CLPEX Chat Board

What makes some people tick anyway?

Fingerprint examiner charged with perjury

Anchorage Daily News

(10/23/09 22:23:53)
An Anchorage police latent fingerprint examiner was placed on unpaid leave Friday after being charged with five counts of perjury in connection with a personal forensic-consulting business he owns. Eagle River resident Mark Halterman, 47, was indicted Thursday on five counts of perjury for allegedly lying under oath during a deposition related to his business, Dtech Consulting Services, police said.

The business offers forensic document examination, latent print examination and crime scene analysis, according to police.

On Aug. 24, Halterman gave sworn testimony by phone on a pending case from Iowa in which he claimed to have completed more than 4,000 hours of training with a qualified document examiner, police said. He also claimed to have a completion certificate from the course, according to police. Police say those statements are not true.

Halterman is a non-sworn employee at the Anchorage Police Department, where he is a latent print examiner. Police said he does not examine documents for the department.

He is due in court to be arraigned next week.

4000 hours of training??? That seems like it is a bit inflated...

What does that come to? 500 eight-hour days of training?? So if the IAI conference or a week long training class is 40 hours then this person is in effect saying he completed 100 of those classes or something to that effect?

I don't personally know the examiner in question, nor am I familiar with his work or outside business. But I have crossed paths with document examiners as co-workers in times past. I remember one telling me that the training/apprentice program under a qualified document examiner was a full two years - which would be about 4000 hours / 500 days (365 days a year, minus weekends, holidays, vacation, etc.). But all this training should be documented somewhere...if accurate (and again, I don't know if it is or isn't). Why does APD think he perjured himself?

Darrell Klasey

Thats a good point Darrell-it could just be a two year apprenticeship . I don't know the people involved either but I would kind of view an apprenticeship as something you would apply more to work experience than it would training??? I think the IAI gives points for in-house training towards recertification and such so I might be wrong and its just the perception of it?? Thats just alot of hours to get up on the stand or phone or whatever it was(?) and quote as training time....he probably could have phrased that better.

I agree about the phrasing. I might have given an answer such as "a two-year period of training and apprenticeship under Sergeant Joe Friday, a court-qualified and board-certified forensic document examiner..." then elaborated, if asked, about the actual number of hours and the subjects studied. I think there may be a difference, too, whether one trains under a government-sponsored training program (FBI employee, etc.) or one trains in a structured program under an examiner in private practice for a fee.

The fact that his full-time day job is a fingerprint examiner is almost immaterial, and perhaps a little misleading in the press (who would have thought!). He wasn't testifying as a fingerprint witness, but does work as one for APD. And we are talking about his credibility. Perhaps we need some insight from a practicing document examiner who is familiar with their training programs.

Darrell Klasey

Years ago, examiners in the different comparative examination areas (latent prints, documents, firearms) at the US Army Criminal Investigation laboratory entered the respective training programs from field investigative duties. These were typically two-year programs of instruction and the latent print program was set forth as 104 weeks / 4,576 hours. The breakout was 3,548 hours of academic subjects (which included 1,556 hours of apprentice training) and the remaining 1,028 hours were military related, holidays and miscellaneous administrative commitments. The required hours in the subject areas, from Introduction to Court Room Testimony, were set forth line-by-line.

While 4,000 hours can seem somewhat overwhelming, there are documented training programs of this magnitude.

Ernie-I think those old government 612 forms had a breakdown by hours for work and training??

Not sure about a Form 612? My numbers come from a 1972 (mine was a few years earlier) Program of Instruction, US Army Military Police School, Fort Gordon, Georgia.

I can remember filling one of those out a long time ago and having to quantify my work by hours, which i thought was kind of strange but in light of this it makes a little more sense....

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/news/1-ne ... or-perjury

Print expert fingered for perjury
Joshua Saul
Nov 1, 2009

An Anchorage fingerprint expert was charged last month with perjury, an event some defense attorneys say might have serious implications for the cases he worked on.
Mark Halterman works for the Anchorage Police Department as a fingerprint examiner and also runs his own forensic laboratory, Dtech Consulting Services. In late August, while being deposed under oath as an expert witness in an Iowa estate settlement, Halterman claimed to have completed extensive training in document review. An APD investigation, prompted by a call from an attorney involved in the Iowa case, revealed that Halterman did not have the training he'd allegedly claimed to have, and an Anchorage grand jury indicted Halterman on Oct. 22.
According to the indictment, Halterman lied in the deposition about the extent of his document review training and experience, falsely claiming that he has completed extensive training and certification. APD put Halterman on leave without pay effective Oct. 23.
The implications of the charges could go beyond the blow to Halterman's career. Some Anchorage defense attorneys say Halterman's alleged lies raise suspicions about his testimony in criminal cases, while APD and the state Department of Law maintain that the impact on past and current cases will be minimal.
Beth Trimmer, an appeals attorney in the state's Office of Public Advocacy, is currently working on a murder appeal in which the only forensic evidence linking her client to the murder is Halterman's testimony. Trimmer said she will definitely be filing to admit Halterman's charges as new evidence; the only question is whether to do it now or to wait and see if there is a conviction.
"He's innocent until proven guilty, just like any of my clients," Trimmer said. "But it does, of course, create concern about the cases he was involved with."
The more crucial Halterman's testimony was to a case, the better the chance that an attorney could argue that the case should be overturned, said Robert Herz, a private criminal defense attorney who has been practicing for 24 years.
"It seems pretty clear to me that those convictions are in risk of being overturned," Herz said. He noted, however, that the charges stem from alleged falsehoods Halterman told about his training, and there is no accusation that Halterman faked evidence or falsified lab results.
Halterman worked in the APD lab and examined fingerprints, tire tracks, and footprints, said department spokesman Lt. Dave Parker. The nice thing about prints, he added, is that they can be handed off to another expert if there are any cases in which Halterman's work is called into question.
Halterman has worked for APD for about 12 years, Parker said, and he has done excellent print work during that time. Halterman's work in the Iowa case was for his own business, and was unrelated to his APD job.
"He was fully qualified for (his work at APD), but the problem was that he decided he was qualified for something else as well," Parker said.
Halterman, 47, was born and raised in Des Moines, Iowa. He joined the military right after high school and served in Alaska. After he got out of the military he lived in Iowa for a few years and then moved back up to Alaska, according to his statements in the deposition.
Earlier this year, Halterman was engaged as an expert witness in an Iowa estate dispute. He was asked to examine checks and other financial documents to help determine whether the estate had been mishandled. In August, while being deposed via telephone from Anchorage, Halterman said he had completed a document examiner instructional program, including over 4,000 hours of forensic document study and training, with the U.S. Postal Inspector in Anchorage.
Scott Buchanan, an attorney representing one of the parties in the estate dispute, said he had serious doubts about Halterman's qualifications after reviewing his resume. Buchanan questioned Halterman closely about his training and experience during the deposition, and contacted APD afterward with his concerns.
"Any trial attorney will tell you that the impeachment of an opposing witness is the brass ring," Buchanan said. Still, he said, "We've never gone so far as to have them indicted before."
Local criminal defense attorneys will be keeping a close eye on Halterman's case.
"This is an incredible event," said Rex Butler, a high-profile Anchorage criminal defense attorney.
In a voicemail message, Butler said he currently has a case in which Halterman is the fingerprint expert, and that these charges mean that many cases could be reviewed.
"It's going to be interesting to watch the kind of effort that goes into halting or preventing the kind of massive review that something like this might call for," he said.
Not so fast, said Rick Svobodny, deputy attorney general for the criminal division of the state Department of Law. Svobodny dismissed the idea that Halterman's alleged perjury could open up decided cases.
"In regards to past cases, there are no implications," he said.
Svobodny said he understands why defense attorneys might think this is a big deal at first blush, but like Parker, he noted that the things about which Halterman testified can be easily reviewed. It would be a historic change to the criminal justice system, he added, if behavior by a witness caused all the past cases the witness was involved in to be overturned.
"No person with any common sense would think that," he said.
Svobodny said Halterman was involved in only a few pending cases, but that for some of those his testimony must be used because he's the only expert who was present at the crime scene. Svobodny has sent out about 30 letters to attorneys working on cases in which Halterman was involved in to make sure they know about the charges.
Halterman has been charged with five counts of perjury, a class B felony. He declined to comment for this story and referred questions to his attorney, Sidney Billingslea, who did not return calls to her office.

Was this actually a "Sworn" disposition done telephonically? All the dispositions I have ever given were NOT under oath, actual swearing in not occuring till I actually got to trial. It can't be perjury unless he really was sworn in, which seems odd for a disposition to me and even more so for a telephonic one. Perhaps this is something that he stated during his telephonic interview but didn't actually mean it the way it was interpretted. Wouldn't be a first. He might very well have clarified it by the time he was in trial and actually sworn in. Is this a "Knee jerk" reaction to something which was explainable (two year plus internship, etc)? I do wonder how he would be able to do a requisite internship for documentation examination and still be fulfilling his regular duties. I had the opportunity to do an internship in documentation examination and had to pass when we lost a latent examiner and I would be needed to handle those cases. Documentation examination internship is a full time deal in and of itself without being diverted to other activities such as latent examination.

It occurred to me that Disposition would might likely (?) be different than just an Interview, which is what I normally attend and which does not involve giving sworn testimony. It still is a lot of hours, a full two year program full time, for someone also working in another full time capacity as I previously noted. Can someone clarify to me though if Disposition and Interview are indeed different, disposition being more formal in the sense it includes being sworn in? Thanks much.

Under some circumstances and under some court rules, this could well have been a deposition conducted as a conference call with the witness, and both counsels and perhaps the judge in the circuit. It is done to avoid a bunch of travel for all parties for a short proceeding and becomes an official judicial proceeding and would therefore invoke the felony perjury statute. I could well imagine this being done by phone when the only issue at the deposition was whether the xpert was acceptable, without going into the analysis. All depositions I have given were under oath, the oath being administered, either by an attorney or the court reporter - I don't recall which. The Saul story says it was sworn and taken during a suit over an estate in which he presented as a documents expert. That's a civil matter, and sworn depositions are routine, virtually always done, and would most likely have involved only the witness, the attorneys, and a reporter. A witness could also be deposed in writing by answering written questions, sometimes called an interrogatory, his signature being notarized. The product of a deposition is a full transcript, certified by the reporter. It is essentially testimony given as if it was done in court and is intended to be both a matter of discovery and to save court time and often is the basis for settling up without trial, since it usually becomes pretty apparent who would likely win.

An "interview," being interviewed by a peace officer, is a different matter. Lying then, about a material matter, constitutes a different offense, False Statement to Peace Officer, False Report, or what ever the title may be in that state. It's not the kind of official matter in which an oath is required, although many agencies take sworn (notarized) statements. Here, that false swearing is the misdemeanor variety of perjury and is rarely prosecuted, even when provable.

Kathleen Birnbaum wrote:... Can someone clarify to me though if Disposition and Interview are indeed different, disposition being more formal in the sense it includes being sworn in? ....

I lay no claim to being an attorney, however my experience in Arizona indicates there is a difference. A pre-trial interview is in many cases voluntary, comparatively informal, and may or may not be recorded. I can't recall having a pre-trial interview with a court reporter or stenographer in attendance. I have participated in interviews both by phone & in person; and with both attorneys present or only one.

Attendance/participation at formal depositions are generally required by the court. There will be an oath administered, & my recollection is that all have had both attorneys (or representative) present. Also, a court reporter/stenographer was present and/or the proceeding was recorded. The format is more formal, with questioning & answers more in line with what might be expected in court. In essence, you are giving sworn testimony.

An interview may have more of a conversational feel, with opportunity for questions by you to the attorney. In a deposition, your questions will likely be limited to issues of clarification of a question put to you, much as in court testimony.

I have given many more interviews than depositions in my career.
Regards, RLT

Depositions are sworn testimony. I am not familiar with the interview process that Kathleen describes.

George