Fingerprint exhibits in the jury room

[L.J.Steele]

Found these cases while doing some other research -- wondering what y'all though about whether jurors should have the actual print exhibits in the jury room.

Jury could not use a magnifying glass for impermissible purpose of comparing fingerprints, and thus trial court properly denied burglary defendant's request to allow jury to use magnifying glass that was used by People's fingerprint expert. People v. Brown (4 Dept. 2000) 277 A.D.2d 972, 716 N.Y.S.2d 540, leave to appeal denied 96 N.Y.2d 732, 722 N.Y.S.2d 799, 745 N.E.2d 1022.

Jury was properly permitted, after beginning its deliberations, to view fingerprint card containing defendant's latent fingerprint, even though both state and defense objected to publication of that card; judge specifically denied jury's request to take card back into jury room, card had been admitted into evidence, and fingerprint identification evidence was significant, as there was no eyewitness identification of defendant. State v. Lee, 1998, 128 N.C.App. 506, 495 S.E.2d 373, appeal dismissed 348 N.C. 76, 505 S.E.2d 883, review denied 505 S.E.2d 883.

Permitting jury to take fingerprint chart into jury room was not abuse of discretion, although it is better procedure not to allow exhibits into jury room which require expert interpretation. Com. v. Pitts, 301 A.2d 646, 450 Pa. 359, Sup.1973

[kevin]

and thus trial court properly denied burglary defendant's request to allow jury to use magnifying glass that was used by People's fingerprint expert

Why not? No sense in doing a comparison when the jury can take care of it.... Let em re-run some DNA and Tox samples as well

[David Fairhurst]

What if there is a latent print examiner on the jury?

If you were on jury duty, would you want to see the latent and print card to compare them yourself? Would you be allowed to?

[Tazman]

I was taught, and have always operated under the idea, that a good chart may have lines indicating 8 or 10 or 12 points, but several obvious points should be left uncharted for the jurors to find on their own. That way, when they take the chart back into the jury room with them and get to looking at it, they can find the extra points and convince themselves even more of the identification. Am I to understand from L.J.Steele that it is improper for the jurors to do that? Is it wrong for the Fingerprint Specialist to prepare the chart that way? Or just wrong for the jurors to make assumptions based on the extra points they find?

[L.J.Steele]

What if there is a latent print examiner on the jury?

If you were on jury duty, would you want to see the latent and print card to compare them yourself? Would you be allowed to?

That's an excellent question and likely varies by jurisdiction. Odds are that if you were a substantive expert in a key area, one or the other attorneys would strike you for fear that you'd do exactly that and disagree with their expert (or agree with the other side's) with no ability to cross-examine you to find out the basis for your conclusion.

If you did get to the jury, this is one you might want to ask the trial judge. (Jurors are allowed to ask the judge questions.) We've had cases where jurors find all sorts of things in exhibits -- drugs or weapons in clothing pockets, details in pictures that the parties didn't notice, etc. The judge would then call the attorneys in, sort it out, and give you an instruction which you'd be obliged under your oath as a juror to follow.

These are state decisions, binding in those states alone. In Connecticut, for example, it is not error for the jury to examine images with a magnifying glass -- State v. Wallace, 78 Conn. 677, 63 A. 448 (1906).

Part of this boils down to the jury's role as fact-finder -- they can disagree with any expert. Which is why some of the courts are forcing the firearms ID folks to start including pictures of matches so the jury has something more than the examiner's opinion about what he/she saw.

[rmcase]

I see no reason why jurors shouldn't have reproductions of the exhibit cards (photographs, scans, photocopies etc.) Even if it only serves to satisfy their own curiosity, as I would like to think that they wouldn't find anything significant without expert help.

I would have serious reservations of allowing the actual exhibit into the jury room without the supervision of the expert, as it would comprimise the inegrity and continuity of the exhibit... and if the fingerprint evidence was crucial in the case and the exhibit was accidentally or maliciously damaged then it could have serious implications for the outcome of the trial.

[Ernie Hamm]

There were a couple of times in my career in which I prepared individual reduced “charts” for each juror of the court chart being introduced and demonstrated. I do not recall there ever being an objection once it was explained that these were “true and accurate representations except for the matter of size and color”. The jurors could then have their own miniature chart, 11x14 photographs of the court chart left/right segments which usually had 16x20’s photographs of the known and questioned. The jurors were able to then follow along as the demonstration/explanation was taking place across the court room.

I do not know when or why these miniatures were prepared, but it was usually in a capital case. I do recall seeing jurors gesturing as perhaps acknowledging un-charted, but corresponding, points in the charts as I moved from one point to another in my testimony. I am sure this was of no comfort to the defense. I assume they were able to take the miniatures into the jury room, but do not know. I leave the stand and it is out of my hands.

This was back in the days of wet photography and each miniature, left and right, were individually printed, mounted to poster board and assembled. There is probably a much easier process in today’s digital world.

I believe the miniatures were also made available to the defendant and counsel.

[Neville]

Hi There
It is a very long time since the Fingerprint section in Auckland produced charts in court, must be over 20 years, but as was the policy back then we always did 6 copies of the chart for the jury. Originally we would photograph the chart with a 6x4 B&W negative using a dark green filter to enhanced the red lines then print off 10 prints, later we photocopied the chart. I do not ever remember a jury not being convinced of the identification though I am sure behind closed doors the jury talked about it. It always amazed me that we were permitted to hand out these copies of the chart (a copy of secondary evidence!), but they were accepted. Thankfully that nonsense has been eliminated and now the actual evidence is referred to only. I know that the Courts, Prosecution and Defence are happier as it speeds up the evidence.

But it is nice to read about the bad old days every now and then and grin, suckers! Guys it is time to give up the security blanket. I wonder do you still religiously mark up your twelve Galton points.

[sandra wiese]

Neville, perhaps I am misreading your post and if so, please forgive me. It sounds to me as if you are not advocating the use of charts/visual aids to assist in explaining how you reached your conclusion and instead (perhaps) are relying on the court/jurors/attorneys to just take your word for it?

[Neville]

Yep that is just about it in a nut shell.

Rather than repeat myself have a look at some of my previous posts.

[Steve Everist]

I've brought this topic up in my workshop and in an earlier post here, which brought about quite a bit of discussion (from many of those involved in this thread).

There is no exact answer to this question, because as always... it depends. If the prosecutor asks you to bring a chart of your comparison to court, then you may have to. If the defense wants you to illustrate the basis for your conclusion, then you will likely have to. Whether or not they're allowed into the jury room is out of your hands. However you can suggest that they don't get admitted, if you feel that they shouldn't be. But in most trials, you have no idea what happens after you leave the stand.

The first time I testified, I had a printed chart with arrows and numbers. There ended up being some sidebars as well as having the jury removed to discuss the chart. The defense did not want it admitted and ultimately it was not allowed to be admitted. Part of the reasoning was that it wasn't simply the evidence, but that I had added the numbers and arrows to the image. However I was allowed to use it for demonstrative purposes.

I don't know if the actual latent print and copy of the known print were allowed into the jury room.

This also brings up another thought about creating visual aids/charts for court. If we want to use them for a demonstration of the process we used, it seems that we may want to have a stock chart or presentation already created that shows the process, using a clear latent and known print. This would/could be produced prior to the case evidence being admitted and would explain the process we use in our comparisons.

And then when it comes time to discuss the actual case evidence we could discuss it and relay that the same process was applied to the case latent(s). However we may still be asked to show what we saw in the case evidence and should be prepared to do so. But what happens with those items is likely out of our control.

[Neville]

I may have slightly misslead in that I failed to say that we would normally take a plain photo enlargement of the latent sometimes with red dots on the points and some times a photo enlargement of the corresponding tenprint. Usually using the Crimcon. However the evidence refers only to the lift and the arrest set.