Missed Identifications-protocol/practice/procedure

[Spartacus3131]

You folks have been very helpful in my recent inquiries so here I go again.

The situation:
It has been determined/discovered/or otherwise revealed that an examiner has missed an identification. Let me be very clear that the examiner has NOT made an erroneous identification but has missed one. I am defining "missed" as one in which a subsequent examiner calls attention to the, heretofor, unidentified latent and the original examiner acknowledges that they can, in fact, identify it. If the original examiner continues to maintain that, in spite of the new information, they still cannot identify the latent I am not defining that as "missed" (although some do).

What are your protocols/practices/procedures in this type of situation?

If clarification by example is helpful, envision the following:
Ex.1 - Examiner A completes their work and submits the case to Examiner B. Examiner B identifies one that Examiner A did not and, upon returning the case, calls attention to it. Upon subsequent evaluation Examiner A, essentially, verifies Examiner B's identification. Examiner A is at a loss to explain the miss but agrees that it is, in fact, an identifcation.
Ex.2 - Similar situation except that Examiner A, upon reviewing the work before completing the case, sees an identification that he/she missed and resubmits to Examiner B who also now sees the identification.
Ex.3 - Examiner A gave an "Inconclusive" finding to a latent. A resubmission of the case (for whatever reason) is done and Examiner A changes his/her mind and says it is, in fact, an identified latent. The original "Inconclusive" was to the same subject now identified.

Thank you for reading this post and consideration of any input you choose to give.

[L.J.Steele]

I suspect whatever the protocol, you need to talk with your office's legal counsel about how to document the issue for the file to avoid creating a problem under _Brady v. Maryland_ and the prosecutor's obligation to disclose potentially exculpatory materials, which is imputed to the police and to you folks.

This is a complicated area and state laws vary, so consult your legal counsel.

[Charles Parker]

The following are the views of the author and should not be construed at the views of any organization, either government or professional. Charles Parker

First our SOP’s state that any technical error MUST be reported to the Supervisor (define what is a technical error—stating the wrong finger number to some is not a technical error – to others it is). They all must fall into a Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3 Inconsistency. Type 1 = Erroneous Identification; Type 2 = Erroneous Exclusion and Type 3 = Admin or Typo’s.

All are dealt with a Corrective Action Report (CAR) and once signed off by the supervisor, the QA Manager and the Division Manager becomes a part of the Lab Case File (which is released to all parties if the case gets filed, the DA accepts the filing, and the defendant retains counsel).

For Example 1 we would consider that a Type 2 Inconsistency (missed ID or some would call an erroneous exclusion). The supervisor would complete a Corrective Action Report (CAR) that would give details of the miss, the root cause, and a plan of action. If it was caught before review then very little action would be taken against the LPE. If after review it would depend on the number of documented cases before and whether the miss altered the investigation or not (1 missed ID on the same surface that the LPE already made 5 ID’s to the same subject).

For Example 2 if you mean it went from LPE A to LPE B and LPE B missed it and it went back to LPE A who caught it on review and then back to LPE B to confirm. To me that is the same as Example 1 a Type 2 Inconsistency, just more drawn out and now it was caught after review so LPE B is going to be added to the Corrective Action Report.

For Example 3 I would not call that a technical error. They are just upgrading their own conclusion which now has to go through a verification – unless your also verify your inconclusive?

“If the original examiner continues to maintain that, in spite of the new information, they still cannot identify the latent I am not defining that as "missed" (although some do).”

What do you call it? In that situation it has moved from a conference to a conflict. How do you resolve conflicts?