CLPEX Chat Board

I'd like to pose a few questions and gauge current feeling amongst UK and overseas Fingerprint Experts, Latent Print Examiners or whatever your current Bureau calls you.

Do you believe that the Council for the registration of forensic practitioners (CRFP) is worth the paper its written on?

From my own experience i know that those that have and are currently applying for registration are 'copying and pasting' from other experts that have already registered. So, does it really count for anything? Its just an essay exercise.

I do agree that 'we' do need to be competency tested but should we really pay a private company to regulate us?
Wouldn't it be better for all bureaus to be regulated by a government agency such as Skills for Justice who now employs a Forensic Regulator?

But whilst we spend our time discussing the above common questions relating to our profession i have a more worrying concern -

I have worked for 3 Bureaus and in each of those i would say that aprox only 10% of the experts working there were making an effort to stay up to date and have actual current knowledge of the latest challenge to fingerprints. More worryingly, on average the experts that i have worked with have attended court and given evidence on average once every 5 years!!!

Competency and regulation aside isnt this more worrying? You could be the best expert out there but if your court delivery is so poor, out of date and lacking current knowledge the evidence could appear worthless to a jury.

I'd be interested to know how often experts overseas give evidence.

Thank you for your time

Testifying in court is a difficult and scary thing for me. I am quite comfortable with what I did and my results, but being able to convey that in a competent way to a jury---that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish! I can only suggest your agency set up some mock trials, perhaps just before someone has to testify. Take public speaking classes, have unit meetings to discuss new testimony issues, practice on eachother!

I work for a city police department. We get a lot of subpoenas but we only testify about 3-5 times a year. In state agencies it can be a lot less than that. I have been testifying for about 23 years and I still have a number of gastrointestinal issues beforehand.

The best advice I can give is to practice on eachother and become familiar with expected responses and know what they mean. Be able to give those responses in a variety of different ways, not just reel off a memorized script. Good luck to all of us!

I suspect we would nearly all agree that we do relatively little testimony. I think that's true in an field, to the degree that the particular field is able to provide straightforward conclusions. And, since latent print examiners present what is probably one of the most straightforward conclusions that places a person in contact with an object they shouldn't be touching and in a place they shouldn't be, defendants naturally tend to plead without trial. And, when fingerprint evidence is a positive feature of a case, experts in other fields get off the hook in the same case. Contrast this with psychologists, for instance, who testify in a high percentage of cases on which they consult. It not just that their issues commonly only come into play after conviction, but they cannot make such clear-cut conclusions and can almost always be challenged by another expert. And those who regularly practice forensic psychology are usually good witnesses. If they're not, they just don't get hired, once word gets around. It's routine to pull their old transcripts when considering who to use.

The only difference in LPE is that you're mostly not selected by the prosecutor. You're already working for the government, and he's pretty well stuck with you, since he's not likely to be allowed funds to hire a particular examiner when he knows the case will be tried. Those who consult for a living have to be good explainers and good thinkers-on-their-feet. It's a matter of practice, and most examiners don't get that much practice. I think it's particularly tough for latent print examiners, because few attorneys are well versed in the discipline. It's doubly hard to testify clearly when the questioning is frequently off the mark. It's pretty hard to make a decent technical presentation to a jury when the discussion is being led by the ignorant. That's not to say the the attorney has to be able to keep up in, say, this group. But they have to have the ability to explore something they know little about in a way that leads to something sensible.

So, it not just LPE's working out on themselves for practice. It's practice with the attorneys who will be leading the testimony and who have the ability to play the part of muddled cross-examination. Officers who have investigative duties aside from latent examination get more practice in court and are sometimes far more experienced at negotiating the muddle.

I really need to scroll down further and more frequently...

I am a fingerprint expert and crime scene photographer in South Africa and have been doing this since 1991.

We also get sub-poena's quite often but give fingerprint evidence about 2-3 times a year or so...in our office anyway. Unfortunately ours is a small town and (as boastful as this may sound, it isn't meant that way) often when I walk into the court room it changes to a guilty plea.

Very frustrating because (a) I feel cheated as I love the court part of things and (b) it is difficult to remain sharp in the oratory part if you do not the opportunity often enough.

On the point of regulatory bodies I am simultaneously wildly in favour and pessimistic. If it is done correctly and objectively I feel a regulatory body can work wonders for quality assurance and transparancy where it is required.

If it is not done correctly I feel any regulatory body is a bloated bull-dog with no teeth...only impressive to the uninformed.

I think one of the best ways to stay in practice for giving testimony is to give lectures, teach workshops, provide training to your peers, speak at volunteer academies, etc. In court, we are explaining what opinion we reached and why we reached it. In any training situation we are explaining a process, when it should be used, why it works, etc. These are quite similar. I get the same enjoyment seeing a juror understanding my testimony as I do in seeing someone in a workshop understanding a technique. By giving lectures, presentations, teaching workshops, we also learn to overcome the nervousness that many of us have when speaking in public. I also used to be a member of Toastmasters. One gets the opportunity to speak at every meeting there, and gets feedback from others to help improve their public speaking ability. I've not seen a forensics-based Toastmasters group, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few around.

George