CLPEX Chat Board

FOCUS SHIFTS TO FINGERPRINT TESTING

For months, critics of the St. Paul crime lab focused on problems in the drug testing unit. But the newly released reports raise serious concerns about how the lab handled fingerprints.

Consultants found lab employees had trouble identifying fingerprints that were anything less than pristine. Consultants found the lab mistakenly classified at least one-third of fingerprint cases reviewed as unidentifiable.

Chief Smith emphasized that consultants did not find any wrongful convictions in the fingerprint unit.

"We didn't identify any wrong people but we did miss people that we could've identified because we said the prints were not of value," Smith said.

But valuable evidence may have been lost because the lab had a policy of destroying any fingerprints it could not identify. The evidence not only could be used to catch criminals. It could also be used to clear people who are not guilty.

Chief state public defender John Stuart said the fingerprint issue is complicated.

St. Paul Police Department"That's a topic that is so new that we need to keep talking about that," Stuart said. "It is disappointing to see that the lab didn't handle fingerprints and wasn't very well trained or administered for fingerprints either."

Ramsey County Attorney John Choi said he will carefully review the fingerprint findings.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/displa ... t-reaction

Many years ago I sat on a hiring board for an entry level position that ultimately hired a subject with impressive credentials. This person had come from doing latent work in one of the largest cities in California, had attended numerous latent classes, and had qualified in court as an expert on many occasions. Since the requirements for our entry level position were 30 units of college and a valid driver's license this person sounded exceptionally good to me. In actuality this person did not work out. After hiring it was painfully obvious that this person had almost no latent skills. It was stated to me that in this person's previous job unless the latent was pristine this person was trained that the latent was unusable.

I often thought that this was just an excused given for lack of ability. Now I wonder. Are there agencies unwilling to develope latent skills for fear of misidentifications? Or are these agencies ignorant in latent identification and unwilling to change?

Many years ago I sat on a hiring board for an entry level position that ultimately hired a subject with impressive credentials. This person had come from doing latent work in one of the largest cities in California, had attended numerous latent classes, and had qualified in court as an expert on many occasions. Since the requirements for our entry level position were 30 units of college and a valid driver's license this person sounded exceptionally good to me. In actuality this person did not work out. After hiring it was painfully obvious that this person had almost no latent skills. It was stated to me that in this person's previous job unless the latent was pristine this person was trained that the latent was unusable.

I often thought that this was just an excused given for lack of ability. Now I wonder. Are there agencies unwilling to develope latent skills for fear of misidentifications? Or are these agencies ignorant in latent identification and unwilling to change?