CLPEX Chat Board

I am looking for a way of answering the question "How many points did you get?" when I'm testifying in court. The lawyers that I have dealt with in the past have been 'hung up' on the numbers game, and I need a way to explain ridgeology and quantity/quality analysis in a way that a jury will understand.

For those of you who testify in court, how do you make a smooth transition from talking about "points" to describing "2QA"?

Hi Cindy,

So you are coming, "Kicking and screaming into the 20th century." Ummm . . . don't you mean "21st Century?" I hope you have come along at least one century beyond Galton. But that's okay. I knew what you meant.

The throwaway line I use is, "I was a pretty good 20th Century fingerprint examiner, but now Im' stuck in the 21st Century with no way to go back."

The fact is that it's the lawyers more than us who are still way back in the 20th Century. The IAI formally recognized in 1973 that there is no basis for a number of points. But for decades before that, you will find articles expressing the fact that it is NOT all about points. Locard defined "poreoscopy" in about 1914 and proposed that an identification might even be made on nothing but the relative locations of the sweat pores alone without reference to the "points."

In court, when I am asked "How many points did you find?" I usually answer "I don't know. I don't count the points." Then I wait for the next question. That sounds flippant, but it is not. It is the short truth. Then, in response to the next question that usually opens the door a little further, I turn to the jury and explain that we compare and evaluate at three levels -- pattern, points, and shapes. In the absence of clear shapes, I might not reach a conclusion on a small quantity of points. In the presence of clear, distinct shapes in both the latent and inked prints, I might reach a conclusion on a small quantity of points. But, hypothetically, I cannot name a "number." I can only comment on a specific fingerprint. In the fingerprint in this case, there was sufficient quantity and quality of ridge detail. Somewhere in there, I usually throw in the fact that the idea of a minimum number of points originated with Francis Galton in 1892, but we have progressed a long way since then (hopefully, leaving the attorney with the appearance that he has NOT progressed very far since then).

I have sent Kasey a copy of a very thorough testimony from a trial last July, which I hope he can scan and link to this website in the next few weeks. I had a very good prosecutor, but the defense attorney was phenomenal. He had copies of posts on this website from years ago and was quoting them, asking me to explain statements I made in this forum, which I thought was more or less safe from defense perusal. Watch for that transcript when Kasey posts it and you'll read how I handle a lot of different lines of cross examination.

Cindy,

One answer I would like to use to this question, but have not yet had the chance is....

Q "How many points did you find in agreement?"

A "All of them."

Q "Yes, but how many was that?"

A "I don't know. I didn't count them."

I would probably follow on along the lines that Pat has described above.

Feel free to use this one if you think you can pull it off: and let me know if you do.

Good luck

LOL

I LOVE that answer. It reminds me of the time when one of my co-workers was testifying and the defense counsel asked him "How many people work in your office?".

His answer: "About half of them."


Makes me laugh every time I think about it.

What a treasure! Wonderful response.

Is the Canadian practice to create and introduce as evidence a charted enlargement with various points neatly labeled for the jury? (It is what I mostly commonly see in CT and Mass cases.)

Usually there's between 8 and 14 of the points numbered.

If so, you might forgive defense counsel for thinking that points in general, and the number of points indicated on the exhibit, are important -- that's what's being highlighted on the exhibit prepared to help the jury understand the ID.

The laugh line may win you points with the jury, but the question is still out there. When the prosecutor is using you to present that exhibit, that's the time to explain its significance and context.

My charts are 11"x17", cut in half and bound with a spiral spine. (This way they fold into 8 1/2 by 11 so they fit into the file. We illustrate six ridge characteristics with red lines.

I explain to the court that my chart is nothing more than an illustration to help me explain how I reached my findings, and that the six features to which I have drawn lines are samples of the kinds of ridge characteristics that I take into account when comparing fingerprints.

I go on to explain that there are three levels of detail......and that allows me to come out with my 'Fingerprints 101' speech for the judge and jury.

When I get questioned about points, I always start off my answer explaining to the jury that points are just one piece in a ten piece jigsaw puzzle and that giving a specific number still won't help give the jury the overall picture of the puzzle. [I use the puzzle example because everyone has done a jigsaw puzzle at one time in their life (or seen one done) and everyone can understand that with just one piece of the puzzle, trying to determine what the overall picture is of the puzzle is next to impossible.] I then go on to explain the other pieces of the puzzle: ridge width, first, second and third level detail, ridge flow, distortion, artifacts, etc. Even when pushed, I explain that I don't count points but that I certainly look at ALL of the detail within both the latent and inked standards, including the points (or second level detail).

FYI I have worked as a fingerprint examiner at a U.S. state agency for over 20 years. I've testified around 90 times in both state and federal court. I have acted as a training coordinator, being involved in some or all aspects of the training of 11 examiners in the area of fingerprint examination. I also wrote a commentary on just this subject that was published in the JFI (Testifying to the Question of 'Points' Vol 55, No. 2 [2005]).

I hope that helps!

M. Leanne Gray
Gray's Forensic Fingerprint Training & Consultation
fingerprints@graysforensic.com