To count or not to count...why is it a question?

[antonroland]

Hello everyone

I see, with interest, the clear division that comes through in some posts regarding counting points or not.

Down here we go to court with comparative charts with both the crime scene latent and the known exemplar enlarged approximately 3x. Now, we mark out Level 2 minutiae, my trademark number 13 by the way, but what really interests me is how comparison charts for court is made if "points" (yes, features, characteristics, minutiae, Galton details, Level 2 or whatever we want to call them) are not marked out?

Are there any folks on here who go to court with projectors and similar presentation systems? If so, do you still hand any documentation in as part of your evidence or not?

Does the courts accept fingerprint evidence purely on oral evidence?

Very curious to know.

[R J Hillman]

Hi Antonroland

Here in the USA it depends on what court jusisdiction you are in. I can't speek for the other areas, but where I am from we don't present charts or photographic enlargements in court. The last time I used a chart in court was about 1994. There is nothing preventing one of the attorneys from asking for one, but they don't. It is all oral evidence.

[antonroland]

Hello and thanks for the response.

Would you mind telling me how you explain your finding? Surely not simply "It is him, your Honour"?

The reason I am asking this is that, as said, down here we do present a comparison chart along with some other documents. We will probably continue doing so for a while to come but that is as much as I am at liberty to say on a public forum

Yes, we have the multimedia toys at our disposal for use where and when necessary but ultimately them paper documents still need to go in and as such we show minutiae. I can only speak for myself when I say that the court is comprehensively informed about all other aspects regarding the conclusion and then there is SOP v reality...

Have a great day everyone!

[Neville]

Hi Antonroland

Check out your private messages.

There are a few here in NZ I think who still cling to their Charts as they scurry off to court. But even the 5 ex SAP experts do not tend to use them, well at least when I last enquired. I suppose you could always letter them from A to L, I knew someone who use to do that, not sure how he introduced it into court but it helped him get over the hurdle to then not taking charts. We here in NZ were less regimented in our approach to life in general though I believe the new broom is less so if you catch my drift, as the office has been taken over by SA and UK experts. Sorry guys you know that is tongue in check.

But while you are stuck with charts you must be point counting there is no way arround it.

Cheers Neville

[antonroland]

Cheers for the response, Neville!

Off to read PM

[David Fairhurst]

I'm a non-counter, but I don't see the problem with counting.
To me it's not the counting of points but the use of a predetermined, arbitrary numerical threshold that's the issue.

If you're going to make a chart you're going to need to label the features to make reference possible.
If you use numbers, they are not a count but simply labels.

[antonroland]

I'm a non-counter, but I don't see the problem with counting.
To me it's not the counting of points but the use of a predetermined, arbitrary numerical threshold that's the issue.
If you're going to make a chart you're going to need to label the features to make reference possible.
If you use numbers, they are not a count but simply labels.

Could not have said it better myself!

Thanks David!

[Ernie Hamm]

The use of ‘court charts’ is, of course, optional depending on jurisdictions and agencies. Now, it is viewed as ‘demonstrative’ evidence, not actual case evidence. That is why it is optional and not required or necessarily utilized in all instances. However, the traditional approach in jury trials is to use this form of demonstrative evidence because, well, it is expected to be introduced. This is especially in legal systems using a lot of jury style trials. In those that primarily use judges only, court charts can probably be eliminated as the judge has admitted the examiner as an expert and oral testimony is sufficient.

Anton, your trademark is “13”, and mine, early in my career, was “12” (4 on three sides) and, of course, that was the mythical number. I later dropped to nine (3 to a side) to reduce presentation time. I found I could make my ‘point’ (no pun intended) with nine. Of course, there are instances in which this format was not used because of ‘rules’ associated with the placement and positioning of numbers/letters and connectors.

Of course, the presentation platforms have advanced since I last presented testimony and I am sure the use of advanced media illustrations is being employed and I believe there have been a number of IAI presentations on the use of these visual applications. It would be interesting to know how examiners handle the illustration of ‘level 3’ (L3D) details. While L2D is pretty straight forward, L3D could be tricky with the all the variables and problems with consistency and repeatability of these characteristics. Because court charts are normally presented for jury consideration, it must be remembered that not all jurors are completely inattentive. In fact, the court chart could be the most interesting thing they have encountered during the trial and they are very intent on viewing this ‘evidence’. If a nebulous L3D association is demonstrated in association with a friction ridge, a juror may glance at an adjacent ridge formation and wonder why they are seeing a difference in its ridge structure. Such is the nature of L3D: it is of value to the trained examiner in a comparative examination, but may be difficult to illustrate, demonstrate and explain to laypersons.

In my career, I believe I always used or anticipated using a court chart. As stated, it was expected and the jury and judge (which would on occasion come down from the bench to observe) always appreciated the presentation. I would demonstrated the ‘points’ on the chart and usually sum up the presentation by stating I had demonstrated X number of characteristics, but in fact I had found X+ number of corresponding characteristics, always being a few ‘points’ under that “X+”. Not because the number of points is important, but jurors can see other uncharted features and the extra information could be welcomed.

I really enjoyed demonstrating court charts!!! There is a certain satisfaction when you observe members of the jury closely following the explanation and starting to nod in agreement/understanding. This is also when other forms of comparative examination results are demonstrated to jurors. When you finish, there should be no doubt in their minds concerning the association of the defendant with the crime scene mark.

Now, I have heard of agencies that would use a genetic court chart not involving the actual case latent/record under trial, only illustrative latent and record examples. Remember, this is demonstrative evidence and the use of such charts is only to demonstrate how the identification was effected and not related to a specific comparative examination.

BTTTP

Ernie

[antonroland]

Thank you Ernie for that comprehensive response!

It is so easy to get stuck in your own ways and I have also read on here in the past about examiners who go to court with generic charts...I guess it is this very idea of going to court without any chart that is simply too round for my square 20 odd year old methodologies...well, as long as I have been doing it 1800's style anyway!

I would love to sit in on an actual court case where a really competent examiner gives evidence on a really dicey latent without comparison chart...just to see how it is done!

I think I now begin to understand the adverse emotions to point counting too...oh well, you guys carry on, we will get to where you are today in about 50 years...

[Neville]

Hi Dave
I have no issue with point counting either unfortunately every one in the Jury and Solicitors are going to look immediately at the last number to see how many there are even if you haven't counted them they will look sum total.

Antonroland
Yes the first chart used in NZ in the early days had 40 something points marked up the last one I saw was mark A to something like L.

Ernie
Unfortunately I had a couple of very unfortunate problems that occurred to me and the use of charts. The very first time I prepared one for court I unfortunately showed my late wife and her immediate response was, but they are not the same they look nothing like being the same and immediately pointed out the differences. With great pains I tried to explain the identification to her but she could not see what I was saying she could only see what she had seen. I went off to court the next day wondering how many of the jury would see what she saw, you can imagine how I felt.

The other case many years later involved the same jury and judge hearing evidence from two FP experts both with charts (the two cases had been merged at the last minute) I was first up I got half way through my evidence and the Judge stopped me midstream and said, I do not see what this witness is describing I am taking a 10 minute break then to the prosecutor said sort this out. Of cause what had happened was the charts got swapped. The judge and jury had been given the other experts chart if I had not labelled my to images as A & B and used 1 & 2 like the other expert the case would have been tossed out.

You can see why I am so anti charts and to summarize the last 15 years as an expert giving evidence in court was without charts and I never had any problems and the number of times I was required to verbally give evidence dropped down by half.

So why would I want to do charts?

In NZ Chart are not expected to be produce, it is secondary evidence. And it could be argued that it should not be allowed in court unless requested by the court. They slow down the presentation of evidence increase the paper work (think of all those poor trees having to give up their lives for those charts, boo hoo) and take longer to create your evidence.

[Pat]

I'm a non-counter, but I don't see the problem with counting.
To me it's not the counting of points but the use of a predetermined, arbitrary numerical threshold that's the issue.

David,

I think sometime along the way, the message "No minimum number" was misunderstood by some to mean "do not count." If we are honest with ourselves, I think we do subconsciously count, at least most of us, especially on the less clear prints where there is minimal level 2 detail and it is not an easy ident. As you say, it is not the act of counting, but the use of a predetermined threshold that is the questionable practice.

As for court charts, I see my job as being in court to help the judge and/or jury understand the evidence. Therefore, if the print is a particularly nasty piece of work so that a chart would only add confusion to the process, I see it as a disservice to try and show them that way. In those cases, maybe "because I'm the expert" is the less confusing answer. On the other hand, if I have a pristine print with good contrast and minimal distortion that is easy to compare, then maybe a chart will help resolve any doubts they might have over verbal testimony alone. Also, because of the time and expense involved, for decades I worked under the policy that I would prepare a chart only when asked for one, but not as a normal practice in all cases. Of course, sometimes I would suggest to the prosecutor that he ask for one.

Cheers,
Pat