Acosta-Roques v Holder

[Anna]

Sorry to join in so late.......just thought I would share.....
I have been having some interesting situations in federal court regarding tenprint to tenprint comparisons.
Because of what I have experienced, I now take each card and photograph them. I open each card in Photoshop and mark each finger with characteristics showing what I have used to form the identification.
I will then save the cards with the characteristics marked. I print them and take them to court with me to show that each and every fingerprint suitable for identification was compared and what I used to make the conclusion
that the fingerprints were made by the same person.
There is a story that goes behind my reasoning for this which involves the judge and the defense attorney.
It seems to have worked for me.

[ER]

Any word on developments or resolution in the Acosta-Roque case?

[josher89]

Anna,

When I perform identity confirmations using tenprints (usually deceased individuals or pen packs for habitual offenders), I usually only look at one finger (ya know, the knee bone is connected to the leg bone, the leg bone is connected to the hip bone sorta thing). There's nothing wrong with looking at all ten fingers and there's nothing with charting one. But shouldn't it be good enough for you to testify that you looked at all the fingers and determined that there were from the same individual but you only charted one to illustrate the identification? I guess I'm curious why you bring 10 charts to court.

[Anna]

Hey Josher99 !!
I thought that using one finger to explain a tenprint to tenprint identification was enough at one point. Then, I had a federal court situation that caused me to re-think my position on what was required of me during the question of whether this person was the same person on a prior arrest/conviction. The story is long and I don't want to give too many details just because.
But.......I was being questioned on each and every finger and what characteristics I used to show this was the same person. The judge also through in the question, "You do look at every finger when comparing a tenprint to tenprint?" So, my answer was to do what I said in the earlier post. My conclusion is also verified by my co-worker. It is my opinion, that tenprint to tenprint deserve the V process just as much as a latent print identification does. Also, the fact is that the tenprint to tenprint was being used to make sure the same person is being sentenced because the second conviction for this particular charge was going to be a ten year minimum. I think ? that is important to give some effort to make sure no mistakes are made during this analysis as it does effect someone's life.
And.......as far as the confirmation bias because I mark the tenprint cards........my co-worker is supplied with marked and non-marked cards for the verification process. And, I do want to be able to show whomever may ask, what it is that I used to make my identification. I thought I was providing transparency ?
All my opinion of course.........always more than one way to get to McDonald's.

[Anna]

As usual.........I didn't read your question.........do I bring ten charts to court.
No. I take photos of the tenprint cards and using photoshop I mark corresponding characteristics in each finger on each card.
I then print the tenprint cards, each containing red little dots on each finger to show that each finger was looke at to conclude the identification.
No charts, just tenprint cards with little red dots.

[ER]

This case was argued before the 9th Circuit yesterday.

The audio for this is online at

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_ ... 0000009548

[ER]

No human endeavor is ever 100% certain.

Are you 100% certain of that?

[NRivera]

No sir. I'm completely certain.

[ER]

Looks like the unpublished opinion has been published online at
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/m ... -70705.pdf

fingerprint evidence is in fact highly reliable

[kevin]

...the fingerprint examiner in this case may have been less than cautious in her testimony...

I don't see where caution should have been exercised in this case?