'honest mistake'

[charlton97]

Innocent man's jailing called 'honest mistake'
Detective won't face criminal charges in fingerprint snafu
By SCOTT DAUGHERTY, Staff Writer
Published August 28, 2008
http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bi ... _28-32/TOP
A county police detective who earlier this year included incorrect
information in court documents - leading a Glen Burnie man to serve
four months in jail for a crime he did not commit - will not face
criminal charges.

View Latent Print Examination Report

Prosecutors do not believe Detective Greg Tate, a 15-year veteran of
the department, intentionally lied to the court in January when he
said the county's crime lab matched the fingerprints of Raymond H.
Jonassen to those left at the scene of a Dec. 6 burglary.

"Both perjury and misconduct in office require the state to negate the
"honest mistake" defense, which we cannot do," Deputy State's Attorney
William Roessler wrote yesterday in a letter to the commander of the
department's Internal Affairs Unit.

He said it appeared Detective Tate simply misinterpreted the Latent
Print Examination Report and referred the matter back to the department.

"I anticipate there to be appropriate administrative action," he told
The Capital.

Sgt. John Gilmer, a county police spokesman, declined to comment about
Detective Tate or how he misinterpreted the report. He said it is a
personnel matter.

Sgt. Gilmer said Detective Tate still is employed by the Anne Arundel
County Police Department, but he would not say if the officer remains
on active duty.

O'Brien Atkinson, president of Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 70,
said he never thought Detective Tate would lie.

"Detective Tate is a very reputable detective," he said. "I was always
under the assumption there was a mistake or a misunderstanding."

But District Public Defender William Davis still thinks criminal
charges are appropriate.

"The State's Attorney's Office prosecutes many cases every year where
the evidence is 'questionable.' I am not sure why they have decided
not to pursue charges in this case and let a jury determine if the
officer made an 'honest mistake,' " Mr. Davis said. "It is difficult
to understand how a detective with many years of experi-ence and whose
job requires that he be knowledgeable of various police forms used by
the department, misinterpreted the report."

Assistant Public Defender William Cooke, Mr. Jonassen's attorney,
added: "I've looked at the report. I don't know how anyone could
misread it."

Mr. Jonassen, whose criminal history includes two convictions for
misdemeanor theft and a third for possession of drug paraphernalia,
was arrested Jan. 22 and charged with first-degree burglary,
misdemeanor theft and felony destruction of property in connection
with a break-in at a home on Thomas Road in Glen Burnie.

Those charges were based largely on Detective Tate's assertion the
county's crime lab had matched Mr. Jonassen's fingerprints to those
found at the scene.

"On 1-5-07 I received a positive hit on the palm prints that are
identical to the defendant, Raymond H. Jonassen," Detective Tate wrote
in charging documents after swearing under the penalties of perjury
his statements were true to the best of his knowledge.

Investigators later discovered that wasn't the case and Mr. Jonassen
was set free from the Jennifer Road Detention Center May 9 after
serving 108 days.

Mr. Cooke said he always planned to question the veracity of the
fingerprint match, but he never expected to find it hadn't happened.
After several phone calls he learned the lab checked Mr. Jonassen's
prints twice - once on Dec. 8, 2007, and again on May 9. The lab
technician wrote in his first report the fingerprints on file for Mr.
Jonassen were not good enough to make a positive match. He said in his
second report the prints were not identical.

The report, which is basically a worksheet, contains a place to check
whether the fingerprints are identical or not identical. Mr. Roessler
noted the technician wrote in the Dec. 8 report, "see note below" next
to "identical."

While the note in question actually told the detective the crime lab
needed a better sample from Mr. Jonassen, Mr. Roessler said Detective
Tate took that to mean there was a match. "It's a bad mistake, but its
not a criminal mistake," Mr. Roessler said. He does not believe the
report needs to be changed to make it easier to understand.

"I've never seen this happen before," Mr. Roessler said.

Sgt. Gilmer previously said the department first learned of the
misstatement on June 19 from The Capital, which had learned of the
situation from Mr. Jonassen.

Mr. Cooke, the assistant public defender, disputed the assertion no
one told the department about the charging document foul-up before
that. He said he left a voicemail for Detective Tate in late May,
which was never returned, and traded several voicemails with Ernie
Lowman at the crime lab.

Kristin Fleckenstein, spokesman for the State's Attorney Office, said
Assistant State's Attorney Crighton Chase also tried to contact the
investigating officer to no avail.

[Gerald Clough]

One thing we don't know is how often the analyst uses that "See note below," perhaps even to refer to a note explaining why it's identical, beside the "Identical" check box or if they have ever before used the "Identical" check box for a non-ident. Aside from the use of the word "identical," and I'm not happy about that at all, and without regard whether he actually checked the "Identical" box where he wrote the note reference, is the analyst left with nothing but those two choices of checkbox to express his Inconclusive finding, which was the conclusion at the time the charge was brought?

(I wonder, too, at a public defender advocating criminal charges. I suppose that if such were filed, he would then demand, in all fairness, that they hire an independent defender, since he could hardly be expected to defend. Otherwise, it seems you're just all out of luck there if your public defender decides you're guilty. At least if you're the police.)

[printlady]

I think their form leaves much to be desired too. Using a simple check box to describe your findings is not only limiting, but could lead to misunderstandings like this one. Although he should have reviewed the report thoroughly, I can see how the detective made the mistake. While the Deputy State’s Attorney is probably concerned with damage control and liability, it’s ridiculous to state that the form doesn’t need to be changed as a result of this error. Latent print reports should be written in paragraph format clearly stating the results of the examination(s) in language that the average officer, attorney or juror can readily understand.

[briano]

Thank you Printlady. I never understood lab reports that have nothing by check boxes.

[g.]

I am actually most concerned that they are still using a typewriter!?

Who uses a TYPEWRITER today?! Is this agency actually keeping the white out industry alive?
I'd call them up to discuss, but my tin can and rope is disconnected...

g.

=) (just thought a little levity was needed)