CLPEX Chat Board

I’m curious as to how many people agree with the letter in this week’s detail.

I don’t understand how the jurors devalued certification because of the IAI’s lack of publishing a position statement. How did they come to the conclusion that the IAI was expected to have a position statement at this time? Perhaps the jurors should have been told that the IAI has to evaluate each case individually. Doing so may require a different amount of time depending on the case. This process is still going on and a position statement or the status of the examiners involved will be published when the IAI is finished with their procedures. From what I’ve seen, many examiners don’t feel like they should testify regarding this case (or any case they don’t have personal knowledge of). Because of this, when they are questioned in court they are unprepared to answer basic questions. There have been plenty of articles published about this case and if we are expected to sound like experts in our own field we need to be knowledgeable about it. The IAI can hardly be blamed for individual examiners not keeping up on one of the biggest events ever to happen in our industry.

Blind verification and agency policies: Blind Verification is a testing procedure. Sometimes it’s warranted and sometimes it’s not. The practitioner responsible for making a conclusion is the one who decides which testing procedures will be best for each different situation. I’m not in management but I’ve always thought that office policies are safety nets used to insure that practitioners do the minimum required, not to make practitioners do every step possible even when it’s not needed. My office doesn’t have a policy regarding blind verification but each examiner knows when a comparison is more subjective and in these cases they take the responsibility of having blind verification done.

Perhaps the juror’s inability to understand why latent prints weren’t found throughout the house was due to the prosecutor not asking the appropriate questions so the examiner could fully explain latent print recovery conditions. (I’m just speculating). The same could be said for the juror’s inability to understand AFIS searching. We can hardly blame the jurors when it’s our responsibility to educate them. Sometimes we are asked the correct questions so we can do this and other times we’re not.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Michele

Michele Triplett wrote: Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

One dissenter has asked that his comments be forwarded to the author for comment, passed on on this board, and appear next week via the Detail. I will do so on Monday with the reply of the author (if available). I have mentioned to him that constructive criticism and discussion of concepts get people thinking about the issues when they might normally just take someone else's opinion as their own at face value. I encourage everyone to think through this issue, read the perspective of others, and arrive at your own conclusion. That's why we have a discussion board! And I particularly think this is one of those issues where there will always remain differences of opinion... but that whoever reads of those differences of opinion will learn in the process of doing so.

Let's debate the issues!

Regarding the " Letter to the IAI RE: Certification Issues," from Ronan Shouldice, Monday July 11th, 2005.

From Criminalist / LPE / Deputy Sheriff, Paul Truedson
IAI member # 18928
Forensic Science Department
Washington County Sheriff's Office
Hillsboro, Oregon 97123-3874
paul_truedson@co.washington.or.us
503-846-2655

Dear Ronan,

For God sakes man, stop whining! The United States Constitution guarantees the right of the defense / the accused, to not only put on a vigorous defense, but the right to confront witnesses. You are a witness. An expert witness.

[Editor comment: in a separate quote, the author states "If you knew me, you would find that I do have a weird sense of humour, and even though this may come across somewhat like a cold slap in the face to some, I did not mean it in a mean-spirited way.]

You wrote in the Weekly Detail, " I have recently been in the position of having to defend my Certification in the courtroom..." So what. That's life. Every time you take the stand the defense has the right to question the evidence, every word written in your report, and every word that you utter while testifying. Did you expect anything less ? Did you not anticipate this ? Did you expect that you could hold up your Certification and not be questioned about your knowledge, training and abilities ?
( " Having worked hard to attain CLPE status, I am extremely upset by having to defend it!" ) The test you took for your Certification is merely a snapshot in time. Every time you testify you have to be qualitied on the stand as an expert witness. Bruce Lee once had a student who held the rank of black belt come whining to him after a bout, in which the student was defeated. "But you don't understand...I have a black belt, and I lost." Bruce asked him if he thought the mere act of having the belt would have made him prevail. Would it have somehow miraculously undid itself from his waist, and attack and defeat his opponent.

Don't whine to the IAI. You got beat on the stand. ( By beat, I mean you did not get your point across to the jury, and make them understand, in order to win the argument.) The reason; knowledge is fixed in time, whereas knowing is a movement. Think...react...anticipate. Before you testify you should think about the different ways the defense could attack your Certification, and how you would handle those questions. You put yourself in the position of being the quintessential " Deer in the headlights." The defense, how dare they, questioned your IAI Certification? That is their job. I guarantee that they would have questioned you if you were not certified; if you took the Certification test and did not pass it; what your score was, and/or why you did not get 100%, etc,etc...

You wrote,"Simon Cole was retained by the defense and was allowed, by a visiting judge, to testify." Okay...that's their right. Not being familiar with Simon Cole, I assume he is a latent print expert, and a latent print examiner. Which would lead me to the following questions. Did Simon Cole compare the latent palm print impression on the cashbox, with the defendants rolled inked impressions, and if so, did he agree or disagree with your positive identification ? If he agreed with your positive identification, did he author a report of his conclusions, present that to your ADA, and testify as a prosecution witness ? If he did not compare the latent impression to the inked, but was afforded the opportunity to do so, did your ADA cross examine him about that fact. Brandon Mayfield is an all too convenient smoke-screen.

The defenses options are to attack the source of the latent, the age of the latent, the science, or the examiner. It is clear which way they went.

The Brandon Mayfield case. My thought is, " Get over it!" Did you do the comparison work in that case? No. Do you always use the original evidence when you make comparisons? Yes..or you should...or your lab should have a policy in place that you do. Not having first-hand knowledge of the case, from reading the accounts of the Mayfield case, have you formed any sort of opinion? The FBI apparently used copies of original evidence to make their comparisons and identification, something that I would not be permitted to do, and they realized their mistake only after viewing the original latent impression. I believe it was in an IAI publication that I read, "If a pilot error causes an airplane to crash, that does not mean the scientific principals that explain flight are flawed." This might have been a fitting anology for you to have used on the stand.

In your letter you stated that," defense refused to stipulate to expertise and immediately initiated a line of questioning regarding the Mayfield case." Did I mention that Brandon Mayfield lives in our county ? Local reaction...if synchronized panic were an organized sport, several of our Deputy District Attorneys would be in the Olympics. I guess I'll just have to deal with it.

You wrote,"The assistant DA, who is very capable, addressed all the usual areas in the qualifications phase, including IAI Certification, and went into some detail about the difficulties in attaining CLPE and the relative few there are." And the defense did not stipulate to your expertise ? Shocking! Your DA opened a door the size of a Mack truck, and invited the defense right in. This is not a knock on the IAI, ( I am a member ) but as I understand it, any latent examiner who has X # of years on and/or college education can take the Certification test. How many thousands of examiners who are not certified, are, as of this moment, eligible to take the test? The finest latent print examiner I have ever known, retired a few years ago. He had 32 years on as an LPE. I asked him why he never took the Certification test. He told me it was for several reasons. He was nearing retirement. The county did not pay him anything extra to obtain his certification. The county would not pay for the test. The test put a limit on the amount of time each applicant could spend making the comparisons, and in actual case work, he was not under such a time restraint. The IAI used copies of latent prints in their testing, and he was not allowed to use copies in his casework. And finally, he said that the Certification would only hold so much weight on the stand, and not be the end-all of his lifelong work in the science of fingerprints.

Look above at my somewhat lengthy official title. Notice it reads LPE and not CLEP. I am not certified. I am currently eligible to take the IAI Certification examine. I think if I chose to do so, I could pass the test and obtain my certification. I have many years on, made hundreds of thousands of comparisons, testifed as an expert in Circuit Court and U.S. District Court, and have attended several latent print schools, including the old FBI advanced three week latent print examiners school at Quantico, Virginia. I can be questioned about not being certified, just as you can be questioned about being so. I think I am prepared to anticipate and answer most questions put to me on the stand.

I have only addressed the subjects in your letter that really torqued me off, although your idea that the IAI or JFI publish "any change in an examiner's Certification status," ( Gee, I wonder what that change would be, or what caused that to occur?) I find ridiculous and irresponsible. ( Also see lawsuit, if/when the publishing results in the examiner not being hired or retained by an agency in the future.) The reasons for erroneous identifications, though rare, do occur, and for different reasons, including " bookkeeping errors." An erroneous latent print identification can be a career buster. But on the other hand, some agencies discipline, re-train, or keep their examiners on, following the mistake, with certain limitations such as requiring the examiner to have multiple verifiers of their work, or not being allowed to testify to their conclusions in court.

In conclusion...the IAI is not going to take the stand with you. Don't wrap yourself in your Certification when you testify, and don't blame the IAI. Your certification is only one piece of your background, and as you know by now, everything you testify to can and will be challenged. Afterall, that is our criminal justice system, and the American way.

I also believe that you should be proud of your Certification, because you did put in your dues to attain it, and the IAI is a fine and respected body. My purpose of writing this letter was not to discourage anyone from taking the Certification test, or obtaining their Certification. I know I have exceeded the analogy limit, but I will leave you with a final one. " The mighty dragon, stranded in shallow waters, amuses the frogs."

After a brief lecture from my supervisor about my supposed "anger control problem" ( My misjudgement in having him proof read this e-mail. ) I finally end with this caveat . The opinions and views of this Criminalist are not necessarily those of the Washington County Sheriff's Office, their subsidiaries, or their employees.

Mr. Oregon, I like the way you think.

Charles Parker

Imagine that your police department has a policy of posting all disciplinary actions on the main department bulletin board. The policy is strictly enforced and the Chief's office posts embarrassing memos every time an officer screws up. Now imagine that the chief's favorite patrol officer makes a major blunder and is given days off without pay. But no embarrassing memo is posted and the disciplinary action is not well known among the troops. Now, to go a step further, imagine you are on the witness stand and a defense attorney asks you about your department's code of ethics and asks whether it is adhered to. You answer in the affirmative. Then the defense attorney, who seems to have special knowledge of the above-mentioned screw up, questions you on the ethics of a department where the Chief's favorite gets special priveleges. The confused jury, arguing over how far the ethical lapse extends, hangs and fails to render a verdict in the case. Would it be "whining" if you sent a memo up the chain of command demanding to know why this case wasn't dealt with openly the way cases in the past always have been?

There is no perfect analogy, but that is basically what appears to have happened in the suspensions or revocations of certifications of the examiners involved in the erroneous identifications in the Mayfield case. In the past, revocations or suspensions have been published in a timely manner in the JFI. However, this time, the suspensions or revocations have so far gone without any formal notification being made to the membership of the IAI. Why not? We don't know. Although the IAI Board of Directors met last month, apparently no publication will be made until later this autumn. By the scheduled time of publication arrives, the examiners whose certifications were revoked or suspended will have been eligible for retesting and recertification and theoretically could have completed that process before publication, rendering the whole idea of publication of their suspensions or revocations moot.

Maybe "politics" isn't involved, but this situation certainly smacks of it. The silence of the IAI Board of Directors and the Latent Print Certification Board does nothing to alleviate the situation. Since nothing has been published, an examiner who is proud of his certification but is ignorant of the unpublished facts has little information with which to defend the credibility of the certification program. Of course, he could just answer repeatedly, "I don't know anything about that," and end up looking really dumb. Who could blame the jury for getting confused and hanging?

I have emailed some of the members of the IAI Board of Directors and of the Latent Print Certification Board and I have phoned some of them. So far, no one has given me any reasonable explanation. Ronan Shouldice has been seeking answers for six months and has not got any, either.

I do not think it is whining to complain about this situation.

Dear Mr Truedson,

I have read, and re-read, your lengthy reaction to my letter and I have to admit that your penchant for missing the point is manifest.

Naturally, every time one of us testifies (certified or not) we expect, increasingly it seems, rigorous cross-examination and refusals to stipulate. That is as it should be, because if you are going to testify you should be prepared for any line of questioning. I happen to enjoy the challenge and am all for the maintenance of high standards, awareness of continuing challenges, and ongoing training. I am not in the habit of waving certification around in the expectation that it will make my life easier. Rather the contrary. My experience, certification, knowledge, background, training and track record are all fair game in the courtroom. Do you think I am unaware of this? Your condescending redundancies, and peculiar analogies, would suggest that you are preaching to a novice rather than an experienced examiner, and I don't appreciate it. The strident tone and finger-wagging sermonising of your correspondence would have me believe that you are more an apologist than a realist, though I expect that your writing style masks otherwise good intentions...

Your blithe interpretation of my complaint as "whining" was both insulting and juvenile.

Regarding the Brandon Mayfield case, your suggestion that we just "get over it" showcases your apparent lack of understanding of what is going on in courtrooms accross the country, and indeed worldwide.
Your ignorance of Simon Cole's role in contemporary argument in your chosen field is testimony to your cobwebbed professional standing.
Your self-congratulatory belief that you are "prepared to anticipate and answer most questions" put to you on the stand is curious. If you were asked about your professional affiliations, you would no doubt proudly proclaim your IAI membership. If you were asked about your general knowledge of the Mayfield incident, I assume you would be able to respond. I can guarantee you that if you were then asked about the reaction within the IAI, following review of all the particulars in the case, and the subsequent action taken and papers published etc..., you would not have had an answer. Nobody did.

I would agree with you on two issues only. One is the fact that the vast majority of latent examiners are not certified by the IAI. I would further agree that this in no way diminishes their ability, professionalism, or dedication. The pursuit of certification tends to be a personal choice, unless it is mandated by your Department. I understand that most Departments, including my own, do not compensate for certification, or for the study material or test fee, so many examiners do not undergo the process, and that is fine. Those of us who have taken the time to challenge ourselves, and have succeeded, deserve, at the very least, the courtesy of response from the IAI when inquiring as to their position on the Mayfield case more than ONE YEAR after the fact. (yeah, I know....'get over it'). In fact, ANY member of this organization has the right to request this information.

The second issue that provoked a nod of agreement was the wisdom of your supervisor.

If you ever "choose to" pass the certification test, you might discover that it is something worth defending, and that the IAI should feel likewise.

I wish you well, and would invite you to re-review my original letter for content and substance.

Sincerely,
Ronan Shouldice