|
|
|
Poor Policy (A true story by our most regular contributor and SCAFO board member. The names have not been changed, except for Mr. McGoo.)
by THOMAS W. JONES, CLPE, SCSA, FFS Once upon a time, in the olden days before enlightenment, the Kern County Sheriff's Department, Technical Investigation Section, struggling with a half formed thought, decided on a policy of verification of all latent print examinations by a second Examiner. Good idea, as far as it goes, but lacking in scope. This story, which sounds like a cross between a soap opera and `Final Justice', began sometime in the mid--80's. Our Desert Technical Investigator (crime scene officer), Ken Nerida, who is a world class Examiner, identified a bloody palm print on a 187 vehicle. He testified to that fact in the Preliminary Hearing at the Mojave Municipal Court and then forwarded the latent to the Main Office, per policy, for the official examination and report. The T.I. who decided to perform this examination removed the latent from an envelope which had the words “right palm of.... (suspects name)” written in large print on the front of the envelope. Ignoring the note, T.I. McGoo went through the motions of examination and then had his negative findings verified by a trainee. The Detective who requested the examination, knowing the answer was “positive”, could not believe his eyes when he read the report. I was then asked by the Sergeant to do another exam to decide who was right. When I also gave a positive result, the Officer in Charge, Sgt. Grimes, hand carried the latents and exemplars to the Department of Justice in Sacramento, knowing that we might have problems in Court. The Department of Justice confirmed the positive. My next assignment was to review all of the examinations performed by McGoo, in the recent past, wherein the second opinion was that of an inexperienced examiner. Although I found some missed identifications, none made any substantial difference in the outcome of the prosecution. My findings, coupled with other personality--based problems being experienced by McGoo, eventually led to his transfer out of the T.I. Section. My review of those old cases obviously didn't go back far enough because..... In June of 1994, Detective Jim Christopherson came to my office to request a reexamination of the latents in an old case. He had been the first Patrol Officer on the scene of a double homicide in September of 1984 and the case has haunted him ever since. It was a particularly brutal murder of an elderly couple, in the course of what appeared to be a botched residential robbery. Detective Christopherson was convinced that the original suspects were, indeed, the murderers. He wanted the latents compared against those two suspects, again. I asked Sharon Pierce, our most thorough and accurate Examiner, to do the re--examination. A few days later she informed me that she had matched two of the latent prints out of the large number of latents contained on sixty--three lifter cards. I verified her findings, which placed the suspect inside the point of entry and in the den. Curiosity as to who did the original examination brought me to the service request signed by McGoo -- -- -- alone. He had, I assume, examined the latents and compared them to these suspects and then buried the incomplete service request amongst the huge number of photo requests and other service requests in the bulging case envelope. Once again, for the second time in the recorded history of the Kern County Sheriff's Department, the Department of Justice in Sacramento was asked to become involved. Marty Collins and Dusty Clark took less than two hours to verify the positive findings and complete their report. In the meantime Sharon was being congratulated and praised by the Detectives and Brass. And well meaning people were advising her as to how to handle the extremely tough trial that was bound to follow. Sharon, who has not spent a lot of time in court, and has never testified in a homicide in Superior Court, became so apprehensive and worried (about the unknown) that she stressed out. Several months later, she returned to work convinced that she could handle it. (Too bad she had never been given the opportunity to attend Bill Leo's Training Seminar on the subject of Court Testimony). One of the first Defense witnesses was, of course, McGoo. He testified that he had made the examination of the latent prints and was unable to match any to the defendant. The Defense Attorney, now confident that he could attack the latent print evidence with ease, became complaisant. He passed on several easy objections, probably because he didn't want to make a big deal out of the value of this evidence that he planned to shrug off, as he reminded the Jury that it couldn't be worth much if the Sheriff's Department “Experts” couldn't agree as to whether or not these prints were made by his client. A Defense made in heaven. Sharon tells me that her cross examination was no problem and in retrospect she wonders what all the big fuss was about. When it was my turn, and after my qualifications were accepted, the first question, without any foundation, was “Have you examined these two latent print cards?” And the second question was “Were you able to form a conclusion ?” To my complete surprise I was able to answer, “Yes, these latent prints were made by the defendant”, and there was no objection! I knew then that my suspicion was right on the mark -- -- McGoo's expert opinion was the key to their defense. The Deputy District Attorney had been given the history which I have just related to you and went directly to my role as Senior Latent Print Examiner. She asked had I ever reviewed any of McGoo's work and had I formed an opinion as to his ability as a Latent Print Examiner. I could see the light dawning on the Defense Attorney, whose objection was denied, when I answered that McGoo is incompetent as a Latent Print Examiner. The cross examination was boring and repetitive as the Defense Attorney tried to think on his feet and turn this to his advantage. His goose was cooked when (retired) Sgt. Grimes, who was there to testify in another area of the crime scene, confirmed my judgment of McGoo's abilities. By the time Marty Collins was through with his impressive testimony all hopes of pooh--poohing the latent print evidence were history. The suspect was found guilty of two counts of first degree murder with special circumstances. One of the facts about this particular case which I find mind boggling, is the appreciation being shown by the Homicide Unit for the outstanding work done by Sharon Pierce. Perhaps McGoo's performance caused them to realize that positive identification does not simply occur when their request is filled out, but rather when an experienced, well trained, examiner applies his/her abilities to the task of determination. At the time of this writing, plans are underway to host a luncheon (pizza party in the Detectives break room) in Sharon's honor, where she will be presented with a plaque to commemorate the occasion. The plaque will read: (see below). As usual the news media passed off Sharon's work without a mention of the existence of a person behind the identification. They simply said that the defendant was linked to the crime by fingerprints. P.S. We will not dwell on the number of people murdered by these two (suspected) serial killers after they were allowed to walk because an untrained, inexperienced examiner failed to obtain a second opinion by a qualified Latent Print Examiner.
[Editor --— A few additional and important thoughts that Tom shared with me. “We are all aware (or should be) of the horror that could follow a mis--or erroneous identification, but the consequences of failing to make a positive finding somehow doesn't seem so bad. I have heard too many people voice the opinion that they would rather sign it off as a negative than to take a chance on a mis--identification. There is merit to that attitude of caution, but wouldn't it be better to seek help from a more experienced examiner rather than let a serial killer walk?" Tom went on to say “I also think that we should stress the need for a second examiner of equal (if the first examiner is proficient) ability or greater. There are some small agencies out there who don't have the luxury of two examiners and you know they don't always seek a second opinion --— especially if they see it as an obvious positive or negative.” This true story should make all of us contemplate these thoughts. Thanks again Tom and on behalf of SCAFO--— Congratulations to Sharon Pierce for an outstanding job.]
This article was originally published in “THE PRINT” |