CLPEX Chat Board

https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/0 ... type%3dcta

Article in Forensic magazine referencing a new report by American Association for the Advancement of Science. The link to the actual report is at the end of this post.

Instead of telling practitioners "what not to say" there is a reference to what we should say. Interesting that the suggested verbiage brings it back to training and experience factors. "I would not expect to see....." I thought we were supposed to stay away from what the individual practitioner "sees" or "believes"

and the statement in the article below defies logic:

"Forensic Magazine has conducted searches of case histories to find convictions based on erroneous fingerprint matching, but has not yet found an instance of such a problem. Some critics point to the two-week arrest of U.S. citizen Brandon Mayfield for the 2004 Madrid terrorist bombings as an example of the limitations of fingerprint matching (Mayfield was discovered through an error by a computer system, as well as mistakes by FBI examiners. But he was cleared long before prosecutors could build a case against him)."

What about Mr Dandridge, Ms Lana Canan and others who have been incarcerated for years as a result of mistakes? Do those cases not show up in a search?

Here is the link to the actual paper

https://mcmprodaaas.s3.amazonaws.com/s3 ... b66L5cLdlb

Bill Schade wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:40 am"Forensic Magazine has conducted searches of case histories to find convictions based on erroneous fingerprint matching, but has not yet found an instance of such a problem.

Simon Cole's latest published article references over 20 cases. Somebody needs to do their "due diligence" before they publish foolish errors.

I read the paper the article is based on, and didn't really find anything new or groundbreaking. It just comes across as grant funded people making a case for more grant funding. The problem with all the statistical discussion, is that it's really coming across more as a political answer to a scientific question with judicial implications. The point being, that it is serving too many masters and as a result satisfies none of them.

I just came across a series of New York state appellate decisions reversing where a prosecutor overstates DNA evidence. Haven't seen a fingerprint counterpart, but it is good to see the Courts taking more seriously the language used by experts.

See People v. Wright, 25 NY3d 769 (2015),2015 WL 210294, 2015 NY Slip Op 05621 (prosecutorial misconduct when prosecutor mis-stated DNA evidence to persuade the jury that the DNA established that defendant had committed offense, when the evidence did not, and could not, dispositively establish his guilt). See People v. Rozier, 143 A.D.3d 1258, 39 N.Y.S.3d 340 (2016) (prosecutor grossly exaggerated the DNA evidence as overwhelming proof); People v. Jones, 134 A.D.3d 1588 (2015) (“most egregiously, given that ‘the potential danger posed to defendant when DNA evidence is presented as dispositive of guilt is by now obvious,’ the prosecutor engaged in misconduct when she mischaracterized and overstated the probative value of the DNA evidence in this case”)

I'm still looking for appellate material about experts giving off-the-cuff opinions about evidence on the stand that is not in their reports.