|
|
|
Defense Counsel Tries To Discredit Finger-Print Evidence--Two Famous Experts Testify In Sensational Louisiana Trial (This article appeared in the August 1925 issue of Finger Print Magazine. Thanks to Kathy Saviers--Lightning Powder Co. for this contribution.) W.R. Ellis was on the witness stand for three and one--half hours while the defense attorney, in a sensational murder case, tried to discredit the finger print as reliable evidence. It was during the stormy trial in Lake Charles, Louisianan, of the Dunn brothers, charged with murder in the killing of Deputy Sheriff Samuel E. Duhon, on the night of March 6th. Many clashes marked the case, and the finger--print man was not the only expert witness subjected to grilling cross examination. Stereopticon slides were used and an enlargement of the fingerprints, found on an automobile figuring in the case, was shown the jury, along with exhibits of the known prints of Bob Dunn, one of the men on trial. Defense Counsel Wants Finger Prints Measured Throughout the cross--examination the defense counsel, P.L. Ferguson, attempted to get Mr. Ellis to apply a measurement test between given points of the finger prints under projection. Repeatedly Mr. Ellis explained that this was contrary to the science of finger--print identification, and certainly could not be relied on as significant evidence, as the pressure applied when the print is made might cause a slight difference in the width of the black impressions of the ridges. The expert was forced to explain, over and over again, that this made no difference in the identification, as it was the relative position of the ridges that mattered, and not the measurements. The entire cross--examination was a battle of wits, and Ferguson tried to get Mr. Ellis to apply a measurement test, persisting in this stubborn and futile demand until overruled by the Court. Self--Styled Expert Testifies The counsel for defense later introduced into the court a self styled “expert witness,” in the person of William Cutner, of Shreveport, who attempted to break down the testimony of Ellis and of Maurice B. O'Neil, superintendent of the Bureau of Identification at New Orleans. Cutner admitted his statements were based on a system “all of his own.” In an attempt to qualify as an expert witness, Cutner was willing to submit to an hour's cross--examination. He said he had been a detective since 1917, had handled finger prints and was familiar with their classification. He stated that had obtained a certificate from the Federal Bureau of Identification at Fort Leavenworth, having completed a post--graduate course at that institution. “How long did you study at Leavenworth?” asked Griffin Hawkins, special prosecutor. “Four days,” said Mr. Cutner, who said he had received a certificate after passing an examination. The district attorney asked that Cutner be dismissed as a witness, as he was not qualified. The judge ruled that the jury should judge of the man's qualifications. The defense gained nothing by its efforts to disqualify fingerprint evidence. (Editor--—This article of 70 years ago explains the fallacy of using measurements and the problem of self--styled experts then. Ironically, both issues have had significance in recent years.)
This article was reprinted in “THE PRINT” |