|
|
|
|
|
LITIGATED CASES |
|
June 29, 2005
- On behalf of
the
Defendant
re:
United
States v.
Anthony
Howell.
Defense
Attorney,
Edward
Genson,
Chicago, Il.
U. S.
District
Court,
Northern
Illinois.
Issue:
Fingerprint
misidentification
by
FBI. |
|
March 29,
2006 -
On behalf of the
Defendant
Jury
Trial re:
People v.
Kayson
Pearson.
Defense
Attorney,
John Stella,
NYC. Kings
County
Superior
Court,
Brooklyn, NY. J.,
Albert
Tomei.
Issue:
Fingerprint
misidentification
by NYPD.
|
|
November
21, 2006
-
On behalf of the
Defendant
Jury
Trial re:
Com. v.
Jesus
Gonzalez.
Defense
Attorney,
Sarah E.
Schooley,
Northampton,
MA. J.,
Richard Goggins.
Issue:
Fingerprint
misidentification
by MSP.
|
|
November 30, 2006
- On behalf
of the
Defendant
re:
Com.
v. Richard
Ruiz.
Defense
Attorney,
Desmond
Fitzgerald,
Boston, MA.
J., Richard
Welch, Essex
Superior Court,
Lawrence, MA.
Issue:
Fraudulent Fingerprint
Misidentification by
MSP.
|
|
|
|
RESOLVED WITHOUT
TESTIMONY |
|
June 5,
2005 -
On behalf of
Defendant
re:
Com. v. Charles
Odware.
Defense
Counsel, Dan
Solomon,
Boston, MA.
Suffolk
Superior
Court.
Issue:
Fingerprint
misidentification
by Boston PD.
|
|
October
5, 2005 - On
behalf of Defendant
re:
Com. v. Afries J.
Rodrigues.
Defense Counsel,
Harrison Barrow,
Chatham, MA. Orleans
District Court.
Issue:
Fingerprint
Misidentification
by BCSO. |
|
Spring
2006 - On behalf
of Defendant re:
Com. v. Brad J.
Santos,
Defense Counsel,
C. Samuel Sutter,
Fall River, MA.
Bristol County
Superior Court.
Issue:
Fingerprint
Misidentification by
MSP. |
The Acceptable
Error Rate
is
ZERO
If you are a Latent
Print Examiner, you
know the above
statement to be
true. If you
are an attorney,
police administrator
or other non-expert,
this may sound
unrealistically
strict.
Scientists generally
concur that a
reliability of 95%
constitutes
scientific certainty.
In many areas of
science and many
professions, such
reliability serves
society well.
For example, the
acceptable error
rate for Chicken
Sexers (persons who
examine the
backsides of
one-day-old chicks
to sort males from
females) is between
2.3 and 5 percent
when examining 700
to 800 chicks per
hour.
A latent fingerprint
or palm print
"identification" is
the determination
that two
corresponding areas
of friction skin
impressions
originated from the
same person to the
exclusion of all
others. This
absolute
identification
decision can carry
great weight in
police decisions
about
investigations, and
court decisions
about guilt or
innocence.
Latent Print
Examiner errors
involving evaluation
(whether marks are
of value or not) and
elimination (marks
were not made by a
person) are serious,
but do not normally
carry the same
potential for harm
as erroneous
identifications.
An example of the
degree of importance
afforded
identification
decisions can be
seen in scoring
procedures for
friction ridge
impression
comparison tests.
Universally, even if
an exam has hundreds
of latent prints and
thousands of record
(inked) prints, some
mistakes involving
evaluation or
elimination are
expected, but a
single erroneous
identification is
automatic failure.
The acceptable
finger or palm print
identification error
rate is zero.
Because in any field of human
endeavor there will
always be errors,
quality control and
quality assurance
standards are
necessary to protect
society.
Standards for
initial "training to
competency," case by
case quality
control, and long
term quality
assurance including
life cycle training
and periodic
proficiency testing
are essential.
Periodic proficiency
testing can reveal
bad habits developed
since initial
training to
competency. It
may also reveal
deteriorating
eyesight or other
human deficiencies
impacting casework.
One
set of standards is
set forth in the
Quality Assurance
Guidelines of the
Scientific Working
Group on Friction
Ridge Analysis,
Study and Technology
(SWGFAST).
Upon detecting an erroneous
identification
decisions (not just
clerical errors and
not just failing to
find a "match")
most agencies
immediately suspend
the examiner from
further casework
activity.
Remedies to ensure a
zero error rate
include the
following:
Return of the
examiners to
friction ridge
identification
duties only after
retraining and
evaluation indicate
the experts can
operate at zero
identification error
rate; Permanent
transfer to other
duties; Employment
termination.
SOURCE:
onin.com-fp-problemidents.html#Zero_tolerance_explanation)
|
|
Interpreting
Crime Scene
Fingerprint Evidence
This is a case where
a woman convict was
charged with
participating in an
attempted jailbreak.
The allegation was
based solely upon
the discovery of a
single fingerprint
(the defendant's
right, ring finger)
which was found
about three or four
inches from the top
of the bottom
portion of a
double-hung window
in a second floor
bathroom of the
women's quarters of
the County Jail in
Barnstable,
Massachusetts.
The key to the crime
scene and the
defense case was the
placement of that
fingerprint and its
orientation. In
other words, where it was
located and how it
was situated on
that pane of glass.
I saw immediately
that the way it was positioned
on the window glass
was not indicative
of being
transferred there as
a result of an
attempt to raise, or lower
the window.
The primary
consideration in
viewing a crime
scene and examining
the evidence should
have been to learn
and understand why,
and how, the print
got there. Clearly
in order to attempt
an escape the bottom
portion of that window,
it first had to be
opened. There was no
information that
suggested the police
thought anyone else
had attempted to
open it.
Also, there was no
information, or
evidence, that
anyone else had
touched that window
on that occasion.
When I
examined and
interpreted the
scene, I
considered that one
most commonly
opens a
double-hung window
using either the
heels of the palms,
or the fingers and
thumbs of both hands
to exert upward force to raise the
window. In this
instance there were
no palm prints, no
thumb prints, no
multiple prints.
There was only that
one, isolated,
partial fingerprint
on the window and it
was parallel to
the floor,
parallel to the
floor!
Interpreting this
crime scene was not
at all complex, in
fact as one
fictional
detective of old
England would have
said,
it was "elementary".
One could only
speculate as to how
that fingerprint came to be
there, however, as I
said before, had any
print actually been
transferred onto that
window pane during an
attempt to open the
window, it would
have to have been
positioned
differently. So, in
order to conclude
that this print was
transferred to the
window during an
attempt to open it, that print
would [logically] have to have
been perpendicular
to the floor, in a
manner to create
upward pressure to
open the window.
It's worth repeating
because it is
critical, the
defendant's
fingerprint was
horizontal,
parallel to the
floor, thus not
indicative of an
upward leveraging action.
To the credit of the
Assistant District
Attorney (Richard
Piazza), once he
learned of the
defense EPA's
interpretation of
the crime scene
evidence, he
recognized that his
own investigators
had misread the
"evidence."
The case
was dismissed.
(Defense Attorney:
Elizabeth Kliber,
Hyannis, MA).
Disparities in
Fingerprint Evidence
In 2002, at Chicago,
Illinois, a man was
arrested and charged with
selling cocaine to
an
undercover agent.
The seized cocaine
-- purportedly
handled by the
defendant, was
packaged in "brick"
form, wrapped
separately and
further contained in
a common white
color, opaque,
plastic trash bag.
One aspect of the
government's case
was based primarily
on a single
fingerprint. To
resolve that, his
Attorney, Edward M. Genson, brought me
in. To make a long
story short, I
literally saw one
glaring disparity in this
fingerprint
immediately without
a visual aid.
The government
alleged that the
fingerprint they had
developed was that
of the
defendant's left,
middle finger (#8).
However, their
experts failed to
notice, or chose to
ignore, one glaring
disparity between
the latent and
inked
impressions. There
were two, in-line,
ridge-endings, at
the two o'clock
position, three
ridge-counts out
from Chart Point (CP)
#8. Ignoring those
critical details
obviated their
identification. For
those who have a
compelling need to
see for yourself,
click on the
EXHIBITS link,
then Exhibit #11, on
this site. The
critical ridge
endings can be found
by locating the tip
of the red arrow on
the inked impression
designated in CP8.
From there, moving
to the right and
upward (at about
45°) counting three
ridges out and you
will find yourself
right in the middle
of a clear space
between two opposing
ridge-endings.
The authenticity of
the defendant's
"Inked" print,
acquired by the FBI,
was not contended,
but the
ridge-endings found
in that inked print
were not to be found
on the latent print
exhibit. Courts and
the experts agree
that when comparing
one fingerprint to
another, the
presence, or
absence, of just a
single attribute
(in other words,
just one disparity)
precludes a
conclusion of
sameness.
In this case, the
absence of those
ridge-endings from
the inked
fingerprint,
standing alone, was
sufficient to
invalidate the FBI’S
"identification."
Having exposed the
irreconcilable
difference between
the prints depicted
on the chart panels,
the defense
examination and
presentation of the
fingerprint evidence
was concluded. On
June 29, 2005, one
day after my entry
into the case, AUSA POPE,
himself, threw out the FBI’S
fingerprint evidence
from the
government's case;
game over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
