|
|
|
WAR STORIES
by WILLIAM F. LEO At the January SCAFO Executive Board Meeting Lou Herbert remarked that since the new “three strikes” law went into effect he had seen a major increase in his court time, testifying to the comparison of “prior packages”. Del Freeman also made note that he has had an increase in his private practice checking prior conviction prints for the defense. It seems the bad guys and their attorneys find 25 to life offensive. The new law has also kept us busy at the L. A. Sheriff's Crime Lab and this discussion reminded me of a recent “priors” case I had at Pomona Court. I arrived at court and met with the D.A. who provided me with a Department of Corrections Records package with a copy of a ten print card included. After determining that the card was suitable for comparison, I contacted the bailiff to arrange to print the defendant in lock--up. After printing the defendant I found a quiet witness room to make the comparison. I strongly believe it is in our profession's best interest not to make comparisons in the courtroom or a public hallway. At this point a routine prior comparison became unusual. The clearest prints on the Department of Corrections exemplar were the right thumb and right index finger. They did not match the inked prints I had just obtained from the defendant. The right middle, ring, and little fingers also did not match the defendant's prints. On further examination, all the fingers on the left hand were the same as the defendant. The right middle and ring were the same print and were identified to the left index finger of the defendant. The right thumb, index, and middle fingers were not those of the defendant. This information was first explained to the D.A. and then to the defense attorney in the presence of the judge prior to the court going back into session. After the court was in session and the jury seated, I was called to the witness stand to explain my conclusions. When asked by the judge how this could happen, I explained that some convicts understand that by placing the wrong fingers in the boxes of a fingerprint card, the classification would change and could result in a failed search for prior records. I further explained that it is my understanding that it is not uncommon in some prisons to have prisoners do the fingerprinting of other prisoners. They may have conspired to place someone else's prints in some of the boxes of the print card to confuse us. However, on direct examination, it was made clear that at least some of the prints appearing on the Department of Corrections fingerprint card were those of the defendant. The jury upheld the priors and the defendant received the sentence enhancement. (Editor--—This column will serve as a forum for readers to provide short stories from which others may learn.)
This article was originally published in “THE PRINT” |