WISCONSIN ASSOCIATION FOR IDENTIFICATION NEWSLETTER

Transcription

1 WISCONSIN ASSOCIATION FOR IDENTIFICATION NEWSLETTER Offiicial Publication of the Wisconsin Division of the International Association for Identification

2 WAI NEWSLETTER November 2016 Issue: PCAST Report, Cer fica on Fee Increase, Upcoming Training Federal Council Opinion on Certain Forensic Evidence The following comes from Roy Korte, assistant attorney general and director of the Criminal Litigation Unit of the Wisconsin Department of Justice In September, the President s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) voted on a report which essentially found that various forensic areas lacked scientific support and, absent such support, were not scientifically valid, and that other areas should only be used in limited circumstances. It called upon federal prosecutors not to use forensic methods unless they met their definition of scientific validity and advised federal judges to also ensure compliance before admitting such evidence. Additional suggestions were made for funding research. The president of PCAST, who is associated with Harvard and MIT, is also on the board of the Innocence Project. In fact, he seems to have come to the board with a preconceived position in this area. Other board members include business owners and professors of physics, electrical engineering, computer science, biology, biochemistry, and chemistry. The advisory board for this topic area included three law school professors and nine federal judges. I do not know the background of the staff who drafted the report. There were no prosecutors or forensic scientists on the board or advisory committee. The board started its review one year ago. They had one public hearing involving multiple witnesses, none of whom advocated for the positions adopted by the board. They circulated a draft that was criticized by the USDOJ and others, but they made no changes. PCAST s directive is to be an advisory group of the nation s leading scientists and engineers who directly advise the president and Executive Office of the President. PCAST makes policy recommendations in the many areas where understanding of science, technology, and innovation is key to strengthening our economy and forming policy that works for the American people. Forensic Areas Referenced The following are the opinions of PCAST. DNA analysis of single source and simple mixture samples are valid. DNA analysis of complex mixture samples are subjective and not valid. Objective analysis by machines are valid if the subject to be identified is at least 20% of the mixture. Bitemarks are not valid. Latent fingerprints are valid, but disclosure is needed on purported serious error issues. Firearms identification is not valid, but admissibility should be left to courts and if allowed, disclosure of high error rate is needed. Footwear analysis is not valid.

3 WAI NEWSLETTER PAGE 2 PCAST also recommended that analysts should not be privy to case information, which they suggest leads to confirmation basis. IAI Response to PCAST Report I expect that defense attorneys will soon be raising this report to oppose introduction of the evidence listed. Therefore, you should be aware of this. Equally important is what this does not mean. Like the National Academy of Science report from several years ago, it does not mean that this report results in the exclusion of test results. It may get a defendant a Daubert hearing and there is considerable case law allowing the use of fingerprints and firearms comparison. In those areas, you are likely to see efforts made to undermine the reliability based on the error rate issue. The report appears to have relied on a skewed set of studies and analyses as well as what appear to be anecdotal examples of problems. PCAST is not immune from criticisms for being incomplete. The Attorney General s Office would like to be notified if this report is raised in any case and is also available to provide guidance in this area. Analysts at the State Crime Lab are aware of the report and discussion can also be held with them to avoid any surprises. Editor s note: The PCAST report can be found on the IAI website at Issued by Harold Ruslander, IAI president The PCAST report states its purpose is to explore a way forward ensuring the scientific reliability of of forensic evidence, and within the report addresses disciplines that are represented by the IAI including Friction Ridge, Footwear and Tire Track Examination. The report concludes that friction ridge examination meets an evidence reliability standard; however the report makes the assertion that latent print evidence has high false positive rates based on studies that have been conducted. The IAI does not agree with this interpretation of current research in this field, and stands behind the accuracy and reliability of this evidence. The report concludes that footwear examination does not meet an evidence reliability standard. The IAI does not agree with this assessment, and finds the report lacking in basis and in content, and improper in some of the statements that are made. There are significant research efforts that are not included in the report, including a black box study currently being conducted by West Virginia University and studies related to the evaluation of shoe damage. The report claims at the outset that footwear and tire evidence are responsible for wrongful convictions that have resulted in later exonerations, and cites cases listed on the Innocence Project website. The report further states that these cases reflect a systemic problem. This set of assertions is a complete mischaracterization; only one case relates to footwear evidence. The problem in the case was non-expert testimony, in fact two footwear experts had testified appropriately.

4 WAI NEWSLETTER PAGE 3 It is noted that, although the report lists tire examination in the outset, it includes no discussion or evaluation about the reliability of this evidence type. It is the position of the IAI that evaluations of a forensic evidence type are only accurate and reliable if an understanding of the discipline is part of the process. The PCAST committee did not sufficiently include forensic science experts, and it is evident that the input of the forensic science community was not sufficiently regarded. Experts, including IAI members, provided information related to the methods, basis and research conducted in these fields that was not fully presented or addressed in the report. The PCAST report generally recommends that additional research be conducted. It is the constant and continual position of the IAI that critical evaluation of the practice of forensic evidence is welcome. Scrutiny by stakeholders, academics, peers and others is an important process to continue to develop the reliability of evidence that is utilized in the criminal justice system. In order for an evaluation process to result in a positive movement forward there should be an expectation of impartiality, and must be conducted in a manner that includes sufficient knowledge of the discipline to be evaluated. It is also imperative that the evaluation include all published and in process research. The PCAST report falls short of these expectation. IAI Certification Fee Increase The fees for initial certification testing, recertification, and retesting through the IAI will be increasing $100 for applications received after January 1, As such, IAI members will pay $300 and nonmembers $400. The rise is due to accreditation fees through the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). IAI certification can be obtained in the areas of bloodstain patterns, crime scenes, footwear, forensic art, forensic photography, forensic video, latent prints, and tenprint fingerprints. Additional information can be obtained on the IAI website at Photo courtesy of FBI Baron County Incinerator for Evidence Destruction The Baron County Waste-To-Energy Facility has an approved incinerator available to law enforcement for the destruction of evidence, confiscated drugs, and collected pharmaceuticals. A fee is charged dependant on the particular items and amounts to be disposed and an appointment is needed. More information is available at

5 WAI NEWSLETTER PAGE 4 Upcoming Training WAI Conference Alternative Light Source Workshop, February 27-28, 2017, Wauwatosa Police Department, presented by TriTech Forensics ( training.com), registration fee $299. Crime Scene Analysis and Reconstruction, March 27-31, 2017, Wauwatosa Police Department, presented by TriTech Forensics, fee $629. The 51st annual WAI Educational Conference will take place March 7-10, 2017, at the Wintergreen Resort and Conference Center in the Wisconsin Dells. Please take advantage of this opportunity to obtain excellent training in a variety of fields by forensic experts. Social events will also be included to meet and interact with peers. A listing of specific classes and registration fees will soon be finalized. Details will be posted on our website at wai.org. Basic Fingerprint Classification and Comparison, April 24-28, 2017, Wauwatosa Police Department, presented by TriTech Forensics, fee $454. Shooting Incident Reconstruction, May 8-12, 2017, Wauwatosa Police Department, presented by TriTech Forensics, fee $869. Palm Print Search & Comparison Techniques, May 22-26, 2017, Wauwatosa Police Department, presented by TriTech Forensics, fee $390. Basic Latent Print Examiner, June 5-9, 2017, Wauwatosa Police Department, fee $549. Presentation at past WAI Conference. Photo by Don Krueger