T H E
D E T A I L
Monday, September 15, 2003
BREAKING NEWz you can
compiled by Jon Stimac
Fingerprint Lifted From Rape Knife -
BOSTON CHANNEL.COM - Sept. 12 2003
...police say print compared to nationwide
Arrest In 18-Year-Old Double Slaying -
- Sept. 11, 2003
made in a long-dormant murder case after matching fingerprints found at the
Fingerprint Debate Strong Focus of Last Day of Appeal -
NEW ZEALAND HERALD, NZ
- Sept. 10, 2003
on convicted multiple murderer's rifle are consistent with him trying to grab it
back during a fight...
Fingerprints Thought Destroyed Turn Up -
FT. WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM, TX
- Sept. 9, 2003
prints had previously been compared to those of the three suspects and did not
Good morning via the "Detail," a weekly e-mail newsletter that greets
latent print examiners around the globe every Monday morning. The purpose of the
Detail is to help keep you informed of the current state of affairs in the
latent print community, to provide an avenue to circulate original
fingerprint-related articles, and to announce important events as they happen in
Michelle Snyder writes: I am desperately searching for articles concerning the
percentage of latent prints of value that come from crime scene evidence. During
my internship years ago, an examiner mentioned to me that the percentage was
very small----about 5%. I recently asked for the article that mentions this, but
he can't recall where he had read that. Is anyone familiar with where I can
locate this information? I have tried numerous internet searches, as well as,
searching the JFI. I was hoping that this might sound vaguely familiar and that
someone might point me in the right direction. I would greatly appreciate any
help in this matter. Thank you.
Michelle L. Snyder
Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation
Last week, Glenn Langenburg
and I introduced the Babler page in
the CLPEX.com REFERENCE GRAIL (link on the left side of the home page).
This week, we receive a report of the Mitchell appeal hearing based on comments
of two attendees of the hearing in Pennsylvania.
Last Tuesday, September 9, 2003, Justices Becker, Greenburg, and Berry had half
a dozen cases on the docket in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. One of those cases was Appeal number
02-2859, the United
States of America v. Byron Mitchell.
The documents before the judges that day were standard for most appeals. Defense
attorney Robert Epstein was allowed to submit one motion for appeal, to which
the prosecution could respond in writing. The defense got one more written
response to the Government's response, and the appeal hearing was set.
The hearing itself was very structured, just like any appellate hearing. Each
attorney received 25 minutes to cover their arguments, and the defending
attorney could receive another block of time for rebuttal if granted by the
court, but it had to be specifically defined and strictly adhered to. The
proceedings were witnessed by several interested parties in the courtroom,
including Judge Pollak from the Llera-Plaza trial.
Before the court were five issues appealed by Epstein.
I. The district court erred in allowing the government to present expert witness
testimony from two latent fingerprint examiners since the examiners failed to
satisfy any of the admissibility criteria of Daubert and the district court
failed to make any alternative findings of reliability.
II. The district court erred in precluding the defense from calling three expert
critics of fingerprint analysis who would have testified, as they did at the
Daubert hearing, that latent fingerprint analysis is not a science, that there
has never been any testing to assess its reliability and that there are no
standards to govern its application.
III. The district court erred by taking judicial notice that small areas of
fingerprints are unique since the government failed to demonstrate that this
fact is beyond reasonable dispute.
IV. The government violated it Brady obligations by suppressing a National
Institute of Justice Solicitation for fingerprint validation studies which
admits that basic validation studies are needed to determine 1) whether
fingerprints are truly unique and 2) whether fingerprint analysis is
sufficiently reliable to meet judicial requirements for admissibility.
V. The district court erred in admitting the prior consistent statements of key
cooperating witness Kim Chester because Chester's prior statements were not made
prior to her charged fabrication and motive to falsify.
The attorney's did not get to argue uninterrupted; the hearing was very
interactive. The judges asked questions, made comments, etc. In fact, Epstein
had proceeded only about 5 minutes into his first arguments when Judge Becker,
one of the original justices in the actual Daubert vs. Merrill Dow case, started
asking question after question. A few minutes later, Epstein was advised that he
was attempting to hold fingerprints to a higher standard than what the Daubert
decision required, and he would be well advised to spend his time arguing other
As if that door being closed was not enough, Epstein continued to take heat on
the other issues also involving questions and comments from the judges. By the
time Bob Zauzmer, the Government's attorney, took the floor, the hearing was
well over schedule.
Zauzmer didn't spend much time on Daubert issues; by then it was fairly clear
where the judges stood on that issue. During technical discussions, Zauzmer
articulated very well the three levels of fingerprint detail. Arguments
regarding the NIJ solicitation focused on the fact that Epstein was relying on
the testimony of only 1 witness, when there were 6 other very credible witnesses
that all testified to the contrary. Zauzmer spent most of his time arguing the
issue of excluding the three defense experts.
The position taken by Zauzmer was that the defense failed in their
responsibility; Joiner said the defense had the option to call Starrs, Stoney
and Cole to give testimony regarding the identification, but they chose not to.
If there were any one of the five issues on appeal that was not as clear, this
would probably be the issue that would be revisited. However, even if error is found on this point, the predominant
feeling of two of the observers I spoke with was that any error found would be
considered harmless, and a new trial will not be ordered.
During the 5 minute rebuttal that Epstein was provided, Zauzner found
instructions Judge Joiner had given the jury basically relating that they did
not have to accept his judicial notice as fact. Zauzner was allowed the unusual
privilege of presenting this argument in an additional rebuttal, and therefore
was the last to speak at the Mitchell appeal.
The best short description of the proceedings I heard was that it was a "slam dunk" for the
appellate attorney. We will probably have a decision within a few months.
From the News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne,
News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana 9/5/2003
DNA test kits a safeguard for children
Police say DNA can be critical in cases of missing children.
"In the past, parents were given cards and told to fingerprint their children
and save the cards in case of an emergency. But fingerprints can change with
"Fingerprints have not become obsolete, but it is pretty close to it," said Sgt.
Rick Reed with the state police. "The most effective and inexpensive way now is
Submitted by Tom Pitzen, fingerprint examiner with
the Fort Wayne Indiana Police Department, and editor of "Lab and Scene", the
newsletter for members of the Indiana IAI. "Thanks for looking, and have a
Feel free to pass The Detail along to other examiners. This is a free
newsletter FOR latent print examiners, BY latent print examiners. There are no
copyrights on The Detail, and 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, send a blank
firstname.lastname@example.org ) 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
email@example.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!