Statistics, Ridgeology and ACE-V Course

[Michele]

Now for the examiner in the case... well, that's another story. And unfortunately an unexpected and fairly concerning one. Bottom line, let say that I experienced first hand why SWGFAST, the IAI and other leaders in the community are fighting for better training, for continuing education, for competency and proficiency testing, for more stringent standards, etc.

Cedric,

You insinuated the examiners testimony wasn’t the best. How so? Was it knowledge based or just not being as comfortable as you and Glenn at public speaking? If the examiner was nervous to be involved in a Frye Hearing and have numerous examiners watching, I think we can all understand and make allowances for that. Perhaps it was what the examiner said? We all have different ideas and philosophies, some might say they individualized while others say this can’t be done. Some might say ace-v has been validated while others would say this can’t be done. Some might say that an examiners training and experience are considered data while others might not agree. Some might exclude to all others (as in current SWG documents) while others say this can’t be done. Some might say that fingerprints haven’t been proven to be unique while others would explain this differently. It should be obvious to all of us that we all have different ideas. Consequently, it would be vital (when multiple experts are testifying in the same hearing) that there be an abundance of preparation weeks, if not months, prior to the hearing to make sure everyone is on the same page.

Having said that, when you and Glenn were asked to be involved in the case, did anyone tell the prosecutor that all experts have different philosophies and multiple people testifying could be damaging to a case? Or was it more important to get testimony regarding statistics on the record, so nobody mentioned this to the prosecutor? If the prosecutor had been aware that we all do things differently and have different thoughts then perhaps he/she would have made sure there was plenty of pre-hearing meetings. Isn’t it ‘testimony 101’ that an attorney should know how an expert is going to answer prior to asking a question? If the testimony was an unexpected surprise to anyone directly involved in the case, doesn’t that mean there was a huge deficiency in communication between the experts and between the experts and the prosecutor?

How much time was spent making sure all people testifying were on the same page (how many meetings and how many hours)?

[Cedric]

I guess we'll have to discuss again, when the transcript will be available, whether or not better communication would have made up for all the other shortcomings.

[Michele]

Cedric,

For me, transcripts give a lot of insight but they aren't the entire picture. Reading the transcripts might help show if something was stated that was clearly wrong but it's possible that it could have been prevented with good preparation.

If you read some of my transcripts you'd see that I've made a lot of statements that could be considered wrong. Just by reading the transcript it could look like I'm an idiot when, in some cases, I just interpreted the question differently than it was intended. In other cases, I gave answers that were very limited. I've been asked, 'why didn't you say....?' In that case, I thought the prosecutor was going to give me some follow up questions. When he didn't, by reading the transcript it looks like my answer was so basic that I didn't know more information.