(Links below and more are available in the original article)Experts and judges question the quality of fingerprint analysis by Chicago police forensics, hampering prosecutions in burglary and theft cases.
By Nicole Wetsman | March 12, 2019
Eyewitness testimony was shaky, so Cook County prosecutors relied on a fingerprint lifted from a laptop as their key evidence in the trial of a juvenile charged with robbery. The strategy did not go well.
Presiding over the 2016 case, Judge Stuart Katz ripped into the competence of Chicago police Sgt. Thurston Daniels III, the forensics expert who testified that he had matched the print to the defendant.
“He seems oblivious and doesn’t seem concerned about educating himself as to what’s going on in his own field,” Katz said before finding the youth not guilty. He added that Daniels’ shortcomings were a symptom of a much bigger problem with Chicago police and fingerprints.....
Link to problematic testimony
Link to Motion to Exclude Testimony (from a different case than the problematic testimony)
It's interesting to use this board as a time machine to go back and look at the pervasive attitudes of the time last time we discussed Illinois in the news. (yes I realize every case is different...)
After skimming the motion and the testimony, it doesn't appear any error was demonstrated to have occurred, but rather that the 'show your work and how you arrived at your answer' in both testimony and as a matter of agency policy was the issue at hand which subsequently failed to reach the burden of proof for the defendant to be found guilty.
After reading this, do you think you could adequately explain:
Some of the problems with the assertions set forth in the motion?
Your agency's SOP guidance for your conclusion?
Your methodology? Threshold for sufficiency?
Why you do/don't follow SWGFAST/OSAC/DOJ/FBI...etc?
How you stay current in the research?
Your own critiques of major publications cited as authoritative?