Jennifer Kostroski (Unregistered Guest)
Posted From: dps196059.dps.state.mn.us
|Posted on Friday, May 28, 2010 - 11:54 am: ||
Anyone know where I can find an updated version of which states use which admissibility standards for court proceedings? (have a map from 2002)
|Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2001 - 06:59 pm: ||
Latent prints examiners with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department abandoned "traditional charted enlargement" over a year ago. Not only does charted enlargements misrepresent all the features compared, but also provides the jury with the tools to play fingerprint examiner. There have been cases where jurors have reexamined the display in the jury room and formed their own conclusions, disregarding the fingerprint examiners testimony. We now make a display using the Photo Shop imaging program showing enlarged photos of where the print was obtained from, a copy of the latent print lift card showing the identifying information and the exemplar card with the identified area denoted in a cirle or square box, and any other helpful photos to "tell the story in pictures" for the jury, without making the jury, the expert. This large poster display is only a visual aid to reinforce our testimony in the jury room. This technique has proven very effective. At one trial for the murder of a deputy sheriff, the D.A. stated that this was the most effective court display he had every seen. The defendant got the death penality.
|Posted on Monday, August 20, 2001 - 09:39 am: ||
Thanks. That's about how I had it figured, but wanted to be sure.
|Posted on Monday, August 20, 2001 - 12:13 am: ||
I don't think even Stephen Meagher was advocating the immediate abandonment of the conventional charts his subordinates at the FBI Laboratory still take to court everyday. Although initially planned as a presentation on "THE FUTURE OF THE LATENT PRINT DISCIPLINE," Mr. Meagher changed the title to "WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF THE LATENT PRINT DISCIPLINE? - AN FBI PERSPECTIVE." Asked as a question, and with the "FBI perspective" caveat, I think he was trying to stress that the slides were where he thinks the discipline (at least from the FBI's standpoint) may be going in the future.
From slides 19-21:
TESTIMONY The numbers and lines pointing to ridge endings, bifurcations and dots (Level two detail) in typical American charts demonstrate only a small portion of what occurs during the identification process. The absence of sufficient explanation of LP examination methodology can help Defense in a claim that friction ridge identification is not scientific and should not be admitted as evidence at that trial.
– Daubert Hearing testimony
– Trial testimony
– Moot Courts
– discontinue use of old style charts
– more use of PowerPoint-like demonstrations
• Present more complete testimony
• Recognize Daubert, Frye, specific state case law issues
• Present ACE-V methodology as opposed to simplistic point counting
All Latent Print Examiners, in every case, consider overall ridge flow and ridge shape (often almost automatically) in determining the following:
General ridge flow (so plain arches can be skipped when you have a whorl pattern) Whether they realize it or not, this is part of impression Analysis using Level one detail... part of the "A" in ACE-V. Although they may not "speak" modern LP examination jargon, all LP Examiners trained to competence use the same procedures.
Ridge thickness (so you can skip "thick" ridged adult inked prints when the latent print is consistent with a small child)
Anatomical source (finger, palm, foot, etc.)
Other factors (such as presence of incipient ridge detail, so you can concentrate on inked prints with incipient ridges first)
I urge all LP Examiners to review SWGFAST's draft "Friction Ridge Examination Methodology." Everything it encompasses is already utilized by the same LP Examiners Defense attorneys would point to and claim to be "unscientific, point-counters" who never consider Level one, two and three detail.
I have worked at local, state and federal laboratories. I am proud to say that I fall into the category of those some would call “point counters.” When I first started training 30 years ago, my limited knowledge probably was within the realms of what Defense sometimes now claims for all LP Examiners (i.e., just count to eight or ten and declare an identification). By the time I completed “training to competency,” I was operating within the realm of modern ACE-V methodology (though I had never heard the terms).
The point-counting existing in my laboratory today has nothing to do with a minimum for identification, it is the maximum number (seven) of Level two details in good quality (clarity), consecutive ridge detail I can ignore without getting into trouble (without being scored an error for missing an LP of value for identification). Without such a number for quality assurance, a lazy LP Examiner could ignore all the identifiable LP’s he/she wanted to (8, 12, 50, etc., Level two “points”) with no fear of repercussion. We are permitted to call any LP “suitable” based on the overall quality (clarity) and quantity of Level one, two and three detail... without regard for a minimum number of Level two “points” present.
I have used PowerPoint computer animated presentations to help explain friction ridge identifications at several courts in recent years. Just as LP Examiners in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s incorporated rub-on red lettering and numbers to make their charts more interesting, computer animation can help make LP testimony explanation more complete and more interesting. The general public is accustomed to seeing computer animated graphics as part of detailed scientific explanations on the nightly news and daily television shows. With minimal effort and investment, most agencies can begin using PowerPoint type presentations... and the conventional lines and numbers pointing to Level two detail can still be part of the computer animated presentation if they so desire.
Click here to see Stephen Meagher's slides from his July 2001 presentation "WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF THE LATENT PRINT DISCIPLINE? - AN FBI PERSPECTIVE."
|Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2001 - 10:26 pm: ||
By way of clarification on this question; I don't mean to imply that the I.A.I. is advocating or even proposing any such thing. I am referring to Stephen Meagher's presentation regarding the FBI perspective. Sorry for any confusion.
|Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 10:19 am: ||
I think I understand why, but would you be kind enough to explain the reason(s) for abandoning the use of old style charted enlargements as court exhibits as proposed during the recent I.A.I. conference?