CLPEX Chat Board

It should also be noted that in 2007 Ivan Futrell was "censured" for testifying that a print obtained by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was fabricated. Through a technical investigation, it was proven that the print was not fabricated. A complaint was lodged against Futrell with the IAI and he was censured. He appealed the censure and it was upheld on appeal.

I applaud the IAI for correctly addressing this conduct, it goes beyond making an error, when you are disputing a correct conclusion. The attached SCAFO report of a similar case, provides a good discussion of this issue:

Report of Special Investigation
by Executive Board

(This report presents the findings of the Executive Board of the Southern California Association of Fingerprint Officers regarding the allegations made at the February 1994 meeting.)

A review was made of the prints in question and the transcripts of Mr. Elmer Lee Smith's testimony in the following four cases: United States of America vs. Manning CR--88--563--DT; California vs. Reyes A590802; California vs. Vargas A887216; and California vs. Fowler CR 56979. In all of the above cases latent print examiners testified to positive identifications, and in all four cases Mr. Smith testified that the prints were not that of the defendant.

One of the basic tenets of friction skin identification is that every area of friction skin is unique. In other words, every single identifiable print found at a crime scene could have only been made by one person. This fact has been well established through much scientific research.

When there is a differing of conclusions between two latent print examiners as to the source or origin of a latent print, one of the examiners must be in error. It is impossible for one latent print examiner to state that a print was made by one person and another examiner to establish that the print was made by someone else, without one of the examiners being wrong. This is an absolute!

Since it is physically impossible for more than one person to have the same fingerprints, opposing conclusions by latent print examiners are factually impossible and therefore unacceptable. The providing of a false conclusion by a latent print examiner in a court of law is a major problem, and if left unchecked, will discredit friction skin evidence within the criminal justice system.

When problems of this nature occur, particularly involving a member of this Association, it is our obligation as a professional organization to establish which conclusion is correct and address the problem.

The Association's review of the prints in question show all four identifications to be valid and correct. In light of this review it is clear that Mr. Smith has provided erroneous or false testimony on the stated occasions in both state and federal courts. When questioned on the witness stand during voir dire examination, he has used his status as a Past--President and member of this organization to provide credibility to his false testimony. Conduct of providing false or erroneous conclusions as testimony is unacceptable.

Mr. Smith's conduct directly violates Article 8 of our By--Laws and the purposes and objectives of this organization. The charges made against him have been found to be true. These findings of the investigation by the Executive Board were presented to the general membership at the March 5, 1994 meeting of this organization. It is the decision of the Executive Board that the membership of Mr. Elmer Lee Smith in the Southern California Association of Fingerprint Officers be revoked.


This report was originally published in “THE PRINT” 10(3), March 1994, pg 9
and has been obtained from the online library provided by the
Southern California Association of Fingerprint Officers
http://www.scafo.org

I expect there will be concerns raised in the defense bar about this incident and possibly the Futrell and Smith disciplinary actions that the IAI is more likely to discipline members for pro-defense testimony -- are there counter examples of IAI disciplining folks for misidentifying a print as a match?

L.J. Steele Wrote

are there counter examples of IAI disciplining folks for misidentifying a print as a match?

Yes there are since 1978 when the IAI LPCB was formed.

L.J.Steele wrote:-- are there counter examples of IAI disciplining folks for misidentifying a print as a match?

Ivan did NOT make an erroneous identification. He excluded the defendant, which was a technical error under the latent print certification program. I am concerned because not too many years ago, it was standard practice by many taking the certification test to write "non ident" on all of the latents they could not identify, which is FBI terminology for an exclusion. Therefor, if erroneous exclusions were permissible on the certification exam, my concern is that we would suspend an examiners certification today for making an erroneous exclusion in case work today.

RedFive wrote:There are some important unanswered questions in the article.

Lisa, my concern is whether any other examiners have been suspended for an erroneous exclusion.

I have tried to email one member of the certification board and will try others.

*Thread bump, didn't see the need to start a new thread.

For those of you that may not have caught it in this week's detail or read the decision in the Michael Smith vs US case, it was testimony from George Wynn that was ruled to have been wrongly precluded.

Here's a working link to the decision also:
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/09-cf-410_mtd-1.pdf

This makes me nervous about whether folks will be more reluctant to be defense experts. It feels like these guys are getting punished because they differed with other certified examiners and testified for the defense (making the disagreement public), then got their legs cut out from under them by a plea agreement.

Can anyone give me examples of IAI disciplining someone for their testimony for the prosecution that something was a match and either it was proven it wasn't (or inconclusive) by conflicting testimony or by a later DNA exoneration? Was there any disciplinary action in Mayfield? Cowans?

HI Lisa,

Easy answer for your question, the McKie case, two IAI members Martin Leadbetter and Peter Swann, both promoting a positive Identification of latent Y7 and both found to be in technical error. Cheers from oz Les

I am reading this thread with interest given the references being made to the IAI. What really took my eye was the following quote:

I applaud the IAI for correctly addressing this conduct, it goes beyond making an error, when you are disputing a correct conclusion.

As Les rightly pointed out two IAI members have been censured for their errors in the McKie case.

Just a thought but what power does the IAI have to ensure their members are acting accordingly?

You will probably be aware that Peter Swann is now embroiled in another controversy here in the UK by testifying under oath that a print previously matched contained so many discrepancies, which must lead to a conclusion of being erroneous.

Does the IAI have any power to get involved given it concerns one of their members who has already been censured over another case?

If the IAI received a complaint over Swann’s findings could the IAI get involved?

For any newbie’s, it is really difficult to keep these threads current and understanding what is being discussed. On September 9, 2011, L.J. Steele posted a question about IAI involvement in member discipline. However, this same question was posted by L.J. Steele on July 7, 2009 within this same thread and several responses to the question were posted.

“Taggart” posted something on September 13, 2011 while quoting a statement made by Bill Leo on July 7, 2009, again within this same thread. Of course, in the most recent posting, this “Taggart” is swinging the sights in this thread to individuals associated in the never ending saga involving SCRO and McKie.

I was more intrigued by L.J. Steele’s most recent inquiry in wanting to know if the IAI was disciplining individuals when “a match … was proven it wasn’t …by DNA exoneration”. WHAT!!! A latent examiner makes a completely valid and unquestionable identification of a defendant’s latent print, but a DNA test revealing a non-association or inconclusive association means the identification is wrong!!!! Not hardly!!! The DNA results have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the latent identification. The latent identification may be a direct link of the defendant to the crime, but that should not be a sole basis for guilt. However, a DNA non-association to a defendant should not be a reason for exoneration. All cases are different, but some of the ‘innocent’ individuals being freed by DNA testing may not be as innocent as presented.

good point Ernie

Ernie Hamm wrote:I was more intrigued by L.J. Steele’s most recent inquiry in wanting to know if the IAI was disciplining individuals when “a match … was proven it wasn’t …by DNA exoneration”. WHAT!!! A latent examiner makes a completely valid and unquestionable identification of a defendant’s latent print, but a DNA test revealing a non-association or inconclusive association means the identification is wrong!!!! Not hardly!!! The DNA results have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the latent identification. The latent identification may be a direct link of the defendant to the crime, but that should not be a sole basis for guilt. However, a DNA non-association to a defendant should not be a reason for exoneration. All cases are different, but some of the ‘innocent’ individuals being freed by DNA testing may not be as innocent as presented.

Hazards of not posting in more detail. The underlying story seems to place significance on the defendant's plea, which, like the DNA test may be unrelated to the validity of the latent print analysis. Cowans is an example of a case where the DNA exclusion led to a much more careful review of the fingerprint match, and the conclusion that the print result was an erroneous ID. While the DNA and the print are separate tests, I would expect a DNA exoneration to prompt additional scrutiny of all the inculpatory evidence -- it may stand up independently, it may not. As you say, all cases are different.

I had not read upthread to my 2009 post on this topic. Apologies for the duplication. My concern remains the transparency of the IAI complaint/investigation process and a question about whehter a complaint by a defense attorney after this sort of conflicting testimony would have received the same attention.