Breaking NEWz you can UzE...
Kasey Wertheim (your name could be here!)
Vandalism suspects fingered
Press, VA - Apr 5, 2008
Surry County Deputy Vernon Scott cracked the church vandalism case
by lifting fingerprints. It's thought to be the first case solved
solely by such evidence ...
Court: Judge can't keep part-time job
Concord Monitor, NH - Apr 4, 2008
By ANNMARIE TIMMINS The state Supreme Court has denied Judge
Patricia Coffey's request to keep a temporary job in New York while
she is on paid leave ...
Witness tells of life at Browns'
Concord Monitor, NH - Apr 1, 2008
The expert, Alison Rees, said the smooth surfaces of the pipes,
gunpowder cans and plastic bags she was given to analyze made them
easy for fingerprints to ...
unveils jurors’ wild evidentiary expectations
Journal Record (subscription), OK - Apr 1, 2008
Thirty-six percent expected fingerprint evidence and 32 percent
expected some type of firearms evidence in every criminal case. When
it came to DNA, ...
Recent CLPEX Posting Activity
containing new posts
Moderated by Steve Everist
Announcement: Click link any time for recent, relevant fingerprint
clpexco 1990 16 Dec 2007 03:36 pm
Bob McAuley 940 06 Apr 2008 02:38 pm
Fingerprints on fruit
charlie 69 06 Apr 2008 12:45 pm
Calls for Inquiry to be scrapped
Daktari 21850 06 Apr 2008 12:54 am
Challenges to fingerprinting
Iain McKie 75 05 Apr 2008 11:51 am
Judge to head fingerprint inquiry
sharon cook 4170 04 Apr 2008 01:41 pm
Admissability Challenge in Kansas City
Steve Everist 1224 04 Apr 2008 11:26 am
Ann Horsman 324 04 Apr 2008 10:12 am
Baltimore Judge declares Fingerprints not reliable.
Justice Pie 11344 03 Apr 2008 05:31 pm
Help with a reference citation - Champod
Les Bush 343 02 Apr 2008 02:45 am
UPDATES ON CLPEX.com
Updated the Fingerprint Interest Group (FIG) page with FIG #39.
Inserted Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony (KEPT) #14: Verification -
Explanation. Discuss this topic on CLPEX.com - a discussion has
been created for KEPT.
we look at a pending U.S. Supreme Court case that could
affect requirements for forensic analyst live testimony on their laboratory
Steve Ostrowski brings us good news from New Hampshire.
New Hampshire Supreme Court Reverses Langill
by Steve Ostrowski
There was reason for
last week as the long awaited matter of State v. Richard Langill has finally
been resolved. On Friday, April
4, 2008, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued its ruling which determined
whether a decision by Superior Court Judge Patricia Coffey to exclude expert
testimony regarding the individualization of a latent fingerprint was
legally practicable. To the
delight of the members of the New Hampshire State Police Forensic Lab’s
Identification Unit, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the decision of
the lower court and remanded the case back to the Rockingham County Superior
Court. This ruling came as a
collective relief to practitioners throughout the comparative sciences and
could hopefully provide a foundation to defend future challenges.
The appeal originated from a pair of rulings issued by the lower court which
excluded fingerprint evidence from a 2004 burglary case.
In 2006, Coffey presided over a two day Daubert admissibility hearing
(albeit, the two days were ten months apart).
In January of 2007, she ruled that the fingerprint evidence would be
excluded from trial and upheld that decision a few months later in response
to a Motion for Reconsideration.
Aspects of the initial admissibility hearing, subsequent legal
proceedings and decisions, and oral arguments in front of the five justice
panel of the New Hampshire Supreme Court have been outlined in previous
articles in The Weekly Detail
1, 2, 3.
During oral arguments this past February, the State argued that the lower
court exceeded its role of gatekeeper and assumed the role of jury when
determining the admissibility of fingerprint evidence during the Daubert
hearing. The State believed
Coffey’s requirements of contemporaneous written documentation of the
cognitive process and blind verification of the identification went above
and beyond the generally accepted procedures in the field of fingerprint
identification. The Defendant
retorted that beyond being found scientifically reliable, any methodology or
test must be found to have been applied in a reliable manner.
Additionally, the Defendant argued
the lack of proper contemporaneous written notes and blind verification had
prevented the court from determining if the tests were indeed administered
In this latest ruling, the Supreme Court described the application of NH
Rule of Evidence Rule 702 and NH RSA 516:29-a
to expert testimony in general.
The Court described how they are the final arbiters of the
legislative intent as expressed in the totality of a statute’s language.
The decision proceeded to break down the verbiage of the
aforementioned statutes and compare that with the current Federal Rule of
Evidence 702 and several decisions from various Federal Courts of Appeals.
The Court favored the approach taken by the Federal Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit which stated:
When the application of a scientific
methodology is challenged as unreliable under Daubert and the methodology
itself is otherwise sufficiently reliable, outright exclusion of the
evidence in question is warranted only if the methodology was so altered by
a deficient application as to skew the methodology itself.
v. Gipson, 383 F.3d 689, 697 (8th Cir. 2004)
This same court, however, emphasized Daubert’s focus on the “differing
functions of judge and jury” by stating that:
…vigorous cross-examination, presentation of
contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burdens of proof are the
traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible
3 F.3d (8th Cir. 1993)
Refuting the State’s argument, the Court found that NH RSA 516:29-a requires
a court to examine whether a witness has, in actuality, reliably applied the
methodology to the relevant evidence before allowing testimony from that
witness. They do note, however,
that the term “reliable” does not mandate correctness, but rather a “much
lower standard, to wit, trustworthiness.”
The general intention of these rules of evidence is to ensure that
the court and the jury are actually presented with reliable and relevant scientific evidence, as opposed to
being denied access to evidence that is not faultless.
The Court found that it would be unreasonable to interpret the
statute as requiring any methodology applied with one or more errors to be
automatically deemed inadmissible.
The gatekeeping role must decide the severity of any errors and
determine if those errors caused a fundamental change in the methodology
which could subsequently render that methodology unreliable.
Consequently, any serious flaw would warrant the suppression of the
method while less-negating errors would simply go to the weight of the
evidence and be subjected to the adversarial process.
Specifically concerning State v. Langill, the NH Supreme Court ruled that it
was an “unsustainable exercise of discretion” for the lower court to find
the examiner’s testimony inadmissible.
The court summarized that the examiner’s testimony should have been
given much more weight than Coffey had originally assigned.
The decision noted that the examiner testified that all of the
laboratory protocols were followed with regard to the application of the
ACE-V methodology. It also
noted that the witness basically repeated the application of the ACE-V
methodology on the stand using a charted enlargement and describing all of
the sequential steps of the application of the methodology for the latent
print in question. The decision
stated that there was an opportunity to cross-examine the witness to expose
potential errors in the application of the methodology.
Also, the Court acknowledged that an important element of the
adversarial process was not employed by the Defendant during previous legal
proceedings. A second expert
could have been retained to review sworn testimony from either the
pre-hearing deposition or the admissibility hearing itself to pinpoint
shortcomings in the witness’s application of the ACE-V methodology, but this
was not done.
With regard to written notes, the Court ruled that even though
contemporaneously written documentation could have shown that the examiner
correctly applied the ACE-V methodology or even memorialized thoughts for
future reference, they “were not necessary to determin(e) whether she
applied the methodology reliably (emphasis by court) to the facts of
the case.” Because the State
had demonstrated during direct examination that the expert witness had good
grounds for her opinion, the Court ruled that the trial court “exceeded its
gatekeeping function” by finding the testimony unreliable due to of a lack
of sufficient written documentation.
With regard to blind verification, the Court stayed with much of the same
line of thinking. They noted
that the lower court had ruled that “in general, ACE-V is a reliable method
for analyzing latent fingerprints.”
They found that other courts have concurred while additionally noting
that verification may not be “blinded.”
Additionally, the Court noted that the fingerprint community is
currently debating whether blind verification actually improves the accuracy
of results. Ultimately, the
Court decided that although verifications by another examiner with no
reasonable expectation of the outcome may improve accuracy, the lack of
blind verification certainly does not lead to unreliable results.
Once again, the Court ruled that it was an unsustainable exercise of
discretion for the lower court to find the witness’s opinion inadmissible
based on a court-imposed requirement of blind verification.
They found no indication that the absence of blind verification in
this case negated the basis for the reliability of the ACE-V methodology
itself. If anything, the lack
of blind verification would go towards the weight of the examiner’s
testimony and not the admissibility of the evidence.
As anticipated, this decision came down to the distinction between being a
measure of reliability and a mandate for enhanced reliability.
Although not fundamentals of the scientific methodology, Coffey
perceived contemporaneously written notes on the mental process and blind
verification as requisites to render the evidence reliable and admissible.
Admittedly, these factors could affect various aspects of the case
such as: the credibility of the witness during testimony, the weight of the
evidence, or even the accuracy of the latent print identification results.
Although the enhancement of these
factors may make the scientific evidence
more reliable, the absence of
these factors unquestionably does not make the evidence unreliable or
We are certainly glad that this saga is over and even more delighted
that the NH Supreme Court has ruled in favor of forensic science.
Though tough at times, this ordeal has taught us tremendous lessons
as it forced us to examine and scrutinize how we conduct our work here in
New Hampshire. As any good team
of scientists should, we have learned from our transgressions, developed
ways by which we could improve our daily work, and have diligently
implemented these improvements into our protocols and procedures.
Maybe these items are an article for another time.
If you would like to read the entire fourteen page decision for yourself
please follow the succeeding link:
“Judge Grants Motion
to Exclude Latent Fingerprint Evidence,”
no. 285, 2007.
“Coffey Rules on Reconsideration of New Hampshire’s Langill
no. 296, 2007.
Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Langill Appeal,”
no. 341, 2008.
Stephen H. Ostrowski, MSFS, CLPE
Police Forensic Laboratory
33 Hazen Drive
Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony - #14
Verification - Explanation
by Michele Triplett, King County
The intent of this is to provide thought provoking discussion.
No claims of accuracy exist.
Verification – Explanation:
Why does the verifier know the results of the first
It’s a time saving measure.
You have to know the previous conclusion so you can
try to prove that conclusion wrong.
Trying to prove something wrong helps diminish bias.
Without knowing the results you can’t review if the
information is correct. This
includes checking whether the conclusions being reported are accurate,
whether proper procedures were followed, and if the conclusions were drawn
from the data that was available.
This is the most common answer and even though knowing someone else’s
conclusion does save time, it’s not a concern of the verifier.
Confirming a previous conclusion is scientifically acceptable with
simple conclusions but with complex situations then a conclusion needs more
weight behind it than merely confirming the conclusion.
When complex situations arise, the conclusion is given more weight if
the verifier corroborates the conclusion and insures that it was arrived at
using appropriate principles. The only way to scrutinize a conclusion in this way is by knowing the first
Answers b and c:
These answers are both good answers but answer c is a little more
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:
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
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!