CLPEX Chat Board

Erroneous Identification leads to a wrongful conviction.


Equal Justice Initiative Wins Release of Innocent man Wrongly Imprisoned for 20 Years
http://www.eji.org/node/1156


Does anyone know any more details about this case? After 20 years of incarceration I assume that the original examiner who testified is not active? Anyone know who was brought on as the expert consultants? I have seen conflicting stories suggesting that the latent in question was identified to the victim's son or that there were features in correspondence with the son but not enough to identify. The expert consultants also suggested that the original analyst used unreliable procedures. I find the use of "unreliable procedures" a curious choice of words. I would be interested in how the procedures were determined to be unreliable. Unreliable suggests that nearly all examiners following the same procedure would have arrived at an incorrect result. How exactly was the unreliability of the original examiner's procedure or methodology formally reported to Dandridges' attorneys?

Found this through a google search:

http://media.al.com/news_impact/other/d ... tition.pdf

it is the petition filed by the defense to have him released. I'm only on page 2, but it may have some of the information you were looking for.

Just finished reading this petition. Wow. I feel sick to my stomach on so many levels. Well worth the time to read for any examiner.

In any case, GrayMatter, I believe you will find most of your questions answered here. (Note: there is what appears to be an end to the fingerprint evidence portion of the petition around page 10 or so regarding the filing history of the defendants case, but do keep reading as it picks back up about a page later.)

I totally agree with Ms. Wiese's comment. There are "Oh So Many Problems" with that prosecution. Scary to say the least and not just because of the identification error.

Some of the highlights that I'm seeing.

- Careful around the delta. It is a pattern forced area that may contain similarities to other people.
- Exclusion to all others based on an ID is dangerous. With critics, experts, and the courts all in agreement on this, it's increasingly difficult to maintain this viewpoint.
- If someone disagrees with your ID, hear them out. Better to ask, "Could I be wrong?", than to insist, "I must be right!"
- The courts have a long way to go to clean up how they consider appeals. I blame bad law for this more than I blame bad forensics.

In another thread on this board, the following was provided: Locard’s “tripartite rule” summarized as follows [2] :

“If 8 to 12 concurring points are involved, then the case is borderline and the certainty of identity will depend on:...the sharpness of the fingerprints;...the presence of the center of the figure [core] and the triangle [delta] in the exploitable part of the print;”

Apparently, Locard placed a lot of weight on a delta.

“Exclusion to all others based on an ID is dangerous.”. Isn’t that what latent print identification is, exclusion to all others? If not, should your opinion (and that is what it is, an opinion) be, “The latent print may have been made by XXXX”.

“I blame bad law for this more than I blame bad forensics”. There was a lot of bad law and investigative errors made, but the bad forensics (erroneous latent identification) was the main culprit. If that had not been exposed, the rest would not have been an issue, only seen as bad law; and the individual would remain wrongly convicted by bad forensics.

Of course, I was trained by the dinosaurs and things could be seen differently these days.

Back to the tar pit.

Isn’t that what latent print identification is, exclusion to all others?

Well, no. An identification is "the decision by an examiner that there are sufficient features in agreement to conclude that two areas of friction ridge impressions originated from the same source." That doesn't say anything about excluding everybody else.
I would further say that an exclusion is only "the decision by an examiner that there are sufficient features in disagreement to conclude that two areas of friction ridge impressions did not originate from the same source." That is, you have to actually compare something to exclude. You have to actually look at something to find sufficient disagreement. And no, I wouldn't bother comparing anyone else after I made an ID. But that's just the point. I'm "not comparing" anyone else. Very different than "EXCLUDING" everyone else.

If all the experts involved in this case had reached an erroneous ID, than sure, I'd blame forensics. But from the very beginning, there was an expert from the FBI who told the court that this ID was wrong. In my view, now it's on them.

ER wrote:

Isn’t that what latent print identification is, exclusion to all others?

Well, no. An identification is "the decision by an examiner that there are sufficient features in agreement to conclude that two areas of friction ridge impressions originated from the same source." That doesn't say anything about excluding everybody else.

Sorry, ER, but you are playing the game of semantics that the statisticians and defense attorneys with "innocents projects" have reduced us to. If you conclude that two prints originated from the same source, by implication you are concluding (and reporting, and implying in testimony) that you have excluded any other source.

Although I have stated in other threads that the "legal system" (prosecution and defense) share culpability in many of errors that come to light. I think we have to acknowledge that latent print examiners and the discipline overall were taught to stand by their identifications with 100% confidence and believed there was "zero" chance of error because the work was verified. I was part of that culture and advocated that view quite forcefully.

SO:

A print left in blood and no chance the identification was "weak" or open to second opinions. I can see why the system failed this individual.

We have come along way during my career and are still improving the "system". The resulting debate is interesting and beneficial to us all.

And I still don't like exclusions, no matter how its defined

Thank you Sandra Wiese! The petition for relief was very interesting. It answered my main question.

Did anyone notice that Dandridge wasn’t released until nearly a year after this petition was filed? A full year and a half after three latent print examiners definitively declared he was not the source. Bill Shade do you think the original trial/investigation could have been different if the State examiner had excluded Dandridge? How does this case stand-up to one of our favorite adages: absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence?

I’m going to summarize what the Petitioners believe were inadequate procedures and I’d like someone to comment whether they agree they are inadequate:
1. Not using digital comparison technology. Comparing photo print-outs or lifts is an inadequate procedure.
2. Comparing only to the suspect. Only comparing one individual “creates a risk of bias and omits a critical safeguard now known to reduce errors” (pg. 24)
3. Not comparing to individuals who touched the body. Failing to obtain elimination prints “goes against fundamental investigative procedures which are now considered standard practice” (pg. 5)
4. Reliance on a 9 point standard. (pg. 18)
5. Over-weighting features in the delta (pg. 18)
6. Authoring a report that contained only conclusions; which did not include interpretive process. (pg. 18)
7. Failing to preserve crime scene prints for future examination (pg. 18)

Reading page 17 foot note 10 it is apparent that Mr. Dandridge’s attorneys HAD to claim Ron Smith and Associates used new procedures, because during the original trial a defense expert testified that Dandridge was excluded as the source. So Ron Smith’s experts concluding Dandridge was excluded wasn’t new evidence. Like the McKie case this was just experts disagreeing. The jury chose to believe the State’s expert. The attorney’s had to claim that there was something deficient in the State’s lab procedures in order to argue this was new evidence, that the original trial was flawed and the previous habeas petitions were ineffective because the “new” evidence wasn’t known at the time. Lisa Steele- I’m hoping you’ll jump in with more here. Procedurally Dandridge was barred from an actual innocence claim based solely on the new expert’s findings because that testimony was already presented during the initial trial and was contrary to a jail-house snitch’s testimony?

I’m thinking for most scientists this is an example of frustrating clash of law and science. The conclusion of a multitude of scientists was not persuasive enough for the Court, the attorney’s had to attack the procedures and the methodology used by the original analyst to reach her conclusion. Anyone notice a curious lack of discussion on verification? I am going to assume the ID got verified.

[quote="GrayMatter"]
Bill Shade do you think the original trial/investigation could have been different if the State examiner had excluded Dandridge? How does this case stand-up to one of our favorite adages: absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence?


I think the trial/investigation should have been different if the State examiner had "not identified" Mr Dandridge. The wrongful conviction seems to be based on an erroneous fingerprint identification alone.

And although we have not seen the bloody impression in this case, I would suggest that if it was of such poor quality that it "fooled" an experienced examiner into making an identification, then it was unlikely that they would have excluded Mr Dandridge. It would have been inconclusive.

LPE123,

This is not just a game of semantics. This distinction is vitally important for our field to move forward in becoming more accurate and more transparent. The above listed definitions of identification and exclusion come from the most current and widely accepted latent print body in the country. It is supported by the IAI, SWGFAST, and a majority of practitioners in the field. Judges are now precluding examiners from saying that an ID = the exclusion of all others. And rightly so, because it absolutely does not mean that.

An exclusion only results after sufficient disagreement is observed. Identifying a print to one person does not guarantee that sufficient disagreement will be observed between that latent and every other person. Even if the latent is amazingly complete and clear, it is impossible to make observations of "all others".

The only way to stand behind and continue to support excluding every finger in the world after identifying one person is to reject the current definitions of these terms.


And just to answer the responses that i know I'm gonna get...
Yes, I believe in uniqueness and permanence. No, I generally don't keep comparing other people after I make an ID. No, this does not contradict anything else I previously said.

Here's the difference:

The latent print was identified to Jones and excluded to every other possible finger ever.

vs.

The latent print was identified to Jones. I would have to actually compare other people to exclude them.

Is switching to the second option REALLY that big a deal? Especially with no group supporting the first one anymore?

GrayMatter wrote: Lisa Steele- I’m hoping you’ll jump in with more here.

Sorry folks, I'd been away for the weekend and then shoveling out my desk. Habeas a hard area and I don't know much about Alabama procedure. The Courts have a whole series of rules that are designed to protect the finality of the original court decision, whatever that was. I don't know if anyone else read the Supreme Court's recent decision in Maryland v. Kulbicki, 577 U. S. ____ (2015), where the Court overturned a habeas petition finding trial counsel ineffective where the conviction rested on Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis. The Court found that even though the National Academy of Sciences found CBLA to be problematic, trial counsel was not ineffective for not knowing about its problems in 1993 and so the conviction stands. I find the Courts' focus on this sort of procedural minutia over the substance of, in light of what we know about the field is the conviction still reliable, concerning. I know the Courts don't want to open up hundreds, perhaps thousands of cases, when they are based on what was once well-accepted science, but is expediency worth the potential injustice?

GrayMatter wrote:Did anyone notice that Dandridge wasn’t released until nearly a year after this petition was filed? A full year and a half after three latent print examiners definitively declared he was not the source.

I suspect the problem was the prosecutors -- they could have conceded the mistake and let the guy go when the examiners' report came in.

We get into the discussion of newly discovered evidence vs. ineffective assistance based on information at the time in habeas frequently. Usually it is argued in the alternative -- if I have an expert look at a print and find it isn't the defendant, then either trial counsel was ineffective for not consulting an expert at the time and getting the same result, or it is newly discovered (based on changes in the field) evidence for actual innocence.

For attorneys, the clash between the law and science is frustrating too! There's a forehead shaped dent in my desk that gets deeper every year when I read appellate briefs and opinions about various technical matters -- how guns work, how to interpret forensics, whether psychological research into eyewitness ID is a real science, and so on. Part of the problem is the cold dead hand of precedent -- take a look at the recent Colorado case of People v. Theus-Roberts, 2015 WL 1656392 (Colo.App. 3/2015) where the concurring judge writes that his court is bound by Colorado Supreme Court cases from 1973 and 1990 on eyewitness ID, but suggests that perhaps the issue should be revisited in light of developments over the past quarter-century and more.

This might be digressing somewhat, but when does, or can, a judge make a decision that will affect case law? Does it have to go to the USSC for case law to be set? Or, can a judge make a ruling and have that ruling be the new precedent? Something I've always wondered and maybe Ms. Steele would be able to give some insight into this. If this is better for another thread or chat board, I'm open to asking it there.

But from the very beginning, there was an expert from the FBI who told the court that this ID was wrong.

I'm with Eric on this one. There were examiners in disagreement from the get go - did the IAI ever review this? Was the original examiner who made the bum ID a member and/or certified?