|
|
|
The Importance Of The Lack of Fingerprints (The following article originally appeared in the 1994 Fall issue of Scientific Sleuthing and was reprinted in the 1995 Spring issue of the Forensic Digest, a Publication of the South Florida Forensic Association.) How is it possible? It cannot be. No way! You've got to be kidding. Such are the incredulous responses of the lay public when they are told that no fingerprints were found in a much trafficked place. Assuming that fingerprints should have been discovered in a such a place, is it not therefore highly suspicious that none were found. Are we to say that the police have miscued? Or are more sinister possibilities to be whispered? In any event is not the absence of fingerprints some evidence that the accused is wrongly accused? Courtroom challenges to fingerprint evidence are few and far between and rarely successful. But one that is noted with regularity is the claim that there is an inference of innocence that accrues from the lack of evidence that the accused's fingerprints were found at the crime scene. No fingerprints, no guilt! Such is the logic of the defense. The question in the trial of Karen Thompson for her knowing possession of cocaine was not whether there was any truth in this defense logic. The issue was whether the defense could impugn the strength of the prosecution's case by demonstrating that no fingerprints were found which would incriminate Ms. Thompson.
A Drug Courier or an Unwary Mule? On its face, the case was uncomplicated and routine. Ms. Thompson, looking nervous and anxious, checked a suitcase with a curbside red cap at the Los Angeles airport. Mrs. Thompson was questioned, agreed to a search of her suitcase and showed surprise when sizeable quantities of cocaine were found inside her suitcase. When it was observed that her luggage tag gave a phony address and her grandmother's name instead of hers and that she had fifteen “ziploc” bags in her jacket pocket, she was arrested. Her one way ticket to Cleveland, purchased with cash, cemented her profile as a drug courier. At her trial Ms. Thompson posited that she was an “unwitting mule.” She said her Cleveland boyfriend had asked her to convey a suitcase full of clothes to him in Cleveland. In support of her defense she pointed to the fact that her fingerprints were not found inside the luggage carrying the cocaine. That absence of fingerprints was compelling evidence of her lack of knowledge that the suitcase contained cocaine, she urged. Not only was the absence of fingerprints asserted as proof of her innocence but the failure of the police to screen for fingerprints inside the luggage was said to be indicative of police misconduct, either directed at Ms. Thompson or just a pattern of lackadaisical behavior. The jury was so bemused by this defense argument that it could not agree, resulting in a hung jury. Before the second trial the prosecutor moved to prohibit the defense from rerunning the issue of the absence of fingerprints at the retrial. The court granted the prosecutor's request. At the ensuing trial Ms. Thompson was found guilty. The 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has now reversed this verdict of guilt. The Lack of Fingerprints Was Probative of Innocence The reviewing court was convinced that the fact of the absence of fingerprints was relevant and probative evidence on the issue of Ms. Thompson's guilt or innocence. Her defense was that she had been duped by her Cleveland friend and that she did not know that the contents of the suitcase were contraband. The lack of fingerprints subverted the prosecution's case against her, if the jury sought to view it in that way. The trial judge was in error in preventing Ms. Thompson from addressing that issue. Yet to point out the lack of fingerprints is one thing and one thing is permissible to do but the defense may go no further on this issue. It cannot be argued by the defense, said the 9th Circuit Appeals Court, that the police investigative practices were negligent or that the police witnesses were rendered unworthy of belief or, most certainly, that the absence of fingerprints was attributable to purposeful behavior on the part of the police. Having given a little to and taken a little from the defense, the conviction of Ms. Thompson was overturned. U.S. v. Thompson, 1994 U.S.App. Lexis 25131 (9114194). (Ed--—This defense is a plague reaching epidemic proportions. With the 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, the epidemic will continue to spread. The only immunization or cure is effective testimony to explain the frequency and why fingerprints are not found and the lack of significance when prints are not recovered.)
This article was reprinted in “THE PRINT” |