CLPEX Chat Board

My command is requesting that we set a "point" standard or guideline, because the state attorney's office and our CI detectives feel that we need one in order to add strength to our testimony (ACE-V in their opinion is insufficient!). It is our concensus that the SA's need to ask us the correct line of questioning and re-direct if/when the defense brings up this issue.

I am aware that there is "no pre-determined minimum # of friction ridge features" and I have been fighting this issue; I am curious as to what are other agencies doing?

because the state attorney's office and our CI detectives feel that we need one in order to add strength to our testimony

This reminds me of a conversation that I had with a DA in a pretrial conference before a homicide trial. She asked me how many points I was able to match between the prints and I responded that I didn't know the exact count but it was a sufficient amount for an individualization.

She was amazed that I didn't count points and asked me something along the lines of "if you dont count your points how do you know which id's are your best ones?" I told her that there aren't differing degrees of individuality, an id with 10 "points" is just as valid as an id with 30 "points" providing that they are true and correct id's. After a 30 minute conversation about this topic, she still wasn't very happy but realized that I wasn't about to become a point counter just for her. Hopefully, you can prevail in your troubles.

I am aware that there is "no pre-determined minimum # of friction ridge features" and I have been fighting this issue; I am curious as to what are other agencies doing?

Hopefully other agencies are allowing their examiners to determine a threshold that is based on the individual examiners comfort level and experience, not a pre-determined number.

[/point counting soapbox off]

When I was being trained in fingerprint comparisions(state crime lab), my trainer told me the "there is no set minimum number of points" line, then told me that there was an internal unwritten QA standard of 8 points. Hope that helps you, and good luck with your endeavours.

Besides the poll, you should refer your attorney's to the IAI resolution after their 3 year study in 1973; "No valid basis exists to require a predetermined number of characteristics to exist between two fingerprint impressions in order to establish positive identity."

Then further support this with the referral to the International Symposium on Fingerprint Detection and Identification, 1995, Israel Ne'urim Declaration. International participants of the symposium endorsed the IAI Standardization Committee report of 1973, but with a slight variation; "No scientific basis exists for requiring that a pre-determined minimum number of friction ridge features must be present in two impressions in order to establish a positive identification."
The resolution was unanimously approved by representitives of; Australia, Canada, France Holland, Hungary, Israel, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the United States of America

Graham Ford

I'm assuming your command is looking to implement a high point standard since their intent is to add strength to your testimony? I think (but I'm not sure) the examiners in the McKie Identification were under a 16 pt. criteria at the time of their identification and I think it's safe to say this didn't strengthen their ID.

It's possible that your command doesn't feel that ACE-V is sufficient because they don't understand that it's meant (in my opinion) to be used in conjunction with ridgeology and scientific concepts, not merely counting points. Maybe you could have them read the article by Robert Reneaur, JFI 53 (5), 2003 \ 531-537, that shows the importance of using other information besides just points. This article shows how many points are needed to make an ID (none). I showed the print in this article to a group of defense attorneys and not one of them questioned the identification. The best quality assurance guideline in any field is a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.

I don't think establishing an artificial safety net will strengthen your testimony. A good defense consultant may suggest that you explain how your identification is stronger by using partial information (points vs. ridgeology). They'll also ask how this point standard was determined, why you don't follow SWGFAST guidelines, and if the examiners in your office are trained in modern methodology concepts.

I realize that it's not you that needs convincing, but the management above you. I'm just trying to give you some suggestions to use in your argument. I'm not totally against administrative thresholds but they have to be worded carefully so it doesn't look like an identification above this threshold holds more weight than an identification made below the threshold.

On the other hand, maybe there’s a good basis for your command to question the sufficiency of ACE-V. If their understanding of ACE-V is just parroting the words Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification then perhaps it's not sufficient. If they understand that ACE-V, as a scientific method, has additional requirements, guidelines, or testing methods, besides just reproducing a conclusion, then they may have more faith in it. These guidelines could be extra verification, blind verification, documentation, consultation, additional processing, the use of predictions, additional tools for viewing (like computer imaging instead of a magnifier) etc. Besides using these methods on low point count identifications, their use should be promoted on any case where the conclusion could be subjective or intrinsically at risk for error (like high profile cases, low contrast identifications, high amount of distortion, latents with multiple red flags, single latent cases, single identification in a case, single identification on one object, a single ID to one person or even with newer examiners). If this is the case then perhaps your command just needs a little better understanding of why ace-v is extremely sufficient if used appropriately.

Good Luck,

ccpereira wrote:the state attorney's office and our CI detectives feel that we need (a "point" standard) ... ACE-V in their opinion is insufficient

If they persist, you could take another approach...

Tell them you feel that they need a minimum number of questions to ask all witnesses during trial, and inform them that you feel their current methodology is insufficient... that they need to standardize their practices. Of course, it's easy for them to see how each trial is different, it depends on the QUALITY of the witness, not just the QUANTITY of questions they ask. "Show me the witness" comes to mind as a potential phrase you could utilize.

Sometimes turning the tables is a beautiful thing, puts things in their perspective, and offers a way for others to see the light. You have to be careful not to do this in a cocky or arrogant way, though... they may see this as a smart-#$$@ response when the point is to achieve understanding of the issue.

Hope it goes well. Let us know what happens.

(by the way, when you post to an old thread, it automatically brings it back to the top of the forum. If this situation comes to a head and is resolved many months from now, just search the forum, find the thread, post a reply, and everyone can see all the posts again, as well as the new response)

-Kasey

To All:

Currently our DA will not accept latent print ID's with less than 8 points. Our agency does not have a minimum thresehold needed to individuilize. All the LPE here have agreed that if that does happen we will still write our report and submit it. Our feeling is that if the DA does not want to use the evidence, then that is their call. In most cases the prosecutors do not use all the witnesses anyway. In a number of cases I have made identifications where I was not called because the identification was non sequitur.

The biggest problem will be to convince your agency of a non-numerical thresehold.

I do like Michele's approach with the use of the article out of the JFI. I have used that in training, but have not used it with attorneys yet.

Something I am going to have to try.

Ask the SA how many points of identification they need to recognise their child/mother in a very public place.

Hello ccpereira,
I was wondering if you ever set up a point standard for your dept?… If so, what is it? and how was that number of points decided upon? I think you should choose a high number…find out what is the highest point standard that has ever been used ..and then add 1 to that. If the highest number is say 21..then make yours 22. This should make the DA happy. You now have the highest standard in the world.

Of course this standard may change when you send them a report on a comparison for a high priority case where the latent cannot be identified to the defendant because you only have 21 matching points. They may want you to lower the standard to 21 after that happens. Until the next case where the count is 20….I wonder how low they will want to go?

Also, if you could let me know if you have made a complete list of characteristics that are going to count as points. For example, is a "short ridge" going to count as "1" or will you count it as two "ending ridges" and give it a count of "2"? … If your going to count a "short ridge" as "1" …exactly how short does the ridge have to be before it is considered to be a "short ridge"?

I'm sure the attorneys will come up with something that will work for you. They do know more than we sometimes give them credit for. I received this the other day from an attorney:

"If I provide an FBI fingerprint description and a 10-card of fingerprints, can you rule someone OUT as being the person who committed the offense? (I obviously know nothing about fingerprints, but basically, if I give you John Doe's print card and his right index finger is a flower pattern, and the FBI printout reflects that the person's right index finger should be a smiley face, can you rule John Doe out as being the person in the FBI printout?)"

Seriously, I am interested in how this has worked out for you.
Good Luck, Steve.

We don't have a minimum point standard required to make an identification. (Can you hear the defense counsel now? "Are you telling me that your office has NO STANDARDS?"). We use ACE-V exclusively.

A number of lawyers - Crown and Defense - are stuck on 'points'. I try not to get into a "numbers" game on the witness stand.

I have found it helpful to provide the Crown Attorney with two documents -along with my disclosure statement and a copy of my CV I submit a guide listing the fingerprint witnesses that the Crown should call to the stand. and suggested questions to be asked of each witness. (First witness is the SOCO Officer who attended the scene; second witness is the "booker" who fingerprinted the accused upon their arrest; third witness is me.) I give them a list of questions to be asked of each witness and an idea of the kinds of answers they're going to get.

The second document is a primer on fingerprints that gives a brief rundown of the history of fingerprint identification, the scientific basis behind it, and some of the challenges that the defense counsel may raise, including the issue of "points".

I don't do this to be a show-off (as hard as some people may find that to believe!). I learned very shortly after taking on the Case Manager duties that most Crown Attorneys are not familiar with fingerprint evidence and have no idea what questions to ask. I decided that, since this was supposed to be my area of expertise, it was up to me to help them out.

They were very happy to get the list of questions, and most have followed it verbatim while eliciting my testimony. (I made sure that I mentioned in my covering letter that the list was offered only as an aid to the Crown Attorney and that no offence was intended by its inclusion in the disclosure package.)

Back to the original question: do we have an implicit or explicit "point" standard? No. The answer is that each examiner reaches a conclusion based on their training and experience, and if that conclusion is that an identification has been achieved, it is re-examined and confirmed by another qualified member of the section.

For some people it's a steep learning curve with a broken guardrail and a pool of alligators at the bottom. Tell them not to worry.