Fingerprint examiner charged with perjury

[Jan Seaman Kelly]

Good morning:
My original discipline is forensic document examination. ABFDE (independent certifying body for FDEs) and mainstream forensic document organizations require a minimum of a full time 2-year training (or, 4 year part-time training) program. This length of training is necessary due to the various aspects and tasks in forensic document examination casework.
The apprenticeship is not "on-the-job training" as the trainee should not be working real cases. All practicals should be prepared and mimic casework, but there has to be a known answer (ground truth). I have two college degrees and I am more proud of surviving my FDE apprenticeship than graduating from college. The reason: the training was difficult, and, intellectually challenging.
It has been a while since I have looked at the ASTM Standards, but there is a Standard on training requirements for forensic document examiners, which includes (I think) a college degree (it may include "the equivalent") and a 2 year formal training program. The trainee can attend various workshops, but these are meant to supplement the training program, not take its place. Recognized and acceptable FDE training is one-on-one and takes at least 2 years. This is one reason why there are few agencies offering training in forensic document examination. It is a costly investment for them.

The postal inspector listed as the one who provided the training is a former forensic document examiner who completed his FDE training. Adam is a fine young man and it was our discipline's loss when he went to the Postal Inspection Service.

Hope this adds clarity to the discussion. Have a great day!
Jan

[Dennis Degler]

The point is, I guess, would be that he was not being charged with perjury for anything he said with regard to fingerprints or fingerprint-related evidence. But he may or may not be inflating his credentials, which might be tempting to do if you've done it for years with no one questioning you about it.

[rbostrum]

The point is, I guess, would be that he was not being charged with perjury for anything he said with regard to fingerprints or fingerprint-related evidence. But he may or may not be inflating his credentials, which might be tempting to do if you've done it for years with no one questioning you about it.

In the end, when it relates to perjury the specifics almost don't matter. Perjury occurs whenever someone provides misleading information after having given an oath or affirmation stating that they will provide honest and accurate information. For reference, in Canada a charge of perjury falls under Section 131 of the Criminal Code (Misleading Justice) and I suspect most jurisdictions are quite similar.

Anyone willing to perjure themselves must be considered an unreliable source of information regardless of the nature of the information provided. The oath/affirmation is a key-stone in the judicial process. There must be trust that the witness will provide truthful information or the system cannot work. In that sense, perjury is arguably one of the most serious of offences; particularly for anyone who works as a forensic examiner.

Of course it is very important to note that a charge does not equate to proof and, at this time, there are only charges against this individual. At the same time, it may be irrelevant whether the charge is ultimately proven or not. It seems that Mr. Halterman has decided his career with the APD has reached an end. See a recent development: http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=11439065 (Nov 3) - "The Anchorage Police Department says one of its employees in the crime lab was placed on administrative leave and has since resigned."

ABFDE (independent certifying body for FDEs) and mainstream forensic document organizations require a minimum of a full time 2-year training (or, 4 year part-time training) program. This length of training is necessary due to the various aspects and tasks in forensic document examination casework.

When I trained (over 20 years ago) the RCMP training course standard was 2 years of full-time training. Officially that equated to 4000 hours of work (250 working days x 8 hours/day x 2 years). As I recall, most trainees took a little longer and went over that slightly. We did nothing other than study and work on FDE subject matters. In my present lab, it would be very unusual if the trainee completed their training in less than 3 years (full-time) simply because there is too much information to cover. Attendance at conferences and workshops is part of the work and credited as such, but it is only a very small component.

The apprenticeship is not "on-the-job training" as the trainee should not be working real cases. All practicals should be prepared and mimic casework, but there has to be a known answer (ground truth).

It may be a matter of semantics but, when I was trained, it was definitely 'on-the-job training' in the sense that training was my job. I was hired to be a document examiner and the first part of the job was to become trained. I think the key is that someone training to become a document examiner should not have another job or significant duties that take the person away from their training.

I would suggest in most labs the practicals end up being a mix of tests from actual casework as well as specially prepared tests. The former are 'marked' for consistency of results relative to answer given by a trained examiner and the latter 'marked' for accuracy relative to the known ground truth. For obvious reasons, the latter type is preferable and must be emphasized but that type of test can be difficult to administer in any volume particularly as the tests need to mimic casework as much as possible. The (limited) value derived from using real casework is that the trainee gets to see and experience what actually comes in the door and, in general, there is more of this type of case available. So, in my experience I have found that most labs use a mix of both types of work to ensure the trainee gets to see and work with enough material. At the same time, trainees are not responsible for the tests drawn from casework submissions -- the work must still be done by a qualified examiner who then issues a report after appropriate peer-review.

It has been a while since I have looked at the ASTM Standards, but there is a Standard on training requirements for forensic document examiners, which includes (I think) a college degree (it may include "the equivalent") and a 2 year formal training program.

Your memory is fine. The specific standard is is E2388-05 "Standard Guide for Minimum Training Requirements for Forensic Document Examiners". People may not have access to the ASTM standards and I can't make it generally available due to copyright restrictions, but I can provide a few relevant excerpts.

The requirements to become a trainee candidate include:

• # An earned baccalaureate degree or equivalent from an accredited college or university.

• # Documented successful completion of a form discrimination test.

• # Documented successful completion of a color perception test.

• # Documented successful completion of near and distant visual acuity tests with best corrected vision within six months prior to commencement of training.

The requirements to be a principal trainer include:

• # The principal trainer shall be a forensic document examiner;

• # Have successfully completed the equivalent of a minimum of 24 months full-time supervised training;

• # Have been trained in the topics of instruction in this guide (Section 7); and

• # Have at least five years of full-time post-training experience as a forensic document examiner.

• # The principal trainer should have successfully completed a course or seminar in instructor development.

• # The qualifications of any other trainers shall be approved by the principal trainer.

[As an aside, these points (the 4th in particular) might be of interest to those following the McKie thread with reference to the qualifications of the SCRO Training Officer ...]

With respect to the training course itself,

• # The training program shall be the equivalent of a minimum of 24 months full-time training under the supervision of a principal trainer.

• # The training program shall be successfully completed in a period not to exceed four years. [to deal with part-time studies]

The training course should cover all of the topics listed in the standard guide (much too lengthy to put here). All in all, the training is not trivial, easy or quick. Like Jan, I found my own training to be far more demanding than any of the university courses I ever took, including grad level. One interesting point is that the ASTM standard does not discuss the nature of any practical (hands-on) tests to be given to the trainee even though these are generally considered to be a fundamental and critical component of FDE training.

Of course, though many laboratories (especially at the Federal level) follow this standard there is no binding requirement that this standard be followed.

[Dennis Degler]

Yes, yes, I understand what perjury is, and why it is so serious. I was not indicating that the seriousness of it was diminished just because it wasn't about fingerprints. A lie is a lie and the source is unreliable. But as far as we in this forum are concerned, this is simply a man who allegedly lied while under oath and who just happens to be a latent print examiner.

[rbostrum]

Yes, yes, I understand what perjury is, and why it is so serious. I was not indicating that the seriousness of it was diminished just because it wasn't about fingerprints. A lie is a lie and the source is unreliable. But as far as we in this forum are concerned, this is simply a man who allegedly lied while under oath and who just happens to be a latent print examiner.

Fair enough. I apologise if my comments were pedantic -- I was really just pointing out why the 'discipline' is irrelevant in the situation.

Besides, my spin on this situation would be that the fellow was, if anything, a document examiner and not a LPE at all ... 8)

[soapbox]
For what it is worth and putting aside the issue of perjury (which is rightly an matter of individual ethics), I think that FDE as a discipline has far more issues and problems with poorly trained people claiming expertise than any other forensic field. I didn't bother to comment in the recent "RG Christopher" thread (because I know essentially nothing about that fellow) but qualifications and competency as a document examiner may well be an issue with that person as well. While there is good information to guide people in assessing competency (such as the ASTM standards), all too often that info is ignored or overlooked. Not that ASTM standards are a panacea by any stretch of the imagination but they are a good starting point for this type of discussion or for the cross-examination of persons professing certain skills.
[/soapbox]

[George Reis]

Does anyone have any updates on this?

George

[rbostrum]

Does anyone have any updates on this?

George

The following was recently posted to the International Document Examiner's mailing list (docexam-l) by Karen Runyon. I thought people might find it interesting as a follow-up on this matter. In particular, the court has requested input in the form of victim impact statements should anyone be inclined to comment about the situation.

I don't seem to be able to upload the attachments that Karen mentions in her post. If anyone wants them (there is one DOC file and several PDFs taking about 2.4Mb in filespace), please send me a PM request and I'll provide the documents directly.

Brent Ostrum

-----------------------------------------------------

All,

On June 7, the attached plea agreement was entered by Mr. Mark Halterman after being charged last fall with five counts of perjury.

Until October 2009, Mr. Halterman was the Anchorage Police Department latent fingerprint examiner and held IAI certification as a latent fingerprint examiner. As part of a private consulting business outside of the police department, he produced a report in an Iowa civil case in which he offered conclusions on facsimile copies of signatures. His deposition in that case led to an internal investigation resulting in the perjury charges.

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=11439065

http://alaskadispatch.com/dispatches/ne ... or-perjury

http://www.adn.com/2009/10/23/985248/fi ... -with.html

Sentencing is set for September 3 at 12:00 pm, AKST. As part of sentencing, the court is receiving impact statements. This is an opportunity to communicate the effect this behavior has on the forensic science profession and justice system. If you wish to participate in the hearing, the court will make arrangements for a conference call or appearance at sentencing. If you wish to submit a letter to the court, please address any comments or statements to:

Judge Philip R. Volland
Anchorage Superior Court
825 W. Fourth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2004

The district attorney's office and their victim witness contact would appreciate receiving a copy of any statements sent to the court. They will work with those who would like to speak at the sentencing via a conference call. Their contact information is as follows:

doug.gardner@alaska.gov
and/or
teresa.johnson@alaska.gov

Terry (Teresa) Johnson
Victim/Witness Paralegal
Juneau District Attorney's Office
teresa.johnson@alaska.gov
907-465-3647
fax 907-465-3919

I have attached materials related to the matter.

Best Regards,

Karen S. Runyon
Forensic Document Examiner
400 South Fourth Street
Suite 505
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415