CLPEX Chat Board

I would like to get some others feedback on how to respond to the question in court "How can you be sure that you didnt make a mistake like the FBI examiners made in the Madrid case?"

Haven't seen it done in a transcript to date.

Some thoughts (and this isn't legal advice)

"Sure" is a tough word. I can be confident that I've done my best in a case to research the issues, draft the paperwork, and represent my client well. Can I be "sure" I didn't miss something? No. I can say that I think a mistake is very unlikel. I can describe my method of review to reduce the odds of an ommission. But a mistake is always possible.

You might want to start by saying this isn't a "yes/no" kind of question and you'll need to explain your answer. (And you'll want to be familiar with the Stacey report on why the FBI thinks it erred.)

Stacey talks about bias created in the original examiner from the AFIS match. (Presumably it had info about Mayfield's alleged ties to Muslim groups.) Did you have any information about the suspect that might have created a subconscious bias at the time you made the match? If no, then that eliminates most of the Mayfield problems.

Stacey talks about the inherent pressures of a high-profile case? Is your case high-profile or routine? If it was high-profile, did you feel you were under any pressure to produce a specific result or a quick result? If no, then you've eliminated that Mayfield problem.

Stacey talks about tunnel vision -- same question -- how did this suspect come to your attention? Did you consider other suspects?

Stacey talks about the culture of the FBI and whether it was acceptable for an examiner to disagree with another examiner. Do you have that culture in your lab? (If so, this may be a problem your lab needs to work on.) What's your relationship with any other examiner who worked on this case -- more trained/less trained, supervisor, friend? -- is there anything about that person that would make you more likely to defer to him or her rather than reach your own conclusion?

What did the ACE-V verifier know about the case and who made the match when he/she verified? Is there a potential that the verifier was biased?

(You may need to work with the prosecutor to be able to answer this fully in re-direct.)

My answer is that I am familiar with that and other errors, and I have studied the available information about those cases and am satisfied that they were the result of one or more preventable failures. I am prepared to demonstrate to anyone, including other experts, how I reached my conclusions and how I made all observations and decisions that led to that conclusion. Although I did submit the impressions to another examiner for a second, independent examination, as required by established procedure, I am absolutely confident in my conclusion from an analysis of the print impressions alone, independent of any other facts and circumstances in the case.

If they wish to pursue a further discussion of that or other errors, I'm prepared to discuss them.

Guest,
I agree with Lisa and Gerald. Here is another possible way to answer.

While individualizing and identifying individuals following the ACE-V methodology, it is my responsibility to understand why mistakes were made in past cases so I do not make the same type of mistake. Training, awareness, and understanding of other mistakes such as the FBI, helps me be aware of possible pitfalls and how to prevent it from happening. I am confident that another qualified examiner would come to the same conclusion as I have.

Ms Steele--

Do you have a link or place to find the Stacey report? I have read several post mortems on the issue, but don't recall one referenced as the Stacey report.

Thanks to all for the input.

Stacey, A Report on the Erroneous Fingerprint Individualization in the Madrid Train Bombing Case, 54:6 J. Forensic Identification 706 (2004).

As it is an FBI report, published, and widely-available, I'd tend to use it for explanations over discussions and presentations at CLEs and conferneces.

It's also available on the web.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/ ... report.htm

I remembered this topic line while reading todays detail and wanted to get others feedback.

I did not cover in my training any of the cases Simon Cole mentioned in his article. I have studied a few since, the bigger profile cases such as Mayfield, McKie, Cowans. Do most examiners out there know the details of the other cases that Mr. Cole mentioned?

Also, I would assume that in all of these bad ID cases there were not outside pressures, bias, etc. And there are several (6-10 I didnt count) IAI certified examiners.

There are those who are involved in research that would say this is anecdotal and has no real meaning scientifically or other wise.

You could also speak to the nature of the latent print in your case, being sure to include comments about clarity and the amount of information available in your print.

By speaking about the latent in your case, you will re-focus the courts' attention to the matter at hand.

HIH

Shane