Dennis Degler wrote:The point is, I guess, would be that he was not being charged with perjury for anything he said with regard to fingerprints or fingerprint-related evidence. But he may or may not be inflating his credentials, which might be tempting to do if you've done it for years with no one questioning you about it.
In the end, when it relates to perjury the specifics almost don't matter. Perjury occurs whenever someone provides misleading information after having given an oath or affirmation stating that they will provide honest and accurate information. For reference, in Canada a charge of perjury falls under Section 131 of the Criminal Code (Misleading Justice) and I suspect most jurisdictions are quite similar.
Anyone willing to perjure themselves must be considered an unreliable source of information regardless of the nature of the information provided. The oath/affirmation is a key-stone in the judicial process. There must be trust that the witness will provide truthful information or the system cannot work. In that sense, perjury is arguably one of the most serious of offences; particularly for anyone who works as a forensic examiner.
Of course it is very important to note that a charge does not equate to proof and, at this time, there are only charges against this individual. At the same time, it may be irrelevant whether the charge is ultimately proven or not. It seems that Mr. Halterman has decided his career with the APD has reached an end. See a recent development:
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=11439065 (Nov 3) - "The Anchorage Police Department says one of its employees in the crime lab was placed on administrative leave and
has since resigned."
Jan Seaman Kelly wrote:ABFDE (independent certifying body for FDEs) and mainstream forensic document organizations require a minimum of a full time 2-year training (or, 4 year part-time training) program. This length of training is necessary due to the various aspects and tasks in forensic document examination casework.
When I trained (over 20 years ago) the RCMP training course standard was 2 years of full-time training. Officially that equated to 4000 hours of work (250 working days x 8 hours/day x 2 years). As I recall, most trainees took a little longer and went over that slightly. We did nothing other than study and work on FDE subject matters. In my present lab, it would be very unusual if the trainee completed their training in less than 3 years (full-time) simply because there is too much information to cover. Attendance at conferences and workshops is part of the work and credited as such, but it is only a very small component.
Jan Seaman Kelly wrote:The apprenticeship is not "on-the-job training" as the trainee should not be working real cases. All practicals should be prepared and mimic casework, but there has to be a known answer (ground truth).
It may be a matter of semantics but, when I was trained, it was definitely 'on-the-job training' in the sense that training was my job. I was hired to be a document examiner and the first part of the job was to become trained. I think the key is that someone training to become a document examiner should not have another job or significant duties that take the person away from their training.
I would suggest in most labs the practicals end up being a mix of tests from actual casework as well as specially prepared tests. The former are 'marked' for consistency of results relative to answer given by a trained examiner and the latter 'marked' for accuracy relative to the known ground truth. For obvious reasons, the latter type is preferable and must be emphasized but that type of test can be difficult to administer in any volume particularly as the tests need to mimic casework as much as possible. The (limited) value derived from using real casework is that the trainee gets to see and experience what actually comes in the door and, in general, there is more of this type of case available. So, in my experience I have found that most labs use a mix of both types of work to ensure the trainee gets to see and work with enough material. At the same time, trainees are not responsible for the tests drawn from casework submissions -- the work must still be done by a qualified examiner who then issues a report after appropriate peer-review.
Jan Seaman Kelly wrote:It has been a while since I have looked at the ASTM Standards, but there is a Standard on training requirements for forensic document examiners, which includes (I think) a college degree (it may include "the equivalent") and a 2 year formal training program.
Your memory is fine. The specific standard is is E2388-05 "Standard Guide for Minimum Training Requirements for Forensic Document Examiners". People may not have access to the ASTM standards and I can't make it generally available due to copyright restrictions, but I can provide a few relevant excerpts.
The requirements to become a trainee candidate include:
- # An earned baccalaureate degree or equivalent from an accredited college or university.
- # Documented successful completion of a form discrimination test.
- # Documented successful completion of a color perception test.
- # Documented successful completion of near and distant visual acuity tests with best corrected vision within six months prior to commencement of training.
The requirements to be a principal trainer include:
- # The principal trainer shall be a forensic document examiner;
- # Have successfully completed the equivalent of a minimum of 24 months full-time supervised training;
- # Have been trained in the topics of instruction in this guide (Section 7); and
- # Have at least five years of full-time post-training experience as a forensic document examiner.
- # The principal trainer should have successfully completed a course or seminar in instructor development.
- # The qualifications of any other trainers shall be approved by the principal trainer.
[As an aside, these points (the 4th in particular) might be of interest to those following the McKie thread with reference to the qualifications of the SCRO Training Officer ...]
With respect to the training course itself,
- # The training program shall be the equivalent of a minimum of 24 months full-time training under the supervision of a principal trainer.
- # The training program shall be successfully completed in a period not to exceed four years. [to deal with part-time studies]
The training course should cover all of the topics listed in the standard guide (much too lengthy to put here). All in all, the training is not trivial, easy or quick. Like Jan, I found my own training to be far more demanding than any of the university courses I ever took, including grad level. One interesting point is that the ASTM standard does not discuss the nature of any practical (hands-on) tests to be given to the trainee even though these are generally considered to be a fundamental and critical component of FDE training.
Of course, though many laboratories (especially at the Federal level) follow this standard there is no binding requirement that this standard be followed.
