Around 13:00 in, she mentions using software to limit the area of search in the palm. Does anyone know if this a Case AFIS? Or maybe a Closed Search function of the GBI AFIS? It sounds more like a Case AFIS scenario.
Anyone, pretty good testimony and glad to see the Case AFIS concept introduced into court. I'll be looking around for GBI people in Reno to see if they can say anything more.
Re: Testimony from the Tara Grinstead case
Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:35 am
by josher89
I recently testified at a homicide trial where prints were developed by another agency on some evidence. I was able to make the ID pretty easily on one of the prints but the other was giving me issues. I ultimately did a closed search to the suspect and AFIS gave me the proper orientation I needed to make the ID. I testified that this closed search function of AFIS was a way to improve examiner accuracy when it came to marginal impressions. I explained that marginal are those that are suitable for identification but there are limited contextual clues about the impression that make it difficult to 'find' (orientation anatomical source, etc.). I never got questioned any further other than how it worked. I was expecting to get filleted by the defense counsel for not being a good examiner and how could I allow a computer to find it for me when I had suspect information but he had other things to talk about (NAS report, PCAST report, Miami-Dade, etc.) that took up more time.