained Allows electronic transmission of fingerprints to a central location Quicker return of information on person fingerprinted More accurate results Searching inked fingerprint files to identify evidence (latent) prints was very limited o No attempt was made to identify an evidence print unless known suspect information was available In 1980s, many law enforcement agencies purchased automated systems AFIS enables full and partial fingerprint searches against a database of millions of known fingerprints AFIS searches use known data such as fingerprint pattern type and relationships of major ridge characteristics Ridge endings Bifurcations Different systems have different matching algorithms and their exact formulas are proprietary AFIS is an automated storage and retrieval system for filing fingerprints Search prints are entered and the system provides a number of candidates that may match search print AFIS provides possible matches and final examination is done by a latent print examiner using established identification methodology Most systems only search fingerprints Improved data storage capabilities and search speed are becoming cost effective to store and search other areas of friction skin including palm prints IAFIS FBI s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) Provides a network of various AFIS regionally and nationally Contains 40 million individual s fingerprints Enhanced crime solving capabilities of AFIS o Effective tool in the war on terrorism o Databases of known terrorists o Persons entering U.S. are routinely checked against this database o A number of possible terrorists have been arrested with its aid Computerization is perhaps the most important development in friction skin identification Thousands of arrestees are identified and hundreds of crimes are solved by the fingerprint computer

6 Key Concepts of Chapter 17: Expert Testimony Expert witness a person who has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him/her as an expert on the subject to which his/her testimony relates Expert witness must be accepted by court as an expert in a particular subject area Voir Dire (latin) to speak the truth Witness is questioned about their qualifications on the witness stand Done prior to being allowed to give opinion testimony in court Once court accepts witness as an expert, the expert witness enjoys certain privileges that are not afforded a regular witness Witness typically testifies to things that were recorded by their senses Sound, sight, touch, and smell A person qualified as an expert witness may testify to: Opinion evidence May deal with hypothetical questions Is not limited to yes or no answers May refer to authoritative texts or articles or other information gained during formal training Traditional law enforcement officers testimony Just answer the questions, yes or no when you can, and don t volunteer anything Does not apply to expert witnesses An evolution in the way expert witnesses testify has occurred over the past 20 years Evolution has resulted from expert witnesses and forensic consultants that are now a major industry in civil litigation arena Court rulings have given expert witnesses far more latitude in answering questions and fending for themselves in court Expert witnesses must be ready and should expect aggressive attacks on their personality, qualifications, and analysis Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702, defines an expert witness in the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts A witness qualified as an expert may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise, IF: Testimony based upon sufficient facts or data Testimony is product of reliable principles and methods Witness has applied principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case Every state has a similar evidence code Jury is given specific instructions on how to treat an expert s testimony when presented in a criminal proceeding Jury instruction in California is included in 1127(b) California Penal Code Jury is not bound to accept opinion of any expert as conclusive Jury may disregard any expert opinion if it is found to be unreasonable

7 The Expert s Curriculum Vitae (C.V.) Fingerprint examiner s court preparation should include creating or updating a written statement of qualifications Resume, statement of qualification, or curriculum vitae (C.V.) C.V. a very specific document that contains information directly related to the specific area of expertise to be used in court Expert witnesses may have multiple C.V.s Some agencies provide a copy of their expert witness qualifications along with reports of analysis C.V. should be readily available for the prosecution and the defense C.V. is subject to discovery by opposing counsel and may be subjected to verification by opposing counsel before appearing in court Information in the C.V. must be accurate and up to date C.V. subject headings Credentials Education Specialized Training Board Certifications Employment Experience Publications/Honors/ Speeches Professional Accomplishments Professional Affiliations /memberships Area(s) of expertise o Courtroom Testimony Experience Additional headings for private examiners Services Available Fee Information Geographical Limitations Percentage of Plaintiff or Defense Experience Tips for Testifying as an Expert Witness Walk to the witness stand with confidence. When taking the oath, do not act timid, raise your hand high, and confidently answer, I do. Testimony is a controlled discussion where one question is asked at a time and one answer is given Listen to the questions and think before answering Pause before answering to give yourself time to think and allow for any objections to the question Stop for objections, do not answer or continue to answer until the objection is resolved If overruled, continue answering If sustained, do not answer When addressing the judge use your honor Questions not adequately answered with a yes/no answer can be explained by telling the court that the question cannot be adequately answered with a simple yes/no If you do not know or cannot remember, say so Ask permission from the court before referring to notes or records

8 Always tell the truth Qualification Testimony (Voir Dire) Voir Dire process satisfies the court in establishing expert witness testimony for a particular field as defined by rules of evidence Courts confirm knowledge, skills, experience, training, or education in the qualified field that is more than the average person Only one of these areas is necessary to be accepted as an expert However, every satisfied area should be articulated Qualifications should be stated in a manner that ensures confidence in you and your conclusions Expert witnesses should not appear arrogant or alienate the jury Typical Questions State your name What is your occupation and assignment? What are your job duties as a Forensic Identification Specialist? How long have you been employed in the area of fingerprint identification? Typical Questions (cont.) Please state for the court and jury, your training, education, and experience in the area of fingerprint identification Have you qualified as an expert in the area of fingerprint identification in a court of law? How many times? Every expert witness has a first testimony, which is understood by the courts New examiners that successfully complete training/apprenticeship satisfies the legal requirements as an expert witness Foundation Questions Provide jury with basic information about fingerprint evidence Basic questions frequently asked in Court o What is a latent print? o What is a finger or palm print exemplar card? o Are everyone s fingerprints different? o When you say the fingerprints match the defendant, what does that mean? o Is there any scientific research that supports the uniqueness of fingerprints? o How are prints compared? o What type of features do you compare? o How much detail do you need to make an identification? o If a person s fingerprints are not found on an object; does that mean the person did not touch it? Why is that? Direct Examination Did you go to 123 Main St, in the City of Los Angeles on December 25, 1999? Why did you go there? Did you take photographs of the crime scene? Did you also process the scene for latent prints? Please tell the jury what a latent print is Did you obtain any latent prints? Where did you find latent prints?

9 How did you develop the print? The card before you, is that the print you got from the kitchen window ledge? How do you recognize it? I have handed you a photograph, do you recognize it? What is it a photo of? Did you take this photograph? Do you see the kitchen window ledge that you obtained the latent print from in the photograph? Did you take the inked fingerprints of anyone involved in this case? Is that person here in the courtroom? Please point out that person. Did you compare the print that you obtained from the inside of the kitchen window with the prints of the defendant, John Smith? Based on your comparison, were you able to form an opinion, or reach a conclusion? What is that opinion/conclusion? What is the basis of your opinion or conclusion? How conclusive is a print identification? So you are saying that Mr. Smith is the only person in the world that could have left that print on the window ledge? How sure are you of the identification? When you make an identification are you required to have your results verified? Why is that? Is that because your identification cannot be trusted? So this verification standard, is it required by your department? What is your department policy on verification? Was that procedure followed in this case? Key Concepts of Chapter 18: Introduction Actual latent print lift cards and fingerprint exemplars are typically presented as items of evidence in court Fingerprint examiner testifies as to: Where latent print was obtained Comparison of latent print with exemplar Fingerprint examiner concludes whether latent print was made by same person as the exemplar or not Presentation of enlarged exhibits of evidence are not normally done Juror s Perceptions Jurors expect to see professionally dressed, well-educated fingerprint examiners Jurors prefer presentation of fingerprint evidence with court exhibits Fingerprint examiners should strive to meet these expectations Traditional Court Exhibit Consists of side-by-side enlargements of evidence print next to exemplar print Lines pointing to matching characteristics

10 Numbered lines along edge of exhibit Problems associated with this type of presentation Reinforces misconception that examiner only compared locations where drawn lines ended Identification made on pre-determined number Provide opportunity for juries to pretend they are fingerprint examiners Many friction skin identifications are not suitable for enlargement due to quality of prints LAPD and LASD have used letters instead of numbers to mark lines drawn to characteristics for past 25 years Canadian Exhibits Use circles, squares, and triangles to show groupings of matching features Show all things that were compared within the shapes Traditional Court Exhibit - Canada Canadian Exhibits Constituted a major improvement Still provides opportunity for jury to be the fingerprint examiner Traditional Court Exhibit Purpose of the Exhibit A visual aid to support expert witness testimony Aid jury in understanding the comparison process Provide supporting information Purpose of Traditional Court Exhibit Purpose of the Exhibit Does not teach jury how to be fingerprint examiners o Juror have been known to reexamine, question, and misinterpret areas of distortion o Jurors disregard expert s conclusions and ignore years of training and experience Traditional Court Exhibit LASD s Latent Print Section now prepare court exhibits for major trials with a series of enlarged photographs mounted together Photos are scanned in digital format and arranged as a poster presentation using the Photo Shop imaging program Commonly referred to as a story board Actual evidence print and defendant s exemplar are not placed side by side or at same scale Unfortunately, most agencies do not have the time or resources to prepare court exhibits for all trials Exhibits usually presented in the most serious cases REFERENCE Leo, W. (2004). Fingerprint identification. California: Lawtech Custom Publishing.