|
|
|
On Lifting Latent Prints (From the April, 1972 Vol. 53, No. 10 issue of Finger Print and Identification Magazine) Recently we learned of a case where the finger print expert was put through quite an ordeal. He testified regarding an identification of a latent print found on a small coin box as having been left there by the defendant. There was no dispute about the identification itself. The latent matched the inked impression perfectly...maybe too perfectly? The controversy arose because the technician had not produced the coin box in court. In fact, it appeared that no one knew where the coin box was at the time of trial. The latent print was introduced into evidence on a latent print transfer card. Unfortunately, even the latent print transfer card lacked proper markings as to the surface from which the latents had been lifted. All it contained were a date and the initials of the technician. To compound the difficulties, the technician had not photographed the latent print prior to the lifting, nor did he have any witnesses who could verify that he had in fact lifted the latent in question from the coin box. The other investigating officers were unaware, apparently, that any finger print evidence was available until a few days prior to trial. Legally, the chain of evidence was sufficiently preserved when the officer testified that he had lifted the print which appeared on the transfer card from the coin box, to permit his testimony to be introduced. Faced with the improbable circumstances, however, that an expert would violate all rules of good practice of his profession, by lifting latents from a small object that could easily be brought into court, and, before lifting, make no photograph of the print on the object or secure the presence of witnesses to the lifting itself, and the poor quality of markings on the card, the court sustained a motion by the defense to strike all of the finger print testimony on the theory that the proper chain of evidence had not been preserved. We can't really have any quarrel with the decision of the court. The witness did not observe good practice. In fact, it appeared almost as if he had intentionally ignored all normal procedures to insure that the transfer of the latent would look suspicious. It is best to avoid lifting prints at all if the object on which they are found can be easily preserved for production in court. If lifting is undertaken, however, make a photograph of the latent as it appears on the object prior to lifting, and /or have at least one witness to the lifting so that difficulties of the type described here may be spared you.
(Editor--—Obviously things are done somewhat differently now than they
were then. Now, I don't know many field technicians who routinely photograph
prints before lifting, or collect every transportable item from which a
latent lift is obtained [evidence custodians would be overwhelmed]. Having
a witness to your actions sounds like a good idea, but is not always practical
[in a tow yard] and could set an unbearable precedent.
This article was reprinted in “THE PRINT” |