Erroneous Exclusions

[Jprs]

I have been researching "Erroneous exclusions" to see how agencies deal with them once one is made, documented and even entered in court. The hypothetical scenario is an exclusion was made during a print examination and that exclusion was not verified. That exclusion was later reviewed by the same examiner who changed that exclusion to an identification after a more in depth review. That new identification was peer reviewed and verified as an identification without the earlier exclusion been discussed.

How would such a scenario be dealt with in your agency?

[16_Points]

Regardless of the type of disagreement between examiner and verifier, why wouldn't you indicate the difference of opinion and subsequent resolution in your notes and move on? Or, more simply, write down what happened in your notes. What else is there to do here?

[Jprs]

Perhaps a bit more detail will help:
The developed print was compared to a suspect and that suspect excluded. Upon a later review, that same examiner realized that not only was an exclusion incorrect, they carried on and made an identification against that same suspect. That new conclusion was verified independantly by another qualified examiner.
The original exclusion was never hidden or disputed and was recorded in a report, it was not passed on to the verifier who operated independently.
The main question would be - what ramifications does that original incorrect finding of exclusion have for that original examiner?

[Boyd Baumgartner]

Is your agency only verifiying Individualizations, or am I reading your clarification incorrectly?

[Jprs]

Yes, at the time, only an identification would be verified so the original exclusion was unnoticed. On the review (by the same examiner) the exclusion went from excluded to identified. The normal verification was then done and a further review (by another agency) confirmed the new finding. Back to the original question though-are there sanctions that should be placed against the original examiner? What about future court testimony for them?

[Boyd Baumgartner]

Back to the original question though-are there sanctions that should be placed against the original examiner?

That depends on a couple factors in my opinion.

What does your agency's SOP say about it? That would be the major determining factor.
Is there analysis documentation for the latent in question so that a root cause can be determined about why the person erroneously excluded?
- Perhaps it was incorrect orientation, perhaps it was incorrect source attribution.
Is this a systemic problem? How can you determine systemic errors if you don't systematically QA the work?
- This is why I asked about only verifying individualizations.

If there is no SOP and no systematic QA, I'd say there's a shared culpability of Managment to proactively identify training issues and ensure the quality of the reports leaving the office. If you need a hypothetical consultant for your hypothetical scenario and the pay is good, I'll send you my hypothetical CV

With regards to testifying, personally I don't think that it precludes them from testifying. I'd say keep all the documentation and if a case like that goes to court and they are asked, in the name of transparency they need to get up on the stand and answer to the fact that there are two reports with differing evaluations.

Maybe you could look at the OIG report (chapter 5) on the Mayfield error to get some ideas about what types of things can be looked at in the review of an error.

http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0601/Chapter5.pdf

[Kathleen Birnbaum]

Do you normally verify for exclusion as you would for individualization? If you do (I am a firm believer that an exclusion is saying 100% that the print is NOT, just as individualization is 100% IS - both should always be verified), then perhaps your examiner meant to say "No ID" that first time and just didn't see it. Did they write down "Exclusion" when they meant to write "No ID". If you are ASCLD, then you have their protocols to follow. I would refer to your agencies policy. Personally, I would make sure that in the future, ALL Exclusions would be verified. If it was a situation that they meant to say the NO ID version, well there isn't an examiner out there who can honestly say they have never missed seeing one. It happens. Now if it happens more than every blue moon, then you have a problem and need to address it with retraining, etc. I think of the analogy of dropping a pin or a button on the floor. You search the floor where you think it fell but can't find it. The next day you walk into the room and "boom", there it is on the floor right where you thought it was. Have you gone blind? No, you just didn't see it. Not much more explanation than that. It has happened to everyone at some time, not just with fingerprints. The thing to remember is that "No ID" is different than an "Exclusion", at least for where I work. Two examiners are needed for an exclusion, but not for a "No ID". It sounds like there may be some need for review of policy and/or procedure at the very least.