Monique Stover (Ml_stover)
Post Number: 1
|Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2011 - 02:20 pm: ||
As someone who is relatively new to this field, I have been reading this entire forum with great interest.
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 07:18 pm, you (Kasey Wertheim) posts "this will probably be a blip on the screen of the science of fingerprints in 10 years." Looking at articles from the months following this "landmark decision" I see that two months later, Judge Pollak reversed his ruling. How right you were!
Here we are, nine years later. What would your assessment be of the impact this ruling had on this field after all has been said and done?
Have there been any changes - in training, certification, standards, or process - since then that you believe have addressed the allegations that fingerprint analysis may not be truly "scientific"?
|Posted on Saturday, March 02, 2002 - 08:39 pm: ||
Any speculation/prediction for what the Pollak ruling means for non-Daubert jurisdictions? I am a Virginia prosecutor and we are non-Daubert, non-Frye. In Virginia relevant scientific evidence is admissible if the expert is qualified to give testimony and the science upon which he testifies is reliable. ("When scientific evidence is offered, the court must make a threshold finding of fact with respect to the reliability of the scientific method offered, unless it is of a kind so familiar and accepted as to require no foundation to establish the fundamental reliability of the system, such as fingerprint analysis; or unless it is so unreliable that the considerations requiring its exclusion have ripened into rules of law, such as "lie-detector" tsts . . . ." Spencer v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 78, 95-98). I appreciate any response!
|Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 11:50 am: ||
Please see my posting here for an update about the Llera-Plaza 25-27 FEB 02 hearing from a fingerprint expert's perspective.
Robert D. Whritenour
|Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 08:01 am: ||
Thanks, Kasey, as a matter of fact, I'm into your web site this morning. I usually deal with Eds (he and I are old friends) and I didn't know you had a website until Ernie told me. It looks great!
I don't worry too much about my talk before this group and I agree with you that 10 years down the road this won't even be an issue. Of course, my consulting business is based upon a firm belief in the "science" of fingerprint identification and no one can change that...but it's almost a shame I will have to defend it after agreeing to give the presentation several months ago. The day after my presentation, Michael Mears, an attorney here who has presented a Daubert defense before here in GA, has asked to give a presentation geared toward getting more defense attorneys on the Daubert bandwagon...things will get interesting here in GA...there are very very few "experts" in this state who will be able to handle themselves on the stand against the likes of Mears in the future.
|Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 07:24 pm: ||
I created a news page for Plaza at www.clpex.com. The link is near the bottom of the home page on the left, for future reference. I update it as info is received, so if you hear of anything not on there, please pass it along.
|Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 07:18 pm: ||
Shoot you off the podium? I highly doubt that! I suspect regardless of how the information is presented, they will be so hungry for it they will keep you there long after you are supposed to finish. I am sure many of the defense lawyers which will be present at this seminar have never heard of attacking fingerprints in this regard, so naturally you will choose your approach accordingly. Actually, this will probably be a blip on the screen of the science of fingerprints in 10 years, and I'm sure you have considered representing the entire challenge as such. For latent print examiners, on the other hand, this challenge requires them to understand and articulate the science and methodology behind latent print examination. To the latent print community, these challenges should be not minimized, but maximized for the benifit of the science. To the legal community and the public, the impact of these challenges should be related only for what they are; routine challenges to a solid science. So one out of 23 ruled in favor. Let's see what the appeals court says.
Robert D. Whritenour
|Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 05:49 pm: ||
I think I'm going to have an opportunity to broach this subject with several defense counsels. I agreed to speak to the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers at their annual Spring seminar. Of course, now that Judge Pollak has thrown his hat in the ring, all questions/comments are going to be regarding Daubert. What's going to be interesting is that Brian Carney, a well known Questioned Document Examiner, will be speaking in conjunction with me....I"m curious to see what kind of questions he will have to field. Any advice from anyone who has encountered what I suspect will be an attempt to shoot me off the podium is welcome to respond!
|Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 03:44 pm: ||
There are probably several of these links on this matter, but "www.law.com" has posted an article about the latest developments in Judge Pollak's fingerprint ruling. At their home page, go down to "headlines" for a link to the article.