1
JEFF BROWN
Public Defender
MICHAEL BURT
Deputy Public Defender
555 Seventh Street, Second Floor
San Francisco, California 94103
(415) 553-9650
Attorneys for Defendant
ROBERT NAWI
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
)
CALIFORNIA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT NAWI
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________
)
SCN: 176527
MCN: 1812436
Date:
February 18, 2000
Time:
9:00 a.m.
Department:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO EXCLUDE FINGERPRINT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE AND
REQUEST FOR A HEARING
PURSUANT TO PEOPLE V. KELLY
(1976) 17 CAL. 3D 24, OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR
FUNDS TO RETAIN FINGERPRINT
EXPERTS AND TO PERMIT THEIR
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE JURY
TO TERENCE HALLINAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
JOHN FARRELL AND TO THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 18, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in Department __ of the
above-entitled court, the defendant herein will move for an order excluding from evidence the
People’s fingerprint identification evidence, and will and hereby does request a hearing pursuant
to People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal. 3d on the grounds that the People’s fingerprint identification
2
evidence is inadmissible under Kelly and under Evidence Code Sections 350, 352, 801(a), and
1200. In the alternative, defendant will and hereby does move for funds to retain certain
fingerprint experts and for an order permitting their testimony before the jury.
This Motion is based on this Notice, the attached memorandum of points and authorities,
the exhibits to be provided under separate cover, and any oral and documentary evidence and
argument as may be produced at the hearing on said motion.
DATED: February 10, 2000
Respectfully Submitted,
____________________________
MICHAEL N. BURT
Attorneys for Defendant
ROBERT NAWI
//
//
//
//
//
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
.........................................................................................................iii
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE FINGERPRINT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE AND REQUEST FOR KELLY
HEARING .......................................................................................................................................1
STATEMENT OF FACTS
.............................................................................................................3
LAW AND ARGUMENT
..............................................................................................................8
I. INTRODUCTION
.......................................................................................................8
II. FINGERPRINT FUNDAMENTALS
.......................................................................16
III. THE LEGAL STANDARD TO BE APPLIED
........................................................23
A. The Subjective and Arbitrary Technique Used In This Case To Identify
Partial Latent Prints With Absolute Certainty Must Meet the
Evidentiary Standard of People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24
............................23
B. The Court Must Look Beyond Forensic Science For Evidence of General
Acceptance
...........................................................................................................26
C. Neither Acceptance of Fingerprint Evidence For Nonforensic Scientific
Purposes Nor Widespread Law Enforcement Use of Fingerprinting For
Classification and Other Nonevidentiary Purposes Establishes That
Fingerprint Analysis of a Partial Latent Print Is Reliable or Generally Accepted
For Courtroom Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
IV.
THE SUBJECTIVE AND ARBITRARY TECHNIQUE USED IN THIS
CASE TO IDENTIFY PARTIAL LATENT PRINTS WITH ABSOLUTE
CERTAINTY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED GENERALLY ACCEPTED FOR
COURTROOM USE WITHOUT CERTAIN INDICIA OF FORENSIC AND
SCIENTIFIC RELIABILITY:EMPIRICAL TESTING, ACCEPTABLE ERROR
RATES, THE EXISTENCE AND MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS,
PUBLICATION AND PEER REVIEW, AND RELIABLE NON-JUDICIAL
APPLICATIONS
. . . . . . 31
A. Introduction: The Lack of Forensic Reliability ...............................................31
B. The Lack Of Scientific Reliability As Measured By the Daubert
Factors
35
1.
The Failure to Test the Fundamental Hypothesis Upon
Which Latent Print Identifications Are Based
..........................................35
4
2.
The First Premise Of The Government’s Fingerprint
Identification Evidence Not Only Has Not Been Tested, It Has Been
Proven False
42
5
3.
The Testing Conducted by the FBI in United States v.
Mitchell for the Purposes of Litigation Fails To Demonstrate Scientific
Reliability
44
4.
There is No Established Error Rate for Latent Print
Comparisons, But It Is Clear That Errors Do Occur ................................50
5.
There Are No Objective Standards to Govern Latent
Fingerprint Comparison
............................................................................56
6.
There Is No General Consensus That Fingerprint Examiners Can
Reliably Make Identifications on the Basis of Ten Matching Ridge
Characteristics
...........................................................................................66
7.
The Fingerprint Literature Confirms the Scientific Bankruptcy
of the Field
................................................................................................67
8.
Latent Fingerprint Identifications Are Analogous to Other
Techniques That Courts Have Found Scientifically Unreliable
...............70
9.
Latent Fingerprint Comparisons Have Not Been Put to Any
Non-Judicial Applications .........................................................................74
10.
A Federal Court Has Rejected Fingerprint Identification
Evidence Because of its Scientific Unreliability .......................................76
V. THE GOVERNMENT’S FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
SHOULD ALSO BE EXCLUDED BECAUSE CORRECT SCIENTIFIC
PROCEDURES WERE NOT USED IN THIS CASE
.......................................80
VI. THE GOVERNMENT’S FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
SHOULD ALSO BE EXCLUDED UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTIONS 352
AND
801(A)
........................................................................................................................84
VII. IF THE COURT ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO PRESENT ITS
FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE, THEN THE EXPERT SHOULD
BE BARRED UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTIONS 350, 352, AND 1200
FROM TESTIFYING THAT THE AFIS COMPUTER MATCHED A PRINT TO
MR. NAWI ........................................................................................................................87
VIII. IF THE COURT ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO PRESENT ITS
FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE, MR. NAWI SHOULD BE
GRANTED FUNDING TO RETAIN AND BE PERMITTED TO CALL
EXPERT WITNESSES TO TESTIFY TO THE LIMITATIONS OF THE
GOVERNMENT’S EVIDENCE
.........................................................................89
CONCLUSION
.............................................................................................................................91
* * *
6
7
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
PAGE
Commonwealth v. Daidone (Pa. Super. 1996) 684 A.2d 179
.......................................................48
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) 509 U.S. 579
.........10,13,15,31,32,34,39,46,52,
.....................................................................................................................65,67,69,71,75,76,79,80
In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig. (3d Cir. 1994) 35 F.3d 717
......................................................79
KUMHO Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael (1999) 119 S.Ct. 1167
.................................10,13,67
People v. Adamson (1946) 27 Cal.2d 478 .......................................................................................9
People v. Allen (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1093
........................................................................9,14,22
People v. Axell (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 836
............................................................................25,40
People v. Barney (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 798
.................................................................................40
People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512
....................................................................................23,25
People v. John W. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 801
...........................................................................24
People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24
...................................9,10,22,23,24,25,28,53,64,67,69,75,77
People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587 .......................................................................10,13,29,52,63
People v. Reilly (1987) Cal.App.3d 1127
................................................................................23,25
People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18
.....................................................................................24,26
People v. Smith (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 19
..........................................................................9,14,22
People v. Soto (1999) 21 Cal.4th 512
.........................................................................9,14,23,25,39
People v. Van Cleave (1929) 208 Cal. 295
.....................................................................................8
People v. Venegas (1998) 18 Cal.4th 47
.........................................................13,24,25,39,76,77,78
People v. Wallace (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 651
.............................................................................39
People v. Webb (1993) 6 Cal.4th 494
.............................................................................................9
Perry v. United States (11th Cir. 1985) 755 F.2d 888
...................................................................46
Richardson v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc. (D.C. Cir. 1988) 857 F.2d 823 .................................46,47
State v. Caldwell (Minn. 1982) 322 N.W.2d 574
.........................................................................49
8
State v. Kunze (1999) 97 Wash.App. 832, 988 P.2d 977. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
United States v. Addison (D.C. Cir. 1974) 498 F.2d 741 .............................................................76
United States v. Amaral (9th Cir. 1973) 488 F.2d 1148
................................................................75
United States v. Brown (D.C. Cir. 1977) 557 F.2d 541
................................................................47
United States v. Byron C. Mitchell (E.D. Pa. 1999) (Criminal No. 96-00407)
.......15,36,42,45,46,
.........................................................................................................................................48,50,51,63
United States v. Downing (3d Cir. 1985) 753 F.2d 1224 .........................................................32,80
United States v. Hines (D. Mass. 1999) 55 Supp. 62
..........................................................13,14,68
United States v. McVeigh, 1997 WL 47724 ........................................................................14,55,68
United States v. Parks (C.D. Cal. 1991) (No. CR-91-358-JSL)
.........................................71,72,75
United States v. Santillan (N.D. Cal. 1999) __ F.Supp. __, 1999 WL 1201765
..........13,14,67,68,
..............................................................................................................................................69,77,78
United States v. Scheffer (1998) 523 U.S. 303
........................................................................26,29
United States v. Smith (7th Cir. 1989) 869 F.2d 348
................................................................32,52
United States v. Starzecpyzel (S.D.N.Y. 1995) 880 F.Supp. 1027
......................14,53,64,67,68,75
United States v. Tran Trong Cuong (4th Cir. 1994) 18 F.3d 1132
................................................46
United States v. Velasquez (3d Cir. 1995) 64 F.3d 844
...........................................................79,80
United States v. Williams (2d Cir. 1978) 583 F.2d 1194
..............................................................32
Williamson v. Reynolds (E.D. Okla. 1995) 904 F.Supp. 1529 .............................14,64,68,69,75,77
STATUTES
Evidence Code Sections -
350 .....................................................................................................................................75
352 .....................................................................................................................................75
801(a)
...........................................................................................................................75,78
801(b)
................................................................................................................................46
Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 ............................................................................................78
* * *
9
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
ARTICLES AND BOOKS
David Faigmann, Fingerprint Identification: Legal Issues, in 2 Modern Scientific Evidence: The
Law and Science of Expert Testimony (David L. Faigman et al. eds., West 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 67
Paul Giannelli and Edward Imwinkelried, 1 Scientific Evidence (3d. Ed 1999) ..10, 12, 43, 50,
57
David Ashbaugh, Quantitative-Qualitative Friction Ridge Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and
Advanced Ridgeology, 103 (CRC Press, Oct. 1999)... . . . . . . . . . 11, 13, 15, 17, 21,32, 56-59, 67
David Stoney, Fingerprint Identification: Scientific Status, in 2 Modern Scientific Evidence: The
Law and Science of Expert Testimony (David L. Faigman et al. eds., West 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 37, 39, 50, 56, 67
I. W. Evett and R.L. Williams, A Review of the Sixteen Point Fingerprint Standard in England
and Wales, (1996) 12(1) The Print 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 39, 43, 60
James E. Starrs, Judicial Control Over Scientific Supermen: Fingerprint Experts and Others Who
Exceed The Bounds, (1999) 35 Crim. L. Bull. 234 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12, 43, 46, 51-53
Federal Bureau of Investigation, An Analysis of Standards in Fingerprint Identification, FBI L.
Enforcement Bull. 1 (June 1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 18, 21, 57
James F. Cowger, Friction Ridge Skin: Comparison and Identification of Fingerprints (1983) . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16, 21
John Berry, The History and Development of Fingerprinting, in Advances in Fingerprint
Technology (Henry C. Lee & R. E. Gaensslen eds., 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..17
James W. Osterburg, An Inquiry Into the Nature of Proof, 9 J. of Forensic Sci. 413, 425
(1964).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .17
David Ashbaugh, The Premises of Friction Ridge Identification, Clarity, and the Identification
Process, 44 J. of Forensic Identification 499 (1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17, 58
David A. Stoney & John I. Thornton, A Critical Analysis of Quantitative Fingerprint
Individuality Models, 31 J. of Forensic Sci. 1187 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 39
William Leo, Distortion Versus Dissimilarity in Friction Skin Identification, 15(2) The Print 1
( March/April 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Y. Mark and D. Attias, What Is the Minimum Standard for Characteristics for Fingerprint
Identification (1996) Fingerprint Whorld 148 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 63
James Osterburg, The Crime Laboratory : Case Studies of Scientific Criminal Investigation
(1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
ARTICLES AND BOOKS
Ene-Malle Lauritis, Some Fingerprints Lie, National Legal Aid Defender Association, The
Legal Aid Briefcase, October 1968, p.129 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .19
J. Edgar Hoover, Hoover Responds to “Some Fingerprints Lie”, The Legal Aid Briefcase, June
1969, p.221 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST),
Quality Assurance Guidelines (Dec. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20, 64,
82
David Grieve, Possession of Truth, 46 J. of Forensic Identification 521 (1996)... . . . . . . . . .21,
53
Dusty Clark, What’s The Point (Dec. 1999)(internet document) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ..22, 59, 67
Dan L. Bark, DNA Identification: Possibilities and Pitfalls Revisited, 31 Jurimetrics J. 53 . . . ..26
Federal Bureau of Investigation, The Science of Fingerprints: Classification and Uses (1979) . . .
. . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. . . .28, 68
Adrian Dysart, Biometrics (Winter 1998)(internet document) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29, 74
Let Your Fingers Do the Logging In, Network Computing, Issue 910, June 1, 1998 . . . .. . .29, 75
United States Department of Justice, Forensic Sciences: Review of Status and Needs (1999)....36
Michael J. Saks, Merlin and Solomon: Lessons from the Law’s Formative Encounters With
Forensic Identification Science, 49 Hastings L.J. 1069 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..36, 55, 75
Margaret A. Berger, Procedural Paradigms For Applying the Daubert Test, 78 Minn. L. Rev.
1345, 1353 (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...36
Francis Galton, Fingerprints 110 (1892). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..39
Bert Wentworth, Personal Identification 318-20 (1932).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .39
A.R.Roddy and J.D. Stosz, Fingerprint Features- Statistical Analysis and System Performance
Estimates, from The Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Sept.
1997, Vol. 85, No. 9(internet document)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
John Berry, Useless Information, 8 Fingerprint Whorld 43 (Oct. 1982)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
James E. Starrs, A Miscue in Fingerprint Identification: Causes and Concerns, 12 J. of Police
Sci. & Admin. 287 (1984)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . .. 51
David L. Grieve, Reflections on Quality Standards, 16 Fingerprint Whorld 108, 110 (April
1990)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . 52
11
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
ARTICLES AND BOOKS
Simon A. Cole, Witnessing Identification: Latent Fingerprinting Evidence and Expert
Knowledge, 28 Social Studies in Science 687, 701 (Oct.-Dec. 1998)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
James E. Starrs, More Saltimbancos on the Loose? -- Fingerprint Experts Caught in a Whorl of
Error, 12 Sci. Sleuthing Newsl. 1 (Winter 1998)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Dale Clegg, A Standard Comparison, 24 Fingerprint Whorld 99, 101 (July 1998)...52
Collaborative Testing Services, Inc., Report No. 9508, Forensic Testing Program: Latent Prints
Examination 2 (1995)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . 52
Collaborative Testing Services, Inc., Report No. 9608, Forensic Testing Program: Latent Prints
Examination 2 (1996)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . ....54
Collaborative Testing Services, Inc., Report No. 9708, Forensic Testing Program: Latent Prints
Examination 2 (1997)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. ....54
Collaborative Testing Services, Inc., Report No. 9808, Forensic Testing Program: Latent Prints
Examination 2 (1998)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .54
John Thornton, The General Assumptions and Rationale Of Forensic Identification, in 2 Modern
Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . ...55, 60, 62, 69, 74
Simon Cole, What Counts For Identity? The Historical Origins Of
The Methodology Of Latent
Fingerprint Identification, 12 Sci. In Context 1, 3-4 (Spring 1999)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56, 58
Christophe Champod, Numerical Standards and “Probable” Identifications, 45 J. of Forensic
Identification 136, 138 (1995)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 57
K. Luff, The 16-Point Standard, 16 Fingerprint Whorld 73 (Jan. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..57
David Ashbaugh, The Key to Fingerprint Identification, 10 Fingerprint Whorld 93, 93 (April
1985)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Robert Olsen, Friction Ridge Characteristics and Points of Identity: An Unsolved Dichotomy of
Terms, 41 J. Forensic Identification 195(1991)..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...61
John I. Thornton, The One-Dissimilarity Doctrine in Fingerprint Identification, 306 Int’l Crim.
Police Rev. 89 (March 1977)...61
David Ashbaugh, Defined Pattern, Overall Pattern and Unique Pattern, 42 J. of Forensic
Identification 505, 510 (1992)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . 61
William Leo, Identification Standards - The Quest for Excellence, Cal. Identification Dig.
(December 1995)..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .
.62
Pat Wertheim, The Ability Equation, 46 J. of Forensic Identification 149, 153 (1996).. . . . . . . .63
12
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
ARTICLES AND BOOKS
David L. Grieve, The Identification Process: The Quest For Quality, 40 J. of Forensic
Identification 109, 110-111 (1990).... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ..64
David L. Grieve, The Identification Process: Traditions in Training, 40 J. of Forensic
Identification 195, 196 (1990)...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . 64
Robert D. Olsen, Cult of the Mediocre, 8 Fingerprint Whorld 51 (Oct. 1982) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
Mark Hansen, Trooper's Wrongdoing Taints Cases, A.B.A. J., Mar. 1994... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Ronald Sullivan, Trooper's 2d Tampering Charge, N.Y. Times, Jan. 6, 1994, at B9... . . . . . . . .65
Gary Taylor, Fake Evidence Becomes Real Problem, Nat'l L.J., Oct. 9, 1995... . . . . . . . . . . . . .
65
Pat Wertheim, Detection of Forged and Fabricated Latent Prints, 44 J. of Forensic Identification
653, 675 (1994)...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . 65
Alan McRobert’s article Nature Never Repeats, The Print 12(5).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
N.C. Knight, No Two Alike? 69 Bulletin Am. Meteorological Soc’y 496 (1988)... . . . . . . . . . .69
John W. Strong, Language and Logic in Expert Testimony: Limiting Expert Testimony by
Restrictions of Function, Reliability and Form, 71 Or. L. Rev. 349, 361 (1992)... . . . . . . . . . . .84
Charles Illsley, Juries Fingerprints and the Expert Fingerprint Witness 16, presented at The
International Symposium on Latent Prints (FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, July, 1987)... . . . . . 84
TRANSCRIPTS AND RULINGS IN OTHER CASES
United States v. Byron C. Mitchell (E.D. Pa. 1999)(Criminal No. 96-00407)... . . . . .15, 38, 44-50
United States v. Parks (C.D. Cal. 1991) (No. CR-91-358-JSL)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 19, 76-80
People v. John Davenport, S. F. Muni Ct. No. 198530... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 19
People v. Clarence Powell, S. F. Muni Ct. No. 167003... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
United States v. Timothy McVeigh (D. Colo. 1997)(Criminal No. 96-CR-68). . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .57
3
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On October 29, 1987, Virginia Lowery’s partially decomposed body was found in her
San Francisco home after a mysterious anonymous telephone call alerted police to the presense
of her body. Two latent fingerprints were recovered from the crime scene, but a computer search
failed to reveal the identity of the person who had left the prints.
Eleven years later, on April 10 , 1998, defendant ROBERT C. NAWI was arrested in
North Beach on a trespassing charge, and his fingerprints were taken and routinely fed into the
San Francisco Police Department’s Automated Fingerprint Identification System (A.F.I.S.). The
computer alerted San Francisco Crime Laboratory fingerprint technician Wendy Chong to a
possible match with latent fingerprints that had been recovered in 1987 by Inspector Kenneth
Moses from a water heater at the Lowery homicide scene. Thus alerted, Chong physically
compared Mr. Nawi’s known prints to two partial latent prints recovered from two different
locations near the top of the water heater.
At the preliminary hearing, Chong testified on direct examination that it was her opinion
that a partial latent print recovered three inches from the top of the water heater matched Mr.
Nawi’s left thumb print.(RT 214). It was further her opinion that a second partial latent print
recovered in a differant location two inches from the top of the water heater matched the right
index finger of Mr. Nawi.(Id.). She described the methodology of her comparison as follows: “I
USE A MAGNIFYING GLASS THAT -- THAT WAS ABOUT FIVE TIMES
MAGNIFICATION AND I USE POINTERS. AND THEN LATER I JUST COMPARED THE
POINTS OF IDENTIFICATION ON THE LATENT WITH THOSE OF THE KNOWN
FINGERPRINTS.” (RT 215).
On cross examination, Ms. Chong forthrightly admitted the subjective nature of her
opinion:
4
Q. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE COMPUTER (DECLARES) A MATCH
OR DOESN'T (DECLARE) A MATCH DEPENDING ON HOW YOU DRAW
OUT THE TRACING OF THE LATENT?
A. YES, BECAUSE DIFFERENT PEOPLE WILL HAVE MAYBE A
DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE FINGERPRINT LOOKS
LIKE. THEREFORE, THEY CAN TRACE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.
AND IF YOU TRACE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY, YOU CAN HAVE A
TOTALLY DIFFERENT CANDIDATES LIST....
Q. THE QUESTION IS: WHEN YOU ARE TRACING THE LATENT, ARE YOU
DOING IT THE WAY A PAINTER WOULD DRAW A PAINTING, YOU ARE
INTERPRETING WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AND TRACING IT, OR ARE YOU
PHYSICALLY PUTTING THE TRACE PAPER ON THE LATENT AND DRAWING
IT?
A. OH, OKAY. SOME PEOPLE MIGHT SEE A BIFURCATION AS A RIDGE
ENDING A(ND) SOME PEOPLE MIGHT SEE I(T) AS VIS-VERSA. AND THEN
SOME PEOPLE MIGHT SEE A SHORT RIDGE AS BEING A DOT AND SOME
PEOPLE WILL NOT ENTER THAT IN THE COMPUTER. SO, IT DEPENDS ON
THE PERSONS WHO LOOKING AT THE FINGERPRINT, HOW THEY INTERPRET
THAT FINGERPRINT TO BE. I AM SORRY.
Q. SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT TWO PEOPLE, TWO FINGERPRINT
EXAMINERS LOOKING AT THE SAME FINGERPRINT CAN INTERPRET
DIFFERENTLY THE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE PRINT --
A. YES.
5
Q. -- RIGHT?
A. YES. IT DEPENDS ALSO ON THEIR TRAINING, YOUR EXPERIENCE AND
MAYBE THEIR TECHNOLOGY THAT YOU ARE USING TOO.
Q. AND IN TERMS OF DOING MANUAL COMPARISONS, THE TECHNIQUE IS
THE SAME, RIGHT, THE FINGERPRINT IN GENERAL;LOOKING AT THE PRINT
AND THE INTERPRETERS INTERPRETS WHETHER IT'S A RIDGE OR A DOT
OR SOME OTHER CHARACTERISTIC THAT YOU ARE COMPARING?
A. YEAH.
Q. AND THAT INTERPRETATION IS DEPENDING UPON THE TRAINING AND
THE EXPERIENCE AND THE INTERPRETERS SKILLS OF THE PERSON DOING
THE INTERPRETATION, RIGHT?
A. YES.
(RT 223-225)
Wendy Chong further admitted that the subjective nature of fingerprint comparisons is
not governed by any objective standards:
Q. DO YOU HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF POINTS OF COMPARISON
THAT YOU MAKE IN MAKING YOUR DETERMINATION THAT THE
WATER HEATER PRINTS MATCH THE KNOWN PRINTS OF MR. NAWI?
A. NOT REALLY. YOU ARE GOING ALSO ON POROSCOPY AND
RIDGEOLOGY. SO YOU JUST COMBINE THEM. I REMEMBER
LOOKING AT MR. NAWI'S FINGERPRINTS AND I JUST DECIDED TEN
 |
 |
 |