CLPEX Chat Board

Here are two articles about the same case. The first is a defense attorney’s complaint, and the second is the judge’s decision to allow a new trial.

VISTA: Battle brewing over evidence in criminal cases
Defense attorney says prosecutors withholding information
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcou ... 49d82.html

VISTA: Judge orders new trial for failure to share evidence
Judge finds prosecutor failed to notify defense of fingerprint
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcou ... 7503c.html

The second article seems to imply that the prosecutor failed to turn over inconclusive results, stating “The judge said in his decision there was a "significant and substantial violation" of the evidence rules when the prosecutor failed to tell the defense that the inconclusive finding had been left out of the report by the forensic fingerprint expert.”

The first article makes it sound like the print was of no value to arrive at a conclusion. Stating, “On the surface, the bicycle theft case at the center of the battle is unremarkable. Experts matched six fingerprints to the defendant Kenneth Ray Bowles. But a seventh print was not clear enough to determine who it belonged to, and there was no mention of it in a report of the findings.”

I can see the confusion and it’s hard to tell from the article if the examiner determined it was inconclusive or if that’s the defense attorney’s interpretation. I’d assume if it wasn’t in the report then it wasn’t ‘a conclusion of a comparison’ but rather ‘a conclusion of the value’ of the image.

I’m just wondering if any agencies report out that there’s friction ridge detail that isn’t of value? We put this in our notes but it’s not in our report. Do other examiners feel that it should be included in reports? Is this a requirement of accreditation?

Regarding your question in the last paragraph

It has been my experience that every item of evidence examined is included in the report along with the results of the analysis and comparison.
So, yes, if an items was submitted for examination and the determination is that there was no print of value, the report would show "no value" as the result for that item.
If there is a print of value and it was compared and not yet identified, the report would indicate "not identified"
Seems only fair to show that an item was examined and what the examination revealed

We do indicate in our report if an item had value or not, but it's an overall assessment. If an item had 6 latent prints of value and 1 section of friction ridge detail that wasn't of value, then we report out that the item has value (we don't mention all the sections of that item that didn't have value). If we get a group of 10 latent print cards sent in (labeled item 1) and 4 of them had value, then our report indicates that item 1 was of value. Our notes are more specific, labeling the assessment of each card. Even so, we don't always talk about every section of every card. What if there was 1 ridge? Do you write that there was friction ridge detail that wasn't of value? What if you can't even determine if it's really friction ridge detail, do you write that the potential friction ridge detail wasn't of value? If so, it doesn't surprise me that people complain about the extra things that are required by accreditation. At some point, the term overkill seems to apply.

It appears that I misunderstood your original post but it looks like we are basically in agreement. The only thing we do differently is not group multiple items (lift) as one item in our notes or reports.
If we receive 10 lifts, they are listed as items 1-10, even if they all came from the same "object" or location.
If there are multiple "impressions" on a lift, they are listed in the "results" for that lift.

It has been my experience that every lift has "background noise" and extraneous ridges present. If there was absolutly no ridge detail present the lift would not have been made in the first place! I don't believe I have to account for every piece of ridge present on an item or lift specifically.

Impressions that cannot be identified and the whole concept of "exclusion" seem pointless to me. How does that impact the trier of fact?

If you leave a print on an object, Your touched it!

If you don't leave a print on an object, You cannot say you didn't touch it.

I agree that "overkill" and "pointless" are terms that come to mind.

Edit