UPDATES ON CLPEX.com

Updated the Fingerprint Interest Group (FIG) page with FIG #40.

Inserted Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony (KEPT) #15: Proficiency Testing - What Are Proficiency Tests Testing For?   Discuss this topic on CLPEX.com - a discussion has been created for KEPT.
_________________________________________

Steve Ostrowski brought us good news from New Hampshire that the NH Supreme Court reversed Langill.

_________________________________________
NY Court of Appeals rules DNA isn't, but fingerprint analysis is testimonial under Crawford 
LawyersUSA. Boston: Mar 10, 2008.

Abstract (Summary)
"[The officer's] fingerprint reports, inherently accusatory and offered to prove an essential element of the crimes charged, could be nothing but testimonial. ... Nevertheless, admission of [the] reports was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt ... [since they] were cumulative, as the expert who did testify ... reached that same conclusion after comparing the latent prints from those two establishments," the court said.

The second defendant was convicted of sexual abuse after admission of an independent laboratory's DNA analysis report linking him to the crime, along with testimony from experts as to the testing procedures. But the experts hadn't prepared the admitted reports.

A DNA analysis is not testimonial under Crawford but latent fingerprint comparison reports are, New York's highest court has ruled in two separate appeals.

The first defendant was convicted of several burglaries after an officer obtained his fingerprints from evidence at one of the crime scenes. A different officer later matched the prints to latent fingerprints obtained from the other crime scenes. Both officers' reports were admitted into evidence but only one of the officer's testified, discussing the findings in both reports.

The defendant argued admission of the reports violated Crawford because they were testimonial.

The court ruled that fingerprint reports were testimonial under Crawford but found their admission was harmless error.

"[The officer's] fingerprint reports, inherently accusatory and offered to prove an essential element of the crimes charged, could be nothing but testimonial. ... Nevertheless, admission of [the] reports was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt ... [since they] were cumulative, as the expert who did testify ... reached that same conclusion after comparing the latent prints from those two establishments," the court said.

DNA analysis

The second defendant was convicted of sexual abuse after admission of an independent laboratory's DNA analysis report linking him to the crime, along with testimony from experts as to the testing procedures. But the experts hadn't prepared the admitted reports.

The defendant argued that admission of the DNA analysis violated Crawford.

But the court disagreed.

"A salient characteristic of objective, highly scientific testing like DNA analysis is that the results are not inherently biased toward inculpating the defendant; they can also exculpate. The inescapable corollary is that police or prosecutorial involvement is unlikely to have any impact on the test's results," the court said.

It cited similar cases from California, Massachusetts and Ohio.

New York Court of Appeals. People v. Rawlins, No. 6; People v. Meekins, No. 7. Feb. 19, 2008. Lawyers USA No. 9939321.

Credit: LawyersUSA Staff Report
Dolan Media Newswires
ProQuest database, retrieved 4-13-08
For educational non-commercial use only, copyright by Dolan Media Newswires reserved

_________________________________________

KEPT - Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony - #15
Proficiency Testing - What are Proficiency Tests Testing For?
by Michele Triplett, King County Sheriff's Office

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

Question – Proficiency Testing:

What are proficiency tests testing for?

Possible Answers:

a)      Proficiency tests are a critical tool for evaluating a laboratory’s overall performance.

b)      Proficiency tests are testing to see if an examiner can arrive at accurate conclusions.

c)      Proficiency test are something that is done to help you comply with accreditation.

d)     Proficiency tests are testing to see if an examiner can make individualizations.

e)      Proficiency test can help get advanced warning of potential performance problems.

f)       Proficiency tests are testing to see if examiners can orient latent prints, locate a potential source of the latent print, and individualize the latent print.

g)      Proficiency tests are testing to see if a practitioners or laboratories can find answers that others would arrive at (consensus answers).

Discussion:

The CTS tests can be administered in several different ways.  Individual offices can require justification behind conclusions and agencies can require that examiners state the reason for a non-individualization.  A non-individualization could be due to an exclusion, due to an insufficient amount of information, or due to an inability to orient and locate the latent print.  The answers below are not considering how individual offices are using the CTS test but only looking at how CTS is using the test.

Answer a:   This is stated on the CTS website.  While it is a critical tool for evaluating the ability to make individualizations, it doesn’t test other job functions of an examiner.  Stating it evaluates the overall performance may be a slight exaggeration depending on the job functions of the examiners in your office.

Answer b:  The CTS latent print test doesn’t only insure that conclusions are accurate, the conclusions that are considered correct are both accurate (ground truth) and conclusions that others would arrive at (consensus answer).

Answer c:  Proficiency tests do help you comply with accreditation but this answer doesn’t answer the question that was asked.

Answers d, e, and f:  These answers are correct but if someone doesn’t individualize a latent print then these tests don’t determine where the problem lies (orienting a latent print, locating potential candidates, individualizing who left the latent print, or perhaps differing tolerance levels).

Answer g:  This may be the best answer for two reasons.  First, some agencies use the CTS tests for individuals while other agencies take the test as a group.  And second, the conclusions that CTS gives are not simply the ground truth answers but the answers that at least 75% of accredited labs arrived at.

_________________________________________

Feel free to pass The Detail along to other examiners.  This is a free newsletter FOR latent print examiners, BY latent print examiners. With the exception of weeks such as this week, there are no copyrights on The Detail content.  As always, the website is open for all to visit!

If you have not yet signed up to receive the Weekly Detail in YOUR e-mail inbox, go ahead and join the list now so you don't miss out!  (To join this free e-mail newsletter, enter your name and e-mail address on the following page: http://www.clpex.com/Subscribe.htm  You will be sent a Confirmation e-mail... just click on the link in that e-mail, or paste it into an Internet Explorer address bar, and you are signed up!)  If you have problems receiving the Detail from a work e-mail address, there have been past issues with department e-mail filters considering the Detail as potential unsolicited e-mail.  Try subscribing from a home e-mail address or contact your IT department to allow e-mails from Topica.  Members may unsubscribe at any time.  If you have difficulties with the sign-up process or have been inadvertently removed from the list, e-mail me personally at kaseywertheim@aol.com and I will try to work things out.

Until next Monday morning, don't work too hard or too little.

Have a GREAT week!