UNIT 3

COMPARISONACE-V

DAUBERT

FIRST THINGS……………………

ASSIGNMENTS UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING ASKED

ADDRESS WHAT IS BEING ASKED

DO NOT GO OFF ON TANGENTS

IF YOU DON’T KNOW ASK …………….. BEFORE YOU SUBMIT

PROPERTIES OF FRICTION SKINAND

OUTSIDE AFFECTS

ELASTICITY DISTORTION Many variations

SCARRING AFFECTS ON ROLLED AND LATENT IMPRESSIONSDISEASE DPR – dermatopathia pigmentosa reticularis Coeliac disease Psoriasis AFFECTS: From no sweat glands, to no friction skin, to atrophied friction skin, to distorted ridge events.

CLASS AND INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTIC EVIDENCE

• Class: General identifiers that cannot be associated to a specific source or donor.– Examples include fingerprint patterns, crows, a white

Ford 4x4 pickup truck, type A blood, and Coach purse• Individual characteristics: Specific identifiers that can be

associated with a specific source or donor– Establishes individuality– Examples include ridge events in a unit formation, a

VIN, specific DNA markers, a Coach purse with a ragged, 5” half-moon tear on the left side, lower right corner

THE FORMATION OF FRICTION SKINThere are two components:

1)Genetic2)Developmental

Do “identical twins” have:1)The same fingerprint patterns??2)The same corresponding ridge events in a unit formation (grouping)??

Why or why not????????????

Assuming that the genetic components carried over, is it conceivablethat the developmental components could ever be the same?

……By around eight weeks the epidermis on the volar pads has thickened into several layers that measure about three or four cells thick. At this point the cells of the epidermis are smooth but at the junctions of adjoining cell walls are desmosomes (pronounced ˈdez-mə-ˌsōm) . The function of desmosomes are to provide the cells with adhesion to one another

Gives structure to & guides the examiner through the process.

Bases identifications upon sound scientific principles.

Conclusions are objective; based on faithful execution of this methodology, not mere observations or intuition.

Assures Validity and Reliability of the conclusions.

Consistency & Repetition of the methodology is assured.

Embraces all the factors required by sound scientific practices.

What is ACE-V Methodology ?

ACE-V ANALYSIS

• Part 1.Impression-deposition factors. (MAY NOT BE KNOWN)

Part 2.    Clarity assessment.

Part 3.    Medium/Transfer/ Distortion assessment.

Part 4.    Value/No Value determination.

ACE-V COMPARISON

• Part 1.  Choose a Target of friction ridge features. (CLASS CHARACTERISTIC)

Part 2.   Experimentation for Level One detail. The focus is on, but not limited to, print orientation, pattern type, ridge flow & focal points.

Part 3.    Experimentation for Level Two detail. The focus is on, but not limited to, the shape, location, orientation and group relationship of the minutiae.

Part 4.    Experimentation for Level Three detail.The focus is on corresponding ridge events in a unit formation.

(Pores and the sides of ridges are considered in theory but in the real world, it does not work that way) WHY?????

So what are we looking at?

ACE-V EVALUATION

• E valuation • This phase of ACE-V places the philosophy and process of friction ridge

identification squarely within the scientific methodology framework. Practitioners adhering to the ACE-V protocol will eliminate human errors, and will further establish the 'Error Rate' for the Science of Friction Ridge Identification as being 'Zero.' (CAN ERRORS STILL BE MADE?????)

Part 1.    Propose a 'Tentative Conclusion' that 'the latent came from the same source as the known print.'

Part 2.    Examine the prints in their totality, in an exercise of continued observation of the friction ridge features in order to Test the 'Tentative Conclusion.'

Part 3.    Formulate a 'Conclusion', whether an Individualization, Non-Identification or Inconclusive, based upon the ability of the observed friction ridge features to 'Finalize the Individualization.'

ACE-V VERIFICATION

• Verification • A second Examiner performs an independent examination of the Identified latent print

impression. Upon completion of this phase, a confirmed Identification constitutes 'Scientific Knowledge', which can be admitted as expert testimony meeting the Daubert challenge.

Part 1.    Independently perform the examination from the Analysis phase through the Evaluation phase.

Part 2.    Independently arrive at a Conclusion.

Part 3.    Discuss the two independently established Conclusions to ascertain agreement.

Part 4.    Record and report the Conclusion as a proven and finalized Identification.

Part 5.    If necessary, address any disagreement in accordance to your agency's written 'Conflict Resolution' procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

1) THE IMPRESSIONS COMPARE

2) THE IMPRESSIONS DO NOT COMPARE

3) NO COMPARISONS WERE MADE

4) THE EVIDENCE IS NOT SUITABLE FOR COMPARISON

THERE ARE NO “COULD BE’S”, “MAYBE’S”, “HIGH PROBABILITIES” ETC. !!!!!!!!!

THE MADRID BOMBING CASE AND ACE-V

ON MARCH 11, 2004 FOUR COMMUTER TRAINS IN MADRID SPAIN WERE BLOWN UP BY AL-QAEDA

191 PEOPLE KILLED1800 WERE INJURED

ONE UNIDENTIFIED LATENT FINGERPRINT OF VALUE WAS RECOVERED FROM BOMB MATERIAL BY THE SPANISH NATIONAL POLICE.

THE SNP SENT A PHOTO OF THE RECOVERED IMPRESSION TO THE FBI.

THE IMPRESSION WAS ENTERED INTO IAFIS FOR POTENTIAL MATCHES.

THE UNIDENTIFIED LATENT FINGERPRINT

SFC?

PATTERN?

BRANDON MAYFIELD’S STANDARD

Mayfield’s AFIS “score” ranked # 4 on the list of 20 candidates. Reared in Kansas, Mayfield is an American citizen who lives with his wife and three children in Oregon. He was 38 years old, a former Army officer with an honorable discharge, and a practicing lawyer. Prior to his arrest, he had not traveled outside the United States since 1994. Mayfield had never been arrested for aCrime.

ERROR RATES

THE SCIENCE?

THE HUMAN BEING?

THE CIRCUMSTANCES?

WHAT REAL SAFEGUARDS CAN BE PUT IN PLACE?

A PRE-DAUBERT HORROR STORY

OR

“THE FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST WHO DECIDED TO MAKE SOME MONEY”

“ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT PAST THERE CAME TO BE A TECHNIQUE THAT WAS CHAMPIONED BY A CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AND ACCEPTED BY THE COURTS………………….”

Let's look at the definition of an expert witness:

In "Law Dictionary" by Steven H. Gifis, an expert witness is defined as:

"" A witness having "special knowledge of the subject about which he is about to testify". That knowledge must generally be such as is not normally possessed by the average person. The expert witness is thus "able to afford the tribunal having the matter under consideration a special assistance." This expertise may derive from either study and education or from experience and observation. An expert witness need not have formal training but before one can qualify as an expert witness, the court must be satisfied that the testimony prescribed is of a kind which is in fact special knowledge, skill or experience.""

The Supreme Court did offer some guidelines so that judges could gauge the veracity and reliability of scientific evidence.

1) Whether the scientific technique or theory has been tested.

2) Whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication.

3) The technique's potential error rate.

4) Existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation.

5) Whether the scientific theory or method has attracted widespread acceptance with the relevant scientific community.

NOTE=> On the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, the court agreed that Daubert should be applied flexibly that affirmed its earlier order because it found insufficient indications of the reliability of Carlson’s methodology (the engineer for the plaintiff's). In reversing, the Eleventh Circuit held that the District Court had erred as a matter of law in applying Daubert.

NOTE=> Believing that Daubert was limited to the scientific context, the court held that the Daubert factors did not apply to Carlson’s testimony, which it characterized as skill or experience-based.

HOWEVER...... Held (by the Supreme Court):

1. NOTE> The Daubert factors may apply to the testimony of engineers and other experts who are not scientists. Pp. 7—13.

(a) NOTE=> The Daubert “gatekeeping” obligation applies not only to “scientific” testimony, but to all expert testimony. NOTE=> Rule 702 does not distinguish between “scientific” knowledge and “technical” or “other specialized” knowledge, but makes clear that any such knowledge might become the subject of expert testimony.

More=>

NOTE=> It is the Rule’s word “knowledge,” not the words (like “scientific”) that modify that word, that establishes a standard of evidentiary reliability. 509 U.S., at 589—590.

NOTE=> Daubert referred only to “scientific” knowledge because that was the nature of the expertise there at issue. Id., at 590, n. 8. Neither is the evidentiary rationale underlying Daubert’s “gatekeeping” determination limited to “scientific” knowledge.

More=>

NOTE=> Rules 702 and 703 grant all expert witnesses, not just “scientific” ones, testimonial latitude unavailable to other witnesses on the assumption that the expert’s opinion will have a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of his discipline. Id., at 592.

NOTE=> Finally, it would prove difficult, if not impossible, for judges to administer evidentiary rules under which a “gatekeeping” obligation depended upon a distinction between “scientific” knowledge and “technical” or “other specialized” knowledge, since there is no clear line dividing the one from the others and no convincing need to make such distinctions."

Thus........... and this is crucial...........in the Daubert ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court advocates that the judge must assume the ultimate responsibility for acting as a "gatekeeper" in judging the admissibility and reliability of the scientific evidence that is presented in their courts.

Since no judge ever wants to be reversed in the appellate courts, the “gatekeeper” status is not taken lightly. If an error is made, it won’t be made out of carelessness or a lack of research.

RIDGE EVENT REVIEW