Source: https://www.tdcaa.com/journal/meeting-attacks-on-forensic-science-through-tdcaas-forensic-evidence-project/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:14:27+00:00

Document:
In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a federal government-mandated report on the status of forensic science in the United States.1 The report has been presented through the media as critical in some respect of nearly every forensic science except DNA testing. To provide Texas prosecutors with accurate and timely research and information to understand and meet these new challenges, the Texas District and County Attorneys Association (TDCAA) has started a Forensic Evidence Project. This article will give prosecutors an introduction to the work of that project and provide an example of the work product that will soon help prosecutors in the courtroom.
During meetings to update the strategic long-term plan for TDCAA, prosecutors indicated that they need help in dealing with the growing attacks on the use of forensic evidence in the courtroom. Many of the concerns stemmed from specific problems that have developed in Texas crime labs. However, many of the concerns arose from the national attention to the subject created by the issuance of the NAS report and its subsequent media attention. At the invitation of TDCAA, a group of prosecutors2 joined the Forensic Evidence Project and began working on the creation of single-page, two-sided summaries on how to handle forensic science challenges for several specific subjects.
For example, I was assigned to develop a sheet on the subject of fingerprint comparison. The goal was to summarize the purpose, process, and modern challenges to using an expert witness to provide testimony regarding fingerprint evidence. So, what could be so controversial about a forensic science that has been in use for over 100 years?
Fingerprint identification is a field of forensic science that uses an expert witness to visually identify the unique characteristics associated with a latent fingerprint left at a crime scene or deliberately placed on a document or in a database. The expert then compares that latent print to a known print obtained from an individual to determine whether the individual was the source of the latent print.
Each print, whether it comes from the finger, palm, toe, or sole of the foot, contains unique patterns of ridged skin. Those patterns are often transferred to a surface when a finger deposits oil, blood, sweat or ink onto the surface. The pattern can later be collected through photography or various other techniques for collecting a latent print.
The expert relies on a process called the acronym-named ACE-V method (Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification) when conducting the comparison between a latent and known print. This process has been recognized by numerous courts as a reliable method for conducting a fingerprint comparison and coming to a conclusion as to whether a particular individual was the source of a latent print.
Frankly, the field of fingerprint comparison is so well-known and accepted in Texas courts that a trial judge may take judicial notice of the reliability of the field and the ACE-V method for making a comparison.7 Nevertheless, the expert witness still must provide proof that the ACE-V method was properly applied in a particular case before such evidence is ultimately admissible.
In conclusion, in December Texas prosecutors will receive six single sheet summaries of forensic fields, helping them address challenges in the courtroom. This is just the beginning for TDCAA. Please send us your suggestions for additional forensic information. We all need to work harder to make sure we present solid forensic evidence during a trial.
1 Any prosecutor may read the report online or purchase the report in hardback, but a free download in PDF format is available at www.nap.edu/ catalog.php?record_id=12589. A shorter executive summary is also available. Every prosecutor should take the time to read the report.
2 The prosecutors included: John Bradley (Williamson County DA, fingerprint analysis), Alan Curry (Harris County Assistant DA, eyewitness identification), Lindsey Roberts (Williamson County Assistant DA, collision reconstruction), Richard Alpert (Tarrant County Assistant DA, blood alcohol testing), Lance Long (Harris County Assistant DA, DNA testing), and Warren Diepraam (Montgomery County Assistant DA, drug toxicology).
3 National Research Council, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States, A Path Forward, pp. 102-04, 136-45 (2009).
4 Commonwealth v. Gambora, 933 N.E.2d 50 (Mass. 2010); Johnston v. State, 27 So.3d 11 (Fla. 2010); United States v. Rose, 672 Supp. 2d 723 (D. Md. 2009); see also Swirls and Whorls: Litigating Post-Conviction Claims of Fingerprint Misidentification after the NAS Report, 2010 Utah L. Rev. 267 (2010).
5 For a downloadable PDF of the report, go to: www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0601/exec.pdf.
6 United States v. Rose, 672 F.Supp.2d 273 (D. Md. 2009).
7 Hernandez v. State, 116 S.W.3d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). For an example of such judicial notice, see Moore v. State, 109 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001).
8 See Tex. Code Crim. Pro. art. 38.35(a)(4)(A); Tex. Admin. Code, Title 37, Part 1, Chapter 28, Rule 28.146(1)(b).
9 Mouton v. State, 892 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1995, pet. ref’d); Sepeda v. State, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 9234 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, pet. ref’d) (not for publication).
10 United States v. Havvard, 117 F.Supp.2d 248 (D. Ind. 2000).
11 For details on those standards, go to www.swegfrast.org.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 38
 v. 
 v. 
 v.