|
_________________________________________ |
__________________________________________
Breaking NEWz you can UzE... |
|
by
Kasey Wertheim |
|
Science takes center stage at trial
Leader Vindicator, PA - Sep 23, 2008
State police Cpl. Randy Mocello, a latent fingerprint expert and expert in impressions in the Bureau of Forensic Services, testified on what he had found ...
|
|
|
|
__________________________________________
Recent CLPEX Posting Activity |
Last Week's
Board topics
containing new posts
Moderated by Steve Everist and Charlie Parker |
|
Public CLPEX
Message Board
Moderated by Steve Everist
Tribunal for McKie print expert
1, 2by charlton97 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:00 am 20 Replies 940 Views
Last post by Big Wullie
on Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:34 am
Judicial enquiry briefing
by Iain McKie on Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:31 am 6 Replies 496 Views Last
post by Big Wullie
on Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:31 pm
Injury and Disease on Friction Skin
by mschreel on Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:29 pm 2 Replies 251 Views Last
post by Raul
on Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:19 am
Evidence Fabrication in South Africa
1 ... 19, 20, 21by Pat A. Wertheim on Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:48 pm 304
Replies 33439 Views Last post by Pat A. Wertheim
on Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:53 pm
ALS advice
by Mark on Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:43 am 0 Replies 95 Views Last post by
Mark
on Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:43 am
Photoshop method to print fingerprints 1:1
1, 2by antonroland on Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:41 pm 17 Replies 521 Views
Last post by antonroland
on Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:19 pm
KEPT - Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony
1, 2, 3, 4, 5by clpexco on Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:52 pm 71 Replies 8783
Views Last post by Charles Parker
on Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:02 pm
___________________________________
IAI Conference Topics -
Louisville, Kentucky 2008:
Moderator: Steve Everist
No new posts
___________________________________
Documentation
Documentation issues as they apply to latent prints
Moderator: Charles Parker
No new posts
___________________________________
History
Historical topics related to latent print examination
Moderator: Charles Parker
No new posts
(http://clpex.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=2)
|
UPDATES
ON CLPEX.com
Updated the Fingerprint Interest Group (FIG) page
with FIG #63; Overlay; submitted by P. Salicco of Texas. You can send your example of unique distortion to
Charlie Parker:
Charles.Parker@ci.austin.tx.us.
For discussion, visit the CLPEX.com forum FIG thread.
Updated the forum Keeping Examiners Prepared for
Testimony (KEPT)
thread with KEPT #37; Quality Assurance Measures,
submitted
by Michelle Triplett. You can send your
questions on courtroom topics to Michelle Triplett:
Michele.Triplett@kingcounty.gov
Updated the Detail Archives
_________________________________________
JoePolski related the monthly IAI Update that covered
the IAI conference in Kentucky last month.
we look at an article by Michael Saks from a recent
edition of the Tulsa Law Review entitled "Symposium: Daubert, Innocence, and
the Future of Forensic Science". Although Saks begins with a
rather harsh admonition of the courts' recent stance on admitting testimony
on many of the impression evidence forensic sciences, he ends up making some
half-way decent recommendations for the future. Not only does this
article serve as a good indication of the areas in which we might expect
future challenges, it also provides a few ideas for how we might consider
being proactive and cutting off some of these challenges at the knees.
A recent Minnesota case is being transcribed that offers one such strategy
in this regard - it will be the subject of a Detail in the near future.
Until then, it might be wise to begin to consider ways that we can convey
our conclusions while not being inflammatory toward some of the legitimate
concerns of the critics.
_________________________________________
Protecting Factfinders From Being Overly
Misled, While Still Admitting Weakly Supported Forensic Science Into
Evidence
by Michael J. Saks
[outline and excerpts only...
entire article in .pdf is available at]:
http://www.clpex.com/Information/Saks/Saks-TulsaLawReview-43-2-Winter-07.pdf
I. Introduction
"If the students cannot pass the test, what is one to do? Answer: Get rid of
the test. The legislators of Washington State were not the first to think of
this idea. Federal (as well as state) judges, encountering a similar problem
when applying the Daubert trilogy [2] to the non-science forensic sciences,
[3] devised a similar solution.
...
II. Background
A. Weakness of the Non-Science Forensic Sciences
... "Fingerprint identification, the reigning champion of the non-science
forensic sciences, notwithstanding puffery in its sales pitches [13] and by
its many fans in the popular media, had long been recognized as unable to
establish its most fundamental claims with any existing evidence, data,
studies, or theory which it possessed. ...
... "Exaggerated belief in the forensic individualization sciences appears
to play an important part in erroneous convictions. Forensic science errors
account for more erroneous convictions than any source of evidence other
than eyewitnesses. [44]
B.Judicial Treatment of the Non-Science Forensic Sciences Post-Daubert
... "In short, courts have found a multitude of ways to avoid the outcomes
Daubert would have led to, had it been applied conscientiously to the
reality of the non-science forensic sciences.
C. An Alternative History
... "What might history have looked like if these various courts had
conscientiously applied the Daubert trilogy to the facts about the expert
evidence before the court, and followed the law where it led? That portions
of some or many of the non-science forensic sciences would have been
excluded (or sharply limited) is a conclusion that seems hard to avoid. ...
III. Suggested Judicial Strategies for Surrendering to the Impulse to Admit
Non-Science Forensic Science Without Firsaking the Legal Policy Underlying
Rule 702
"We can assume that harmony will some day come to the law of admissibility
of expert evidence. Either the courts will get around to following the rule
[83] or the rule will be changed to reflect what judges are comfortable
deciding. [84]
"In the mean time, judges feel a strong - for the most, an irresistible -
impulse to admit the non-science forensic sciences regardless of what the
evidence on the evidence teaches them about it.
... "This final section presents a set of possible actions judges can take,
short of exclusion, to manage expert testimony from the non-science forensic
sciences in ways that might help achieve the needed balance.
A. Partial Admission
... "courts could (and should) prohibit assertions of unique
individualization, because such claims go beyond the actual knowledge and
capabilities of any field, [86] and courts could (and should) bar ultimate
conclusions of identity. [87]
B. Require That Examinations Be Conducted Using Blind Testing and Evidence
Lineups
C. Require That the Examiner and Lab Be Certified [or accredited]
D. Require Experts to Stay Firmly Within the Bounds of What Their Field
Actually Knows.
... "If courts closely scrutinized the claims being made or implicit in
their testimony, and permitted experts to testify only to that which they
could satisfactorily support with sound bases, less would be testified to,
but what the factfinder was told would be more dependable. [90]
E. Prohibit Overpowering and Exaggerated Terminology
... "Overreaching and exaggeration should be banned from the witness box.
Any expression of absolute certainty by forensic identification experts, or
any term likely to be understood by the fact finder as conveying such a
strong and unjustifiable meaning, should be prohibited. Among such suspect
terms would be "identification," "match," "unique," "no other in the world,"
"identification to the exclusion of all others in the world," and
"consistent with."
F. Jury Instructions About the Limits of a Field's Expertise
G. Use of Court-Appointed Experts and Panels of Experts
... "But the greatest challenge will be to appoint individuals who do not
merely echo the unsupported claims [95] under scrutiny, but who can give
real assistance to the court. [96]
H. Enabling the Adversary Process to Work by Facilitating Counter-Testimony
[outline and excerpts only...
entire article in .pdf is available at]:
http://www.clpex.com/Information/Saks/Saks-TulsaLawReview-43-2-Winter-07.pdf
_________________________________________
KEPT
- Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony - #37
Quality Assurance Measures
by Michele Triplett, King County
Sheriff's Office
Disclaimer: The intent of this is to
provide thought provoking discussion. No claims of accuracy exist.
Question – Quality Assurance Measures:
What are some quality assurance measures you use to
insure good results?
Possible Answers:
a)
We have standards and controls we go by.
For example, we have a methodology that’s scientifically accepted, a
verification and a peer review process, a conflict resolution procedure, and
a very low error rate.
b)
My agency has standard operating procedures in place that
are consistent with industry recommendations, we monitor the competency of
our examiners, and have all individualizations verified by another examiner.
c)
We use objective data that is reproducible to others, we
use scientifically accepted principles, and we make sure all our conclusions
are demonstratable and will hold up to the review of others.
d)
My agency requires that all examiners have a certain
education level, they’re certified, and our agency is accredited.
We audit casework, review testimony, participate in continuing
education and participate in proficiency testing.
Discussion:
Answer a: Additional
standards and controls may include eliminating any pressures placed on
examiners to arrive at particular conclusions (such as eliminating
comparisons in court or in the presence of someone requesting the
comparison) or providing examiners with the appropriate equipment and tools
to do their job (lighting, magnification, computerized enhancement
equipment, etc).
Answers b and c: These answers are very similar
to Answer a. The list of quality assurance measures can
be extensive. Generally speaking, the items listed in
these answers directly affect the quality of the conclusions.
Answer d: All of these things
insure that examiners are educated and competent. This
may indirectly insure good results but it doesn’t directly insure quality
results.
_________________________________________
Feel free to pass The Detail along to other
examiners. This is a free newsletter FOR latent print examiners, BY
latent print examiners.
With the exception of weeks such as this week, there
are no copyrights on The Detail content. As always, the website is
open for all to visit!
If you have not yet signed up to receive the
Weekly Detail in YOUR e-mail inbox, go ahead and
join the list now so you don't miss out! (To join this free e-mail
newsletter, enter your name and e-mail address on the following page:
http://www.clpex.com/Subscribe.htm
You will be sent a Confirmation e-mail... just click on the link in that
e-mail, or paste it into an Internet Explorer address bar, and you are
signed up!) If you have problems receiving the Detail from a work
e-mail address, there have been past issues with department e-mail filters
considering the Detail as potential unsolicited e-mail. Try
subscribing from a home e-mail address or contact your IT department to
allow e-mails from Topica. Members may unsubscribe at any time.
If you have difficulties with the sign-up process or have been inadvertently
removed from the list, e-mail me personally at
kaseywertheim@aol.com and I will try
to work things out.
Until next Monday morning, don't work too hard or too little.
Have a GREAT week!
|
| |
|