Hi, Heather. Speaking with the same disclaimer that I have not read the transcripts and the additional disclaimer that I am not immediately familiar with this case...When I am asked in regard to my professional error rate, I always make sure that I clarify what types of errors they are talking about: clerical/administrative, missed identifications and erroneous identifications (I do define these in my testimony). The first: yes of course, the second: I am quite sure were more common at the start of my career than they are now, but so far even that seems to be minimal and, the third: to my knowledge I have not made any erroneous identifications. All three types of errors are why we have both a review by another LPE and a technical/admin review to check for typos and the like.
Like so many other similar situations undergoing appeal, these types of challenges largely come down to the individual examiners clarity of testimony. I like what Ron Smith says about testifying: it is our job to educate. We can never presume that the people we are testifying to "know what we mean". In this case, WE (as LPEs) certainly know what they meant but (particularly on appeal cases) all the judge, jury and attorneys get to go on are the statements we make. The most you can do is your best possible to make sure your words are precise and leave no room for interpretation.
My two cents.
I keep 6 honest serving men
(they taught me all I knew)
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.