Videos on how to challenge fingerprints

[Boyd Baumgartner]

A few videos out of Florida discussing how to challenge fingerprints in court based on a strategy used in Chicago.

This is probably the most comprehensive of techniques I've seen, however it still just boils down to appeals to authority, which are pretty easily disarmed if you've been involved on this board.

The first time someone brings up SWGFAST and I respond with 'Yeah, I've heard of them. I'm actually part owner of SWGFAST.org' it should be pretty comical.


Pretrial and Trial Strategies Using Fingerprints

Fingerprint Analysis

Mock Fingerprint Cross-Examination


Edit: update to reflect more than just I contribute to the ownership of SWGFAST.org

[Shane Turnidge]

I think this was pretty much inevitable.
Friction ridge science has developed to a point where people who are fully trained to competency and who are in fact, competent practitioners, can adapt and function in this new arena. The people who are either new or not trained to competency are the ones that are going to have difficulty with these kinds of challenges.
I hope training institutions and LE agencies take this approach seriously. Court records tend to be lasting and sometimes damning. These records can be used in perpetuity against a forensic practitioner so it is important to speak to truth and to get testimony right the first time.

Shane Turnidge

[Dr. Borracho]

I think this was pretty much inevitable. . . . . Court records tend to be lasting and sometimes damning. These records can be used in perpetuity against a forensic practitioner so it is important to speak to truth and to get testimony right the first time.

Not just court records. One defense attorney showed up in court prepared for cross examination with a three ring binder of every post I had ever made on this chat board. He had lines highlighted and had composed questions on them. Luckily, my memory was working well and I could put every statement back into context for the discussion in which I had made it, some of them years earlier. Expect them to visit your Facebook page, Twitter, Instagram, or whatever they can finagle their way into. No sense whining about it. It's all fair game. So be careful.

[ER]

This would be a challenging cross even for examiners prepared with the latest data. I'd highly recommend that examiners watch through all 3 videos and think through how they would answer each question. How would you convince the jury that the differences pointed out by the defense attorney aren't problematic? How would you divert the line of questioning from focusing on endings vs. bifurcations? How would you use the newest research to make the defense attorney look as foolish as we know these questions are? The hardest part is that he knows that the questions are BS and he knows that the ID's are real and accurate. We currently don't have to worry about defense experts pointing out ridiculous "differences" because they would immediately get de-certified. What if defense attorneys learn enough about comparisons where they could do the same thing. They would just be zealously defending their client and wouldn't have to face de-certification or any other challenge from the forensic community. They could just fall back on, "I'm just a lawyer. I'm not a scientist." But then sound really convincing in front of a jury.

We totally should be able to handle this, but we haven't had to practice against this type of defense much, if at all, before.

[Shane Turnidge]

Eric, this is why I really believe the day's of the two week fingerprint course are over.
Nobody with that level of training, certified or not, will be able to effectively challenge these arguments. It's time that agencies worldwide start investing in their personnel and reconsider ridiculous practices such as tenure limits and making people leave forensic units to get promoted.

Shane Turnidge

[L.J.Steele]

The hardest part is that he knows that the questions are BS and he knows that the ID's are real and accurate. We currently don't have to worry about defense experts pointing out ridiculous "differences" because they would immediately get de-certified. What if defense attorneys learn enough about comparisons where they could do the same thing. They would just be zealously defending their client and wouldn't have to face de-certification or any other challenge from the forensic community. They could just fall back on, "I'm just a lawyer. I'm not a scientist." But then sound really convincing in front of a jury.

Never attribute to malfeasance what can adequately be explained by misunderstanding. The attorney is governed by state or federal ethics rules tied to our bar license.

The ethics rules regarding candor to the tribunal permit me to test the prosecution evidence by asking you questions about your training, methods, and results, regardless of my opinion about the client's guilt. (And an opinion is all it is -- I wasn't there, I don't know whether the ID is real or accurate.) I can't knowingly put on false or perjured testimony or elicit it. The rules are a bit more grey about asking a question if I know the premise is wrong -- but I think that's also prohibited. The problem, as you say, is proving that the attorney is knowingly trying to elicit false/perjured testimony in light of confirmation bias and genuine misunderstandings about technical issues. The Supreme Court touches on false testimony in Cash v. Maxwell, 565 U.S. 1138 (2012) (look at Sotomayor's concurrence).

In sum, I wouldn't want to accuse counsel of deliberately trying to raise a false point, but I can see good-faith confusion or confirmation bias leading one to ask about things that seem obviously wrong to the expert.

[ER]

Watch the videos here. The defense literally says to the crowd that he knows enough about fingerprint comparison to know that it's an accurate ID. However, that doesn't stop him from tearing apart the ID by pointing out irrelevant differences.

I'll try to watch it again to find the exact quote.

My overall point is that LPEs need to be trained and practiced to counter this type of cross. Whether or not an attorney is allowed to do this, the expert needs to be prepared and able to counter this.

[L.J.Steele]

Watch the videos here. The defense literally says to the crowd that he knows enough about fingerprint comparison to know that it's an accurate ID. However, that doesn't stop him from tearing apart the ID by pointing out irrelevant differences.

Even if I think it's a match, I may still test training, methods, to make sure it was done properly. (The Dookhan and Farak scandals are in one of my home states, so courts are sensitized to right result, unreliable method.) Personally, I'm twitchy about raising things I feel confident are not relevant or might mislead the jury, but the contours of the ethical candor to the court rule are not as clear as I'd like.