Breaking NEWz you can UzE...
Kasey Wertheim (your name could be here!)
Academy gets hands on fingerprinting
Columbus Telegram, NE -
Apr 16, 2008
“For a fingerprint to be viable we have to be
able to pick up 13 points of identification which are found in
the loops, whirls and ridges of a latent print ...
Puerto Rican Nationalist Tied To San Juan Attacks
Courant, United States - Apr 15, 2008
Assistant US Attorney Henry K. Kopel said
Monday that the FBI found Gonzalez's fingerprint in a
mobile home used to move $2 million of the money and Victor
Recent CLPEX Posting Activity
containing new posts
Moderated by Steve Everist
Announcement: Click link any time for recent, relevant fingerprint
clpexco 2253 16 Dec 2007 03:36 pm
Pat A. Wertheim 13 20 Apr 2008 05:21 pm
KEPT - Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony
clpexco 3363 20 Apr 2008 02:27 pm
Calls for Inquiry to be scrapped
Daktari 25138 19 Apr 2008 02:52 pm
Bob McAuley 2184 18 Apr 2008 07:59 pm
IAI Conference Category Update
Steve Everist 995 15 Apr 2008 09:49 pm
Latent Print Exam and Forensic Tech Positions - CONUS/OCONUS
wkpetroka 214 15 Apr 2008 06:31 pm
Fingerprint Reports testimonial? NY's Rawlins
L.J.Steele 381 14 Apr 2008 08:43 pm
New Hampshire Supreme Court Ruling
Dennis Degler 651 14 Apr 2008 07:46 pm
aluminium and black powder
charlie 254 13 Apr 2008 09:00 pm
UPDATES ON CLPEX.com
Updated the Fingerprint Interest Group (FIG) page with FIG #41.
Visit the CLPEX.com FIG page to see this example of Vertical Pressure.
Thanks to Sharon Cook for this submission!... and you can send your example
of unique distortion to Charlie Parker:
Inserted Michelle Triplett's Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony (KEPT) #16:
Terminology - No Identification Effected. Discuss this topic on CLPEX.com - a discussion has
been created for KEPT.
we looked at a NY Court of Appeals decision on the testimonial nature of
fingerprint evidence under Crawford.
We continue the legal theme with a Maryland court decision to deny a motion
to exclude fingerprint evidence in MD v. Johnson. The defendant had
asserted that ACE-V was subjective, lacked matching criteria, and did not
require documentation. He also asserted that fingerprint evidence
should be excluded because fingerprint examiners claim matching with
"absolute certainty", without independent testing / verification / peer
review and there is no quantified error rate. Circuit Court Judge Sweeney
cited a number of cases that support the use of fingerprints in U.S. and
Maryland courts of law, and ultimately he denied the motion to exclude.
The expert can testify to similarities and differences, and even state that
the prints closely or exactly match. Furthermore, the Judge stated
that any "alleged flaws with the method may be the subject of
cross-examination of the State's witness, and the Defendant is free to call
his own expert to refute the State's witness."
However, Judge Sweeney delivered an important exception to the denial of the
motion. In his own words, he stated that "there appears to be no
factual foundation for the examiner to "express an opinion that no other
person could have a similar number of matching points or what the
probability or lack of probability is of the existence of such persons."
He goes on to state that "if the State believes that it can present such a
basis grounded in validated research, scientific studies or otherwise, to
allow the witness to make that conclusion, then it can move to make such a
demonstration and obtain a further ruling on the issue from the court prior
to the testimony being presented. As it stands now, the examiner can
testify to and demonstrate similarities and differences, and express an
opinion that the latent print "exactly" (the judge's word) matches the known
State of Maryland vs. Lamont Anthony
Johnson, in the Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland
March 26, 2008.
Upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Testimony of
Forensic Fingerprint Examiner and All Fingerprint Evidence and the State's
Response thereto, it is this 26th day of March, 2008 ordered that the
Defendant's Motion to exclude the State's fingerprint evidence is hereby
denied except to the extent that the opinion testimony will be limited as
set forth in the memorandum filed this date and it is further ordered that
any request by the Defendant for a Frye-Reed hearing is hereby denied.
Signed: Judge Dennis Sweeney
For the full decision, you will find the .pdf file of page images here:
Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony - #16
Terminology - No Identification Effected
by Michele Triplett, King County
The intent of this is to provide thought provoking discussion.
No claims of accuracy exist.
(This question would be to a verifier or a supervisor)
The results for KL3 indicate that no identification was effected.
Therefore it has been established that my client did not leave this
latent print. Isn’t that true?
I’m not sure if the original examiner excluded your
client or not.
ASCLD/LAB and SWGFAST both recommend technical reviews.
SWGFAST specifically states that
The reported results are clear, concise, accurate, and complete.
Phrases such as ‘No Identification Effected’ may have different
meanings to different people. If agencies are using their own phrases in their reports then these
statements should be defined somewhere.
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!