Breaking NEWz you can UzE...
compiled by Jon Stimac
Justice 1 Committee Report
2007 ...inquiry into the Scottish Criminal Record Office
and Scottish Fingerprint Service...
MSPs Deliver McKie Case Verdict
BBC NEWS, UK
- Feb 15, 2007 ...parliamentary report heavily criticized
the management of the Scottish Fingerprint Service ...
They Were Dead Certain –
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, NY
- Feb 16,
2007 ...bloody fingerprint left in bedroom
of brutally stabbed dancer hands jury all evidence it needs to convict
Fingerprints Lead to 2 Arrests
ASHEVILLE CITIZEN-TIMES, NC
- Feb 13, 2007
...Police Chief Guillett said solving minor breaking and entering
crimes by using fingerprints is extremely rare...
Recent CLPEX Posting Activity
containing new posts
Moderated by Steve Everist
McKie Cops break silence?
Daktari 97 Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:43 pm
Justice 1 Reports
Daktari 546 Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:37 pm
10 years is enough fight for the McKie family
clpexco 11880 Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:17 am
ASCLD/LAB accreditation in Canadian police services?
Cindy Rennie 66 Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:07 pm
Who Killed King Tut? Now THAT'S a cold case!
Cindy Rennie 191 Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:00 pm
Kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Cindy Rennie 332 Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:55 am
Statistics and Misidentifications - The weeks Detail
Michele Triplett 585 Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:19 am
EmmaC 292 Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:54 am
Iain McKie 127 Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:43 am
www.shirleymckie.com - book launch and site re-structure
Iain McKie 101 Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:48 pm
Toronto FIS/CFS Training Conference - February 26 - March 2
Cindy Rennie 165 Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:41 pm
UPDATES ON CLPEX.com
updates on the website this week.
Steve Horn explored statistics, erroneous
identifications, and crime scenes.
We review the last of Cindy
Rennie's notes on the recent ABFDE conference related to Daubert issues.
The ABFDE 2006 Annual
Conference: Daubert Notes
by Cindy Rennie
Judicial Expectations in Daubert/Frye
Presented by The Honourable Judge Stephanie Domitrovitch, Ph.D.
Erie County, Pennsylvania
Judge Domitrovitch began her discussion by noting that the courts have
always viewed science as an ally in the search for the truth. The worlds of
law and science have been linked since Archimedes used the first law of
hydrostatics to prove that the royal goldsmith was adulterating the gold
content of the crown.
Modern judges measure the credibility of the testimony of proposed expert
witnesses against the standards established in cases such as FRYE and
The decision in FRYE v. US allows testimony from an expert witness provided
that: (1) the testimony is sufficiently based upon reliable facts or data;
(2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3)
the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of
The decision in DAUBERT v. MERRELL DOW outlined five criteria to be used to
establish the scientific basis of a discipline before an expert can testify
as to their findings: (1) can the theory be tested; (2) is it subject to
peer review and publication; (3) what is the known or potential rate of
error; (4) what standards control the operation of the technique; and (5)
does it have widespread acceptance in the relevant scientific community.
Judge Stephanie (as she prefers to be called) outlined the kinds of
questions that she would like to hear answered when presiding over a Daubert/Frye
(1) Is the underlying reasoning or methodology scientifically valid?;
(2) Can it properly be applied to the facts?
(1) Testing: Can the theory be tested? Was it tested? How? Who conducted the
test? What methods were used? How was the data collected? Was the sample
size large enough to be statistically significant?
(2) Peer Review: Who reviewed the tests and data? Were there true “peer
review” journals? Did the Board of Editors scrutinize and test the theory
before publishing? Was it an “informational exchange” journal? Was the
article published without the contents being tested? Are there journal
articles critical of the process or methodology?
(3) Error Rate: What is the rate of error? Was it statistically significant?
What is the rate of ‘acceptability’?
(4) Standards: What standards control the operation of the technique?
(5) General Acceptance: (also known as a ‘Frye test’) Are the principle and
methodology generally accepted by the relevant scientific or technical
Judge Stephanie believes that judges, lawyers and expert witnesses need to
be educated in each other’s line of reasoning and mode of communication.
Judges should be familiar with the issues and concepts raised in FRYE and
DAUBERT and take a more active role in deciding if expert testimony should
be admitted. If necessary, the judge should question the expert witness
themselves or seek the advice of an independent expert to ensure that the
witness is qualified and the testimony offered by that witness is reliable.
Judicial Expectations in Daubert/Frye
The Paradigm Shift in Forensic Science.
Presented by Jan Seaman Kelly
Forensic Document Examiner
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Forensic Laboratory
Past president (2001 – 2003) of the A.B.F.D.E.
Jan described a paradigm shift in Daubert/Frye hearings as they relate to
testimony regarding questioned documents and forged handwriting. She noted
that many of her comments can be applied to expert witnesses in other
fields, such as firearms, tool marks, and latent prints.
Jan began by outlining the duties of the various players in the courtroom.
The Judge oversees the proceedings and ensures that the trial follows set
procedures. It is the Judge who decides if certain evidence, including
expert testimony, will be admitted. Presiding judges want assurance that the
proffered expert and the discipline are both reliable, and that the
testimony of the expert is based on tested scientific methodology.
The prosecutor presents the case to the judge (and jury, if there is one) by
way of direct testimony and cross-examination of witnesses. It is the duty
of the prosecutor to ensure that the testimony given by the expert witness
establishes the fact that the methodology used and the conclusions reached
by the witness are based on principles of science.
The Defense counsel represents the interests of the accused, and may
challenge the qualifications of the expert, the methodology used to reach
their conclusions, and/or the scientific foundations of their findings.
The expert witness should be a neutral spokesperson for the evidence. It is
the duty of the expert witness to ensure that their testimony establishes
that the methodology used and the conclusions that they reached are based on
principles of science.
The credentials of the expert include their education, experience, training,
performance in Certification and Proficiency tests; memberships in related
organisations, and the results of any case peer reviews that they have
The methodology referred to follows the Daubert model. The expert should be
able to show how the process has been tested, reviewed, accepted in the
scientific community, what standards control the process and what the known
or potential error rate is.
Reliability is demonstrated through testing, but how much testing is
required, and what format should the tests take? Surveys of judges have
shown that ‘proficiency testing’ is the most popular gauge of the
reliability of a witness, followed closely by ‘case peer review’.
Groups such as The Forensic Science Foundation and the Proficiency Advisory
Committee of the C.T.S. (Collaborative Testing Services) recommend that a
nationwide program of continuous proficiency testing of crime labs be
established and administered by a peer group; that future test programs
should contain a provision to render technical assistance; and that a series
of workshops be set up to address education and training needs.
Jan noted that the proficiency testing programs are not without controversy.
Some laboratory directors questioned whether the research findings would
have an adverse effect on their laboratories, while others felt that the
design of the research project did not concentrate on assuring the precision
or accuracy of data collection*.
Jan believes that proficiency tests should be used as a guide to pinpoint
weak or problem areas so that organizations can direct their training
accordingly. Different avenues of testing should be explored, and
partnerships with academic researchers should be maintained and nurtured to
ensure cooperation between the worlds of forensic scientists, academia, and
the court system.
*(J. Peterson, E. Fabricant, K. Field. Crime Laboratory Proficiency Testing
Research Program: Final Report: 1978).
Senior Fingerprint Technician
S.O.C.O. Case Manager
Toronto Police Service
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
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:
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
firstname.lastname@example.org and I will try
to work things out.
Until next Monday morning, don't work too hard or too little.
Have a GREAT week!