|
|
|
Perspectives (The following paper was presented at the February 8, 1997 SCAFO meeting. Thanks to our quest speaker William “Bill” Watling for the presentation and for preparing this paper.)
By WILLIAM WATLING, SR. It really is a matter of perspective on how the defense and the prosecution view a case and more importantly in our sense, the forensic evidence. As long as you have done your job well and correct, you needn't fear a review of your work by a defense 'expert'. You must keep in mind that the defense not only has a right to review what you have done, but they have a duty to do so. When I first started in law enforcement, almost thirty years ago, I was leery of anyone working for the defense who was reviewing my work. In several cases, we had defense 'experts' whom we knew were not qualified to be reviewing anything. One was a retired detective from the New York City Police Department. He rose through the ranks during the 'Serpico' days. We know what was going on in that department then. This person claimed to be an expert in just about everything, from arson scene investigations to fingerprints and even crime scene and lighting reconstruction (his words). After hearing him testify once in court and watching his performance, it was obvious he knew little about fingerprints, or anything else related to forensics. In fact as he spilled a large jar of black powder on the witness stand the prosecutor made some comment about a circus which even drew laughter from the judge. We made a few inquiries about him to his former departments and found that he was not qualified to be doing any forensic consulting work. He claimed in one court transcript to have been a member of the Army CID and a fingerprint expert for them. Upon checking his military background we found that the only contact he had with CID was when he was arrested for AWOL. His military records revealed that he had been a searchlight operator during world war II. We confronted him several times in court after this when he attempted to qualify as an expert. It didn't take long for him to get the message that we were on to him and he should move on to some other retirement vocation or at least, location. The point behind this is to know who your defense 'expert' really is. If you have done your job right and it has been verified by someone competent, you should not worry about anyone reviewing your case. If the defense hires an 'expert' who disagrees with an identification you have made, don't panic. First check the expert's qualifications. You may find that he is not qualified, as in the above example. If the defense person is qualified he/she will in all probability agree with you, assuming you have done everything correct. Herein lies the quandary. Are you correct ? I know, your first response is of course I'm correct ! I don't make mistakes when it comes to fingerprint identifications ! Stop. First question, did you have your identification verified ? No ? Well, you may have made a mistake. If you had the print verified you would have a better chance of having any mistakes caught before they were reported. You say, I don't need verification, it can't happen to me. Or, you might say yes I had the print verified. The first person I asked to look at it wouldn't verify it, but the second one did. Be careful. In the last eighteen months, I have personally seen six erroneous identifications. Most as a result of AFIS 'HITS'. Two of them made by senior examiners with twenty plus years experience and both of those verified by examiners with twenty plus years of experience. One of them was even verified by several examiners (from the same agency) with varying degrees of less experience. (That should say something about that agency or its training methods.) The problem in each instance came down to the fact that they were ignoring certain areas of the latent that didn't quite line up and making excuses for the rest of the latent. All of these latents were later compared by a panel of experts (certification board) and found to in fact be erroneous identifications. Some of the individuals involved have lost their certification. Others are in the process of losing theirs. The point here is, be very careful, especially with AFIS 'HITS". Remember, AFIS is supposed to find things that are really close. Don't ignore those areas that aren't in agreement with your 'ident'. If you have a qualified defense expert who disagrees with an identification, you need to get together and sit down and really look at the print in question. The defense expert just might be right! AFIS imposes a set of problems of its own. Livescan is another story. If you are dealing with an AFIS hit and your comparison print is a livescan card, you could have a real problem. Before you get all riled up (if you are a livescan fan), ninety percent of the time livescan does a pretty good job (pretty good being acceptable to a lot of people). The problem lies in the other ten or so percent of the time. Livescan does produce artifacts. It's plain and simple and has been proven many times over. The current livescan technology along with the current fingerprint image standard is not perfect. It is pretty good. You need to remember though, pretty good can get you in a lot of trouble in court. If your AFIS data base is currently being built with live scan prints, be very careful before calling that latent a hit. There is absolutely no doubt, in time livescan will produce images as good or better than ink. I'm sorry, but that time is not here yet. I have reviewed and tested different livescan vendors recently and though they are getting mighty close, they are not quite there. So as someone identifying fingerprints, be very careful when working with livescan prints. Things to be aware of : Always have your work verified by someone who you know is competent. The defense has a right to look at your evidence. Don't stall them, don't jerk them around. They will eventually get to look at what you have. The less you cooperate, the more it will look like you are trying to hide something, even if you are not. That may come out in court at a later time. Be extremely careful when looking at or verifying an AFIS 'HIT'. Be extremely careful when looking at or verifying any identification. Be very, very careful when looking at any livescan prints. (Think artifacts.) Make sure your report is correct in a clerical sense and that you have everything labeled properly. It gives them less to pick at.
Check out the defense expert with your contacts in their field of expertise.
They may not be as qualified as they claim. Also be aware that there are some highly qualified charlatans working for the defense. They are an entirely different problem. If you come up against one of them, give me a call. I work for the prosecution as well as the defense (depends on who calls me first in most cases). Don't be worried about a defense expert reviewing your work. It's not really a big deal, as long as you have done everything you are supposed to and have done it well. We've covered primarily fingerprints here, but these principles apply to any discipline. A legitimate defense expert is just trying to do their job and make sure that everything has been done properly and is as it appears. It really is just a matter of perspective. And don't forget, no matter how great you think you are, there is always someone out there just a little bit better (this applies to everyone in all disciplines.) Mr. Watling has worked as a latent print examiner for almost thirty years. He began his career with the Arizona Highway Patrol (later reorganized into the Arizona Department of Public Safety) where he eventually headed up the statewide latent print section. He worked as an independent consultant for a short time before being hired by the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division Forensic Laboratory from whom he took an early retirement last year. He currently works as an independent forensic consultant all over the United States and Canada. He is a Life Active member of the Parent Body of the IAI and is currently an elected member of the Board of Directors. He is also a member of several divisions of the IAI. He may be reached at 619--478--5101 or wjwatling@juno.com.
This article was originally published in “THE PRINT” |