CLPEX Chat Board

This thread is for weekly KEPT items and follow-up discussion on those items.

KEPT - Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony - #4
Evaluation / Sufficiency - How Much is Enough?

Question – Verification – Why is it done?: Why is your work verified?

Possible Answers:

a) It’s our office policy.
b) It’s required as a part of the ACE-V methodology.
c) SWGFAST recommends verifying all individualizations and my office follows this recommendation.
d) Leaving all conclusions open for review is a standard scientific control measure to insure the best possible results. Instead of just leaving conclusions open for review our office takes the additional step of reviewing all individualizations.
e) Leaving all conclusions open for review is a standard scientific control measure to insure the best possible results. Instead of just leaving conclusions open for review our office takes the additional step of reviewing all conclusions prior to reporting any conclusions.

Discussion:

Answer a: “It’s our office policy” is never a good answer. People should know why policies exist and be able to communicate the reasons to other people.

Answer b: This is a true statement but it doesn’t say why a verification is done.

Answer c: Following the recommendation of others without knowing why is never a good quality assurance measure.

Answers d and e: Either of these answers are good (whichever applies to your agency).

Question – Proficiency Testing:
What company handles proficiency testing for the examiners in your office?

Possible Answers:
a) ASCLD
b) ASCLD/LAB
c) CTS
d) Collaborative Testing Services
e) The International Association of Identification

Discussion:
Using acronyms is always discouraged because the people you’re trying to educate (the courts) don’t know what these acronyms stands for.
Answers a and b: ASCLD/LAB is one of the organizations that offer accreditation to agencies. ASCLD/LAB does require that accredited agencies participate in proficiency testing but they do not provide the proficiency tests. Forensic Quality Services (FQS) is another company that accredits forensic laboratories.

Answers c and d: CTS is one of the companies that offer proficiency testing but it’s best to state the companies full name instead of the acronym. Competency Assessment Services Ltd (CAS Ltd) is another company that offers proficiency testing services.

Answer e: The IAI has a certification program but not a proficiency testing program.

Question – Terminology - Identify, Individualize, or ID:
This could be any question that relates to the identification process.

Possible Answers:
a) I identified the subject……
b) I individualized the subject…
c) I ID’d the subject…..
d) This latent print matches the middle finger of…..
e) This image was made by one in the same individual…..

Discussion:
Which term or phrase you use may not seem important but you never know what other experts in a case are saying, whether it’s another latent print person or an expert from another forensic discipline. These ideas don’t necessarily have to come from someone else’s testimony. Attorneys may bring up topics from other court cases, from books, and from articles during closing arguments.

It’s possible that one examiner continually uses the term ‘identify’ during his testimony and then another expert testifies that the term identify means that you’re putting something into a certain class or group and it doesn’t mean that you’re specifically individualizing something. If this concept is brought into court then it could severely impact the way a judge or jury thinks about what you’re saying.

The best way to insure there are no misunderstandings is to use the proper terminology. We can identify a latent print as a whorl (classify it into a certain group) or we may be able to individualize a latent print to a certain person (which is a more specific type of identification).

You state that if a concept different than the one you used is brought into court it could negatively impact perceptions, but what if a critic of latent print identification asserts in court that the term ‘Individualization’ is inappropriate? Simon Cole purports that “Latent print identification is a process of source attribution”. He uses the term ‘attribution’ in his published papers and criticizes the latent print examiner’s preferred term of ‘Individualization’.

I looked up Individualize in a couple dictionaries and it seems it could have a slightly different meaning than what we are striving for:

To make more individual, to give individualization to, consider or treat individually, particularize, modify to suit the wishes or needs of a particular individual, make individual in character, treat or notice individually, adapt to the needs or special circumstances of an individual.

Does Individualizing a latent print impression mean that the print was created by a particular finger? We can’t make a print individual in character, but we can notice that a latent print is individual and unique.

Just playing devil’s advocate…

In my POV if one discipline uses Individulization and a second discipline uses Identification in a courtroom that jury is not going to go fuzzy. There are a number of other qualifiying questions and then the evidence testimony that go with it.

Also in my POV is that if a jury does go fuzzy then it would not be the words Individulization/Identification but because the experts just did not know how to testify effectively.

Also in my POV if you really want to see a jury go fuzzy go in and listen to the closing arguments by the prosecutor and defense. They can fuzzy it up pretty good on some trials. Just by taking what an expert has testified to and putting their spin on it.

If you want some real different spin on things go and look at some of the Amicus Briefs that have been postured on the last 20 or so cases. Talk about not getting the concept, terminology, methodology, and philosophies correct.

"Truth is Subjective----Just Pick One"

This one needs to go to the top as well.

printlady wrote: what if a critic of latent print identification asserts in court that the term ‘Individualization’ is inappropriate?

The Haber's like the term "individuate" / "individuation"?

Just throwing out food for thought.

-Kasey

Well there you go folks. The worm has turned. Individulization is OUT, Identification is OUT. We now have Individuate/Individuation as the word to use.

But what about Consensus. I hear a roar in the background and it is saying: "There is no consensus to using Individuate or Individuation."

But what about Converging Evidence. Wait---I hear another roar in the background and it is saying: "There is no converging evidence to use the words Individuate or Individuation."

But what about a Scientific Study. Again I hear a roar in the background and it is saying "There is no scientific study on using Individuate or Individuation."

That cannot be----how can we do anything, use anything, be anything without a scientific study. Impossible, that must be the work of the Biases.

Folks do not take the above serious. I am just poking a little fun at some concepts and primarily myself. I had a few minutes and rambled on and made myself smile.

If I have offended anyone I sincerely apologize. I was simply just putting a smile on my face with a little tongue in cheek.

My personal feeling is that the term ‘individualize’ sounds a little pretentious, I usually don’t use this term without consciously thinking about it and it feels weird for me to say it.

This question was a direct response to a transcript I recently read. In this transcript, one forensic scientist stated that ‘identifying’ something is science just meant that you were putting it into a group but it didn’t mean that it could be specifically individualized to anyone or anything.

Then a second forensic scientist testified that they ‘identified’ the evidence as coming from a certain source. The only people who knew what the original expert said were the attorney’s, the judge, and the jury. The second expert was unaware of what was said and there was no reason for them to think their testimony came across in any other way than what was intended. Since the prosecutor didn’t ask for further clarification, the impression that was left in court was that the evidence WAS NOT individualized but the source was one of a group that could have left this evidence. This was what everyone thought except the expert that was testifying.

As experts we can’t be responsible for upholding everything in a case, that’s the prosecutor’s responsibility. But if we know that certain things are commonly misinterpreted then we can clarify them so they aren’t misinterpreted.

Part of my training stated that my job was to educate the jury not to convince them of anything. If someone believes that their job is to educate the jury then clarifying this should be expected during testifying.

One person emailed me stating that they say that they identified the latent print to a specific source, and then they state who left the latent print. I thought this was a good way to get the correct information across without using terms they’re uncomfortable with.

If I was testifying in a minor trial and I knew I was the only forensic person testifying then I probably wouldn't worry about these terms. But if I'm testifying in a bigger trial where other forensic people may be testifying then I'd probably try to be more specific or more accurate just to make sure I wasn't the one that caused the evidence to be disregarded (but that's just my personal feeling on it).

There is the possibility of avoiding the issue altogether. In my reports, and when I testify, I say that the latent print was made by the person whose fingerprints appear on the card marked XXX. In this way, not only do I avoid identify vs individualize, I also avoid an appearance of bias. I don't say anything about the defendant. I am only speaking about the latent print and the fingerprint card. I am stating my conclusion - these impressions came from the same source. If you want to call it identifying, have at it. If you want to call it individualization, enjoy. All I know is that the person who made the inked card is the same person who made the latent print. For me, identification/individualization only comes up in testimony if someone else brings it up.

I think we are too hung up on which exact word should we use. The jury doesn't know the various shades of meaning and I suspect even the shades of meaning vary from one discipline to the next, anyway. And the judge has heard too much to be swayed by some semantic trick from opposing counsel. The key to whether the jury understands what you mean is simple. If you are articulate in your exlanation (regardless of "identify, individualize, match, same, similar") and if you talk to the jury so they can understand, and if you deny opposing counsel in their attempts to twist your definitions and meanings, then the jury can figure out what you mean. We testify in one case at a time. No matter which word you use, the most important thing is that you are comfortable with the testimony you are giving and the words you are using. If you do that, nothing else will make your testimony better.

Pat A. Wertheim wrote:No matter which word you use, the most important thing is that you are comfortable with the testimony you are giving and the words you are using. If you do that, nothing else will make your testimony better.

Darn it, Pat, you're giving away the lawyers' best secrets....

Seriously, he's right. The jury probably isn't going to get hung up on the exact phrases, so long as they can understand the import of the testimony. There are lawyers who will get hung up on the exact wording. It may be a semantic trick. Or it may be an honest confusion about terminology, particularly if the attorney isn't that comfortable with the jargon for your discipline.

There are times and places where the law gets very hung up on words -- often when we're trying to figure out what the legislature meant in a statute or sometimes what a court meant in a written decision -- but there one assumes that the words were chosen with deliberate care and follow mutually understood rules of statutory or judicial construction.

Wrestling with lawyers over words (here or in the discussion about what "subjective" means is tricky -- if you are fighting about words, you're on our home turf. If you are fighting about the science of fingerprints and the reliability of your conclusions, we're on your home turf.

Or, to put it another way, beware the affairs of lawyers, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

(Ref: http://wiztees.stores.yahoo.net/donotmedinaf.html)

Actually, I'm softer and taste better with Ranch Dressing...but then, everything does.

Disclaimer: The intent of this is to provide thought provoking discussion. No claims of accuracy exist.

Question – Error Rates:
When do most errors occur?

Possible Answers:
a) Most errors are in single ID cases.
b) Most errors are caused by a lack of focus.
c) Most errors are caused by potential AFIS candidates.
d) Most errors are caused by inadequate training.
e) I haven’t seen any published reports with this type of research. The Dror / Charlton studies do show that bias is one potential cause and the Bertram / Byrd research has shown that bias is only a problem when an alternative conclusion is possible (with complex comparisons).

Discussion:
Answers a, b, c, and d: It’s easy to give possible reasons for errors but during testimony its important separate speculative information from facts. I’m not aware of any research that shows why errors occur.
Answer e: This seems to be the best answer. It states the research that’s been done without overstating its value.