For. Scien.

application of scientific disciplines in legal setting

IMPRESSION EVIDENCE Ear impressions whether ear lobe attached or not is class characteristic that can excl. suspect
a. Doesnt have characteristics like fingerprint b. No supporting data/stats it holds up as indiv. identifier, but still accepted by courts c. If ear print has insuffic characteristics to estab match w/ perp, ear pics are even less reliable as ID source (b/c pics can be manipulated) 1. State v. Kunze (ear impression case): involved ear impr. left at c/s. a. Issue: is ear print suffic. source to ID suspect to the excl. of all others? b. Holding: ear print ID not admissible as scientific evid. under gen. acceptance Frye test c. Scientific disciplines involved: (1) fingerprinting;(2) earprinting; (3) anthropology defs glove left impression at crime scene; (4) toolmarks impr. made by Kunzes ear is like toolmark impr. b/c earprint leaves impr. like bullet leaves impr. Identical twins have identical DNA but difft fingerprints d. Ear impression, not ear print used ear impression as its part of impression evid. & has broader range Grubb, impression expert who can provide expert testimony Basic Rule on Exemplars (scotus) is there a reliance issue? a. Its expected that ppl leave lip prints on glasses, but dont expect to leave ear prints on doors Method of Taking Exemplars f/ Obtaining Match a. Done to excl. suspect (prove exemplar isnt match to ear print left on door i. Need to locate dissimilarity as oppose to trying to find a match falsifiability. Insufficient if expert fails to look f/ dissimilar characteristics would estab that print is difft Criminologist studies crimes based on cause of a crimes & nature of behavioral pattern neces. to commit given crime VS Criminalist studies crime scenes & evid. left at scene; examines scientific data a. Equivalent to forensic scientist on east coast b. Forensic science incl. other disciplines (pathology, med examiners, etc.) c. Hypo you have Ds shoe & piece of rubber from c/s does it match rubber from Ds shoe?

2.

3.

4. 5.

EXPERT TESTIMONY / EVIDENCE ADMISSIBILITY

1. Oken v. State court had broad discretion on expert admissibility matters

**appl ct. never overrules trial ct. on admissib. issue**

i. R. 702: expert is neces. to inform jury on subj matter of which they cant inform themselves (lack expert knowl) b/c dont want to leave subst. issues to jury speculation 1

court is who determ. witn. qualification & expert testimony admissib. rather than expert testifying & then jury not crediting the testimony a person cant come into ct. & claim to be an expert; specific rules must be followed 2. Bodily Fluid as Trace Evidence: non-secreters: some ppl dont secrete partic. bodily fluid. If bodily fluid of perp is at c/s non-secreter suspect should be excluded. a. DNA Evidence: DNA analysis/testing is NOT ABO blood typing i. If defts blood type matches perps consistency only is shown 3. Frye Pretrial Hearings [in Frye j/d] hearings to consider novel scientific evid. Considers 2 issues: (1) under Frye std., are evid., concl. reached & method used generally accepted in relevant scientific community? & (2) Were methods used reliably appl. in the case?
CA, FL, NY = all Frye j/ds on expert & quasi-scientific testimony a. Minority Frye rule: if evid. is unique, both sides must be heard on disputed scientific issue i. if not novel cant raise Daubert or Frye argument on admissib. i.e., fingerprinting: not unique currently cant excl. evid. from fingerprinting by pointing out flaws. b. Six Frye Issues: i. (1) qualifying the expert; ii. (2) experts op. hows it stated (e.g., used terms like likely, probable, morphologically similar (has same bkgr) consistent w/, etc. iii. (3) proponents burden of proof preponderance of evid. iv. (4) do rules of evid. apply? v. (5) distinguishing class characteristics (everyone has) from accidental (indiv.) characteristics (unique to a partic. person) Accidental characteristic: vital f/ making an ID b/c it is unique to the person Class characteristic - never adeq. f/ ID purposes, only f/ excl. vi. (6) both sides must be head on the issue (minority rule) 4. Problem of Courts Relying on Past Court Rulings on Evidence / Expert Admissib. a. Courts should not rely on case law in ruling on admissib. issues b/c sitting ct. may not know reason f/ past ct. ruling a certain way on an admissib. dispute or crediting/(not) scientific evid. b. State v. Polite (FL) Frye j/d evid. inadmissible c. People v. Anzillotti (CA) admissib. undisputed d. Mark Dallagher Royal ct. of Justice (2002) (England) conviction held as unsafe & set aside 5. In General: ear print convictions are worth challenging, have been challenged & been proven to be flawed (Fishers Forensics Under Fire)

FORENSIC EVIDENCE GENERALLY

1. Three Purposes of Forensic Evid.: (1) inculpate; (2) exculpate; (3) recreate c/s (incl determin. of manner, means & cause) 2

 Value of Forensic Evidence neces. to excl. innocent people; goal = identific. to excl. of all others

a. DNA plays pivotal role in crime 2. Obtaining Meaningful & Admissible Scientific Evid must be derived using scientific methodology a. Valid: test must be capable of IDing the specific type of evid. searched f/ b. Reliable: test must produce accurate results every time c. Relevant: to the issue in dispute d. Tested: requires: (1) measuring against gen. accepted std.; (2) by judicial gatekeeper (as to admission); (3) by adversarial system 3. Associative Evid. used to excl. / incl. connection to victim; helps to build circumstantial case 4. Inconclusive Evid. has value f/ comparison purp. but minutia of evid. is missing. Thus, determination = inconclusive. E.g., latent print 5. Locards Exchange Principle: every contact one makes w/ anything/anyone else leaves a trace a. Forensic scientists & Evidence: i. Have to find it sometimes tough to find & invisible even under microscope ii. Have to recogn. its value to that partic. case iii. Have to recover it evid. must be recovered carefully or else risk losing probative value iv. Have to maintain its integrity otherwise loses probative value v. Have to analyze it often too much evid. to analyze & not enough lab staff vi. Have to formulate an opinion vii. Have to meet admissib. requirements or conviction could get challenged, reversed viii. Have to withstand adversarial system 6. Natl Databases Used in Evid. Gathering Process comparisons done by for. examiner:
a. AFIS allows comparison of latent prints w/ prints already in system to get ID match b. CODIS FBI system that allows comparison of DNA at c/s w/ DNA profiles stored in system c. NIBIS used f/ ballistic imaging; digital images of bullet, cart. case, etc is compared w/ items stored in system 7. Forensic Pathology discipline used in determin. of: (1) cause (e.g., tire iron); (2) manner (e.g., homicide, suicide); & (3) mechanism of death (e.g., exsanguination) a. important f/ determin. personality & other personal features of the perp. b. Coroner = elected; no reqm of med. trng. VS. pathologist = apptd; med. trng. Reqd 8. Forensic Biology involves (1) body fluid identific (blood, semen, saliva) & (2) DNA analysis (shows only nuclear structure, not type of liquid reqr body fluid test a. Presumptive Test (Melendez Diaz case) shows presence of a fluid that can be found in multiple items; not reliable and can result in false positive i. Negative results = lack of drug but positive result = possible presence of drug b. Confirmatory Test determin. of presence of specific fluid type 3

CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION & INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES 9. C/S Search

Chain of custody: vital to maint. Integrity of evid. a. Identification of Singular Objects - done via serial # or agents initials & date found b. Identification of Fungible Items can be IDd b/c it appears in same condit./pkg. as when encountered c. Preserving Condit. involves proper storage, moving, lifting

i. important b/c time b/w finding & analysis can alter nature of evid.
d. CSI Principle: Receipt of Info/Initial Response: arriving ofc. must know how to oper. in c/s & how to handle witnesses ii. Must arrive promptly to preserve chain of custody of phys. evid. 10. Collection & Preservation of Evidence on Scene a. Use of paper (not plastic) bags to cover, preserved evid. b. Conduct Scene Assessment & Protect C/S: from arrival of 1st ofc. until c/s released from custody

i. important b/c perps leave evid. at c/s ii. before scene stabilized, mental/written notes should be made: at significant times (arrival, departure from scene) notes should incl. anything altered by police, EMS, fire personnel notes should incl.: anything essential about suspect & victim; condit. of doors, windows; presence of any odors; any signs of activity

iii. rope off c/s & all surrounding areas that may yield evid. & to prevent unauth. entry
c. Ctrl Persons on Scene: ensure evid. kept separate from other items to avoid contamin./ adulteration 11. Document Scene

a. Where evid. is found, marker should be placed to notify others

i. E.g. loc. of discharged bullet indicates where perp & victim were loc.; bullet impressions lodged in structures materials ii. if firearm recovered e-TRACE used to track sale of it from maker to 1st retail purchaser

b. Examine what is overhead & loc. of evidence (e.g. blood splatters and bullet holes). c. Videotape: use videotape recorder w/ time, date functions iii. Condit. of scene should remain unaltered thruout documentation iv. Record overview of scene & then close-up, capturing layout of c/s & relative loc. of evid. d. Photos: v. Begin w/ wide angle photos of c/s & surrounding areas. ii. Then shoot med. range photos to show relationships b/w key evid. iii. Then shoot close-ups of key evid., using ruler to mark size of relevant items on scene iv. Take notes of whats being photographed & shown in each photo e. Sketches: to show overhead view of c/s vi. Use tape measure to measure distances b/w objects, structures so they can be accurately reflected (to scale) in the sketch

C/S reconstruction - characterized by 4 methods: 1) profiling, 2) psychological autopsy, or equivocal death analysis. Determining most probably sequence of events.
a. Profiling method of c/s reconstruction involving linkage analysis or signature analysis b. Psychological autopsy used to investigate suicide cases c. Equivocal death analysis (EDA) used w ref. to mode/manner of death vii. Something is "equivocal"(vague /unclear) when conclusions can have difft interpretations d. 1st Step in C/S Reconst. detectives do walk-through of c/s, simulating events mentally that mightve happened in order to prove or disprove sequences of events.

Reconstruction done by: detectives, criminalists, investigators, profilers MUST Use Paper Not Plastic Bag to Cover / Preserve Evid. @ Scene creates petri dish & everything rots Setting up homicide c/s: remember to leave gunshot residue in victims dominant hand

Reconstruction Protocols/ Steps 1. Wound pattern analysis o Should be done at both c/s & autopsy o ?s to answer: 1) could deceased have caused own injury; 2) did deceased know the methods of death 2. Victim state of mind & mental health o Study police, hospital & treatment, employment & school records; interview ppl about victims bkgr 5

o Find out about interpersonal relationships o Look f/ classic warning signs of suicide giving away stuff; sudden happiness after l-t depression o Learn of reactions to victims death from any persons in any way assoc. w/ victim & question them about warning signs and who mightve intended harm o Analyze victims goals / life plans helps determ. intention about victims role in their own death o Reconstruct timeline of events leading up to day of death
Evidentiary Value of Facts - # & kinds of facts deduced from reconstruction AND any ambiguity / doubt assoc. w/ facts determ. level of evidentiary value of fact / (component)

Terms Used in C/S Reconstruction Modus Operandi MO the behaviors perp took which were neces. to commit the crime. o Learned behavior that is dynamic (can chng. over time) Signature behaviors behaviors committed by perps that serve psych. and emot. needs Scientific Method of Reconstruction Step 1 state the question to be answered by looking at type of crime committed Step 2 form hypothesis by: analyzing phys. evid. & interviewing victim, witnesses to determ. motive, suspect Step 3 collect data by reviewing records, obtaining exemplar (comparison) samples from suspects Step 4 test your hypothesis by evaluating veracity, reliability of stories told by each pty to crime & weigh stories against phys. evid. & known rules that could interpret phys. evid. Step 5 pursue most promising theories by doing proc. that might prove or disprove a suspect is the perp. Step 6 draw concl. about crime and perp o 1 of 4 possible conclusions about seq. of events w/ levels of certainty; 2 most certain are: 1) that it can be shown to have occurred in given manner and (on other end of spectrum) 2) it cannot be show to have occurred in given manner RULES ON DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE Almost anything visual from c/s can be presented as a visual exhibit in court (under certain rules)

Visual exhibits either real evid. or demonstrative evid. Real evid. evid. that speaks f/ itself / actual objects o But real evid. doesnt rely on a witn. testimony Demonstrative evid. evid. that illustrates or helps explain oral testimony, like recreating tangible item, event, or experiment. Some other piece of evid. that needs to be demonstrated is neces to use demonstratives. o Scientific evid. = demonstrative evid., e.g., when toxicologist testifies that victim dies of lead poisoning & refer to chart of human body showing pathway the toxin traveled.
6

Common types of demonstrative evid.: molds, scale models, maps, charts, diagrams, police composites, sketches, mug shots/photos, microscopic enlargement, videotape, computer reconstruction, scientific tests Foundational reqm f/ presenting demonstratives & scientific expertise - requires laying foundation Authentication subj of demonstrative may not alter, destroy, chng. appearance or condit. of something significantly (e.g., comp. enh. pic to make c/s look lighter = inadmissible) Representational accuracy demonstrative must fairly depict scale, dimensions, etc of underlying evid. (e.g., photo w/ some small section enlarged to focus in on something is likely inadmissible). Very important whenever comparisons (such as 2 writing samples) are made, so evid. can be compared by lay persons. Identification demonstratives must be exact match to underlying evid. or testimony illustrated. (e.g., expert witn. to testify using enlarged pic of bootprint outline w/ unique mfgr mark Victim must ID that mark as the one that boot-stomped her.) Cannot be stipulated Demonstratives must pass 3 hurdles of admissibility: relevancy; materiality; competency. Relevancy demonstrative must make ref. to chrg, pt. of law, question of guilt/innocence, etc must also pass test of probative vs. prejudicial (inflames passions/prejudices of jury) consider the intent, principal value and effect of evidence on jury autopsy pic/ other staged photo could be argued as more prejudicial than probative even if accurately depicts subj. matter. Materiality that it goes directly to purpose of illustration, is easily understandable, and isnt presented simply to educate the jury Competency that it is something that fits a court decorum, is legit, ethical, and doesnt taint the court or subvert judicial process. Compliant w/ generally accepted standard (Frye Test) e.g. computer simulations (projection of possible outcomes predicted using computer algorithm) must be shown that simulation based on accepted principles of physics

DIFFT TYPES OF EVIDENCE

1. Retaining Evid: Def. atty. may not destroy/hide evid. from cops, by may hold item f/ reas. time pd. f/ testing a. Some state laws reqr atty. to preserve evid. or be held in breach of states practice/ethics rules or guilty of crim. destr. Of evid. b. If atty. proceeds to test evid. must instruct examiner to not use entire sample OR aliquot the evid. (take evid. apart to allow oppy f/ future testing) 2. DNA Evid. where can it be found?

Blood, saliva, vaginal fluid, semen, hair root, tooth pulp, bone marrow, urine, tissue

3. DNA evid. from IEDs: a. Hair recovered from tape on an IED DNA analysis of hair root to obtain nucl. DNA.If only hair shaft can be analyzed can obtain mtDNA (mothers DNA, all siblings have same mtDNA) 4. Blood evid. - (blood of victim or susp. using stains) 5. Saliva evid. - (cans/bottles/cups; cigarette butts; gum; lip balm; chewed food/traces on toothpick; envelopes 6. Perspiration/ skin cells - DNA off of clothing 7. Touch DNA DNA left behind after an obj. has been handled; provides low copy DNA a. E.g., can be found on device components; guns; door knobs/handles; steering wheels b. Surface texture & length of time passed since handling effect DNA results 8. Limitations of DNA Evid. a. Cannot tell when DNA sample deposited on the evid. b. If complex/degraded mixture sample many persons could be incl. as contributors (either major or minor contributor) i. DNA from guns: presents special pblm b/c many ppl may have handled a gun & mixtures are common 9. Trace evid.: evid. from c/s is collected to determ. who/what deposited it a. Evid. from hat = DNA, hair b. Hair evid. exam can determ: (1) if its hair; (2) if human or animal; (3) perps race; (4) area of body the hair is from; (5) if trace of dmg, disease, or cosmetic treatm; (6) if suitable f/ comparison 9

i. Value of hair evid.:

can incl. categ of ppl that incl. deft. or excl. by showing suspect didnt commit crime Gives ability to closely assoc. hair w/ a partic. person, thru color, disease presence

ii. forcibly removed root: suitable f/ mtDNA & nucl. DNA testing; doesnt imply pulling iii. Naturally shed root: suitable f/ mtDNA testing only 10. Fibers (Natl or Synth.): known as associative evid. b/c you can assoc. item of evid. w/ suspect or their environment; also can assoc. items of evid. from difft loc. f/ comparison a. Q (question) & K (known) fibers can compare color, shape, chem composition, micro props i. E.g., Q & K carpet fibers compare style, cut to determ. if both carpets made by same co. 11. Glass Evid.: associative evid. that can be compared w/ ref. to color, thickness, optical props, composition a. Positive assoc. can be made w/ phys. match b. When glass breaks, most flies in direction of appl. force, but some flies back onto person applying force & later can be found on the suspect/clothing/shoes c. Gunshot into glass: shot sequence can be determ. by line cracks from bullet holes b/c crack doesnt cross another crack line already present. 12. Footwear / Tire Track Evid. a. Comparison of ImpressionsShoe/tire brand can be determ. from Q (perps) impressions & then compared to K shoe/tire thru size and tread design i. If Q impression lacks suffic. detail can only attest to similarity in class characteristics w/ K shoe/tire ii. If Q impression has suffic. detail: suffic. indiv. characteristics (scratches, cuts, wear) can be IDd to positively ID Ks shoes as having made Q impression Dye pack elect. device having chem. compound that explodes certain amt. of time after handling 13. Instrumental Analysis consists of 3 categories of instrumentation: (1) microscopic methods, (2) chromatographic methods, (3) spectrographic methods a. Must estab. validity & reliability of instrument used to do test f/ test results to be admissible b. Reverse Projection Photogrammetry taking still of c/s from video & recreating c/s by placing items in it i. E.g. Use of RPP in robbery investigation: items/ppl in scene used to determ. shooters height & other phys features 14. Patent & Latent Prints: [rolled ink] patent print can be IDd w/o visualization (e.g. powder) but latent print reqr visualization 15. Photographic/Video Image Comparison comparing images depicting ppl, things to actual ppl, items a. Comparison used to: eliminate actual person/item; determ. it has same class characteristics as that in photo/video; or make positive ID i. Pay special attn. to shared presence of unique features 16. Individualization of Friction Ridge Characteristics present in latent prints 10

a. Collection & Retention of F/R Impressions: i. Step 1: latent print must be found dependent on type of surface (smooth/porous, etc) ii. Step 2: If suspect is unkown prints searched in FBIs db (IAFIS) 17. Forensic Document Examination a. Examinations Performed: handwriting, typewriting, indented writing, impression devices (rubber stamps), photocopies b. Handwriting Comparison: i. Step 1: obtain standards (collected writings such as DLs, cancel checks, etc) ii. Step 2: exemplars requested from subj. 18. Firearm & Toolmark Examinations incl. a. Identific. of arms & ammo indentify maker, model, caliber of wpn and shotshell components; test firing to determ. operability i. Evid. Comparison ?s: (1) was bullet/ cart. case fired by the gun; (2) was cartridge/case loaded into / extracted from the gun/mag.; (3) were ammo components fired from same arm b. Other Exams: function testing; IBIS entry, ID of tools/toolmarks; fracture matching to arms/tools; restoring obliterated markings & serial nums; technical on-scene assistance (inv. Trajectory analysis, c/s reconstruction); distance determination [based on GSR] further away shooter is from subj matter, the more spread out the stippling c. Bullet Comparisons: comparison of test fired bullet w/ one recovered from victim d. Cartridge Case Marks: analysis of breechface marks; firing pin imporession; extractor, ejector & chamber marks e. What cant be done via arm/toolmark exam: (1) ID if fired bullet was loaded in partic. cart. case; (2) ID if cartridge came from partic. box/batch; (3) perf. bullet lead analysis; (4) determ. order evid. was fired; (5) determ. loc. of bullet maker; (6) nexus determinations f. Trajectory Analysis Results may show (1) where shooter/target was positioned; (2) whether shooter/target was moving; (3) no. of shooters; (4) order of shots (maybe) g. Toolmark Exams used to: (1) search f/ trace evid; (2) determ. if partic. tool used; (3) determ. class characteristics of tool & type of action used; (3) ID indiv. characteristics (i.e marks) f/ comparison i. Labs capable of: determ. if suspect tool is same class as tool that made toolmark; do microscopic comparfson of toolmark w/ test mark from suspects tool; inter-comparison of toomarks from difft scenes or cases 19. Eyelash & Mascara Identification a. IDing Owner of Eyelash/ Mascara: like head hair, eyelash is an identifiable piece of trace evid. i. Mascara K sample can be compared Q sample belonging to suspect / victim by brand / type / color / consistency

Results provide circumstantial evid. only

b. Pblm of IDing w/ Mascara as Evid.: cannot ID user of mascara w/ certainty b/c only presumptive test can be done & mascara doesnt yield specific result. 20. Shooting Scene Reconstruction incl. analytic tests - trajectory analysis & ejection pattern testing AND

Scenario of events shooter, target position and movements 11

a. Distance Determination incl. estim. Of muzzle-to-target distance of gun & analysis of GSR particles ejected from gun barrel

THE C.S.I. EFFECT

1. C.S.I. Effect currently, due to TV crime dramas, jurors typify publics expectations w/ re to level of proof & expect hard forensic evid. which sometimes cannot be produced a. Perry Mason Effect jurors instructed to expect full confession by deft. In last act b. Quincy M.E. Effect jurors geared to anticipate that mystery would be solved by Quincy, M.E. c. Proof of C.S.I. Effect: i. In Ted Binion murder trial, where both defts were acquitted, verdict attrib. to

failure to find defts prints on Xanax bottle near Binions body botched c/s investig. deprived scientist of trace evid neces. to resolve death

ii. Trial of R. Durst where he admitted to killing, dismembering. acquitted due to CSI effect.

Acquittal attrib. to: Investigators failure to find victims head (perceived lack of proof) said to have deprived deft of means to prove that he was innocent.

iii. 11 yr. old eyewitn. testified she saw D shoot her father Jury acquitted due to insuffic. evid. of defts prints on murder wpn, but wpn gen. not suitable f/ retention of valuable prints. iv. Lindbergh Kidnapping /murder b/c no prints left at c/s absence of trace evid. was interp. that suspect wasnt there & cant be guilty Fails to consider possib. perp wore gloves

C.S.I. Effect b/c lack of print evid = lack of guilt is contrary to sci. maxim: absence of evid. is NOT evid. of absence Contrary to Locards Principle perp. who cmtd. crime had to leave something behind. If nothing left behind, perp wouldve taken something away from c/s E.g. in rape situation, victims fluids could be on perp.

Impossible to determ race based on handwriting and prints.

HOLLYWEIRDS FORENSIC SCIENCE ON THE SILVER SCREEN Forensic sci. often misrepresented in movies/TV shows diminishes value of foren. sci.
12

Time-data fingerprinting: non-scientific techn. f/ determ. when person occupied a loc. based on when they deposited prints there *Forensic Sci. Blunders on Silver Screen* K-19 nucl. submarine & leaky cooling system would result in radiation leakage, NOT thermonuclear explosion Firearms Blue Steel firing pin impressions - visible as primers of cartridges loaded into barrel for firing BUT Firing pin impression visibility = indicates gun already fired. Pulp Fiction kid dicharges revolver at hit men. Bullet holes shown in wall behind target, but targets not hit. Bullet holes in wall are beveled outward instead of inward indic. shots came from opposite side of wall from where shooting occurred Tombstone Doc Holliday shoots 3 rounds w/o reloading from 2-barreled shotgun (loaded w/ 1 round each) Victims are shot & fly back, but shooter doesnt recoil = viol. of Newton 3rd law of motion f/ every action, there must be equal & opposite reaction i.e. shooter would also fall back The Shootist actor empties 6-shooter pistol into bartender but 6-shooter discharges 7 shots Magnum Force examiner says 2 bullets recovered from murder were shot at pt-blank range based on comparison to evid. bullet that he carries around unprotected in his pocket. Serology Just Cause M.E. claims she determ. that perps blood was O-Rh positive by testing teeth and gums. Neither saliva nor semen able to test for ABO blood type Also admits she didnt compare bite marks on victim to suspects dentition b/c he confessed. Confession = inapprop. basis f/ failing to do further scientific tests. Drugs Tango & Cash Stallone does Kojak test of white subst. out of box truch thinking its cocaine Kojak test would kill him if it were PCP / LSD Even if it caused numbing after he put it on his tongue, this doesnt prove its cocaine; procaine = same reaction

TIME ISSUES INVOLVING EVIDENCE

1. Time is an important component in determ. seq. of events in commission of partic. crime a. Term fresh wound doesnt mean anything w/ ref. to time; recent wound does. 2. Paleo-anthropology study of time when perspn/grp died

Pathology
13

 To determ. nature of gunshot wound/size of knife used in murder, for-sci. would use similar wpn post-mortem Time limits f/ evid. preservation see Arizona v. Youngblood 1. Holmes Beating Dead Body: he was seen beating corpse w/ stick to reveal visual differences b/w post-mortem & ante-mortem bruises 2. Medgar Evers: His killer, Beckwith, convicted of murder in 80s even though acquitted in 60s. a. state exhumed body over 20 yrs after muder. Chest x-ray showed dispersed metallic partic. in chest indicates shooter was near Evers when shooting. i. Known as billiard ball effect > incoming bullet hit others pellets in body, causing them to spread. Thus, cannot tell distance of shooter from victim. 3. Boston Strangler: victim #11 remains exhumed. It was suspect that DeSalvo was the killer b/c fluorescents in head, pubic hair, underpants indicated seminal fluid present. a. Two, difft DNA sequences in seminal fluid IDs. Compared w/ exemplar of DeSalvo relatives DNA. Result: neither DNA matched DeSalvo or immed. family. i. Another possibility: someone engaged in necrophilia w/ #11 after DeSalvo raped & murdered 4. Exhumation a. Persons generally not allowed to witn. exhumation b. ARPA cannot dig up archaeological remains aged 100 yrs.+ unless comply w/ ARPA regs.

Preservation of Evidence 1. Theres no DP viol. in leaving evid. unpreserved to self-destruct, absent BF 2. Problem w/ ABA Resol. Mandating Preservation of Biol. Evid: no time limit & no sample size incl. in resol. 3. Issue w/ Having Time Limit f/ Preservation of Evid. Arizona v. Youngblood: deft convicted of rape, sodomy after IDd by 10 yr. old victim. After SCOTUS reversal to state ct., defts samples were tested against those taken from victim, revealing no match!!
c. Expert testimony on eyewitn. misidentification usu. allowed & admissible.

4. No oblig. of state to find / preserve evid., absent proof of malice Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evid.
1. Std. of admissib. (warranting hearing) appl. only as to novel evid.; non-novel evid. = held exempt 2. No Time Element in Firearm Testing: no known sci. method to determ. w/ any degree of accuracy if gun was recently fired a. Residue inside gun barrel: does not indicate approx. time since firing; only that it was fired after its last cleaning couldve been at any prev. time 3. Determining Time of Crime Using Toolmarks: a. Auto arson scam car owner claims it was stolen, torches it and claims someone else did it 14

i. Ins. can defeat claim thru examining toolmark left by key (Locards Principle) by showing last key in ignition was owners. 4. Fingerprinting: cant determ. prints were placed. Fresh print pblm. Comm v. Schroth 5. Document Examination: a. E.g., tax fraud committed by changing date item was purchased affects possib. of write-off b. Ink Testing to Determine Doc. Tampering heating ink done to determ. drying time by accelerating drying process. i. Difference exists b/w absolute (determin. that it was partic. timeframe) vs. relative aging, but too many variables can occur preventing sound determin. to be made 6. Blood Hematology variables in drying time of blood of difft persons makes it difficult to determine time a crime was committed (resulting in blood spillage) a. Blood Drying Time Variables: (1) size of blood sample; (2) medicinal items couldve altered victims blood viscosity; (3) wound-aging based on wound color b. E.g., Lizzie Borden murder case: unable to discern if mother, stepmother or father was killed 1st. c. Bloodstain Aging: e.g., victim punched, had nosebleed causing a bloodstain on lab coat. Next morning, victim dead. i. No way to determ. if age of bloodstain matches age of blood from knife wound. ii. Prints, Blood found on counterfeit $: cannot determ. if blood left before or after crime 7. Anthropology a. Tooth Wear helps to determ. persons age b. Costal cartilage (where ribs join sternum) indicates aging when cartilage become evident due osteoarthritic changes c. Fluorescent rings indicate antibiotic use. Blood found was tested & showed evid. of tetracycline = confirmation it belonged to her. State v. Davis 8. Drugs a. Rohypnol = date rape drug w/ very short half-life fails to show up in test even short time after use 9. Pathology discipline used to est. time of death determ. by est. post-mortem interval 10. Pathology (Child Abuse) look at post-fracture healing time: if time of inj. doesnt match w/ callus (indic. 1 or multiple inj.) injury not recent

Estimating Time Elapsed Since Death: most important indicator = extent of tissue decomposition (i.e. rigor / livor / algor). variability in decay rate is the rule & several factors must be considered.
a. Access by insects the greater the access, the faster the decomposition. Stage of insects life cycle & species of insect found on remains (difft species invade at difft times) may indicate time elapsed. b. Temperatute colder temps decelerate decomp. c. Humidity higher humidity more insects faster decomp. d. Access by carnivores / other animals accelerates decomp. e. Circumst. of death remains w/ penetrating wounds decomp. faster b/c insects, animals attracted to open wounds f. Location of body after death remains touching ground decomp. faster than when buried/ wrapped 15

g. Rainfall - slows decomp. By deterring insect popul. on remains h. Clothing accelerates decomp. b/c it protects insect larvae from sun i. Soil ph acidic soil accelerates decomp.

Vitrius humor [in the eye]: concentration of potassium incr. post-mortem Hypostasis/sugillation process of chng. in BP readings based on posture
1. Rigor mortis a recognizable sign of death characterize by stiff limbs caused by post-mortem chem. change in muscle a. ATP production stops at death no metabolic process post-mortem muscle stiff & lock in place 2. Livor mortis / post-mortem lividity signified by purplish-red skin discoloration (from setting of blood in bodys lower portion) a. Discoloration doesnt occur in area of body in contact w/ ground/another obj. b. Occurs 20 min. to 3 hrs. after death & congeals in capillaries in 4 5 hrs. c. Presence / absence of livor mortis = means used to approx. time of death & to detern, if body was moved post-mortem 3. Algor mortis signified by lowering of body temp. post-mortem; proc. affected by external factors. a. Decomposition rise in body temp. again 4. Entomology: what insects can tell as to time since deathstage in insect life cycle (adult, pupae, larvae) & insect species (difft species invade remains at difft times) found on remains can indicate post-mortem time interval, unless body moved postmortem throws off insect activity i. Evaluation of what insect ingested: victim or suspects DNA likely present b. Use of fresh in for. evid. is common - connotes timeframe, but that isnt determ. thru sci. scrutiny c. Jamestown Man: Skeletal mtDNA tested determ. if skeleton was rel. to Tilney. Result = no match! i. Reverse paternity test (thru mtDNA): If half-siblings had difft moms DNA wouldnt match ii. Bone mineral analysis: Test to determ. whether Jtown man & Tilney grew up in same loc. d. What Bones Can Tell (presumptive test): antibiotics traces in bone would serve as circumst. evid. i. Antibiotics deposited in bone form osteon fluor. Rings. Blood w/ traces of osteon rings means blood owner took antibiotics. ii. Issues w/ Reporting Presumptive Test reporting thing/place + for blood trace causes specul. of wrongdoing but blood from other items couldve transf. to the K thing/place. 5. Instantaneous Death: a. Signif. in civil cases time elapsed b/w inj. & resulting death affects dmg award (if & what can claim f/ pain & suffering i. Amt. of time must be determ. scientifically b. Signif. in crim. cases if jury finds death victim death not instantaneous & suffered aggrav. wounds / inj. death sent. option triggered.

POLYGRAPH

16

1. Fear of Detection Theory poly exam operates on this theory whereby poly examiner infers deception from greater chng. in physiol. response to relevant questions about crime than from irrelevant / ctrl. questions 2. Key Characteristics of Poly Exam: (1) only yes / no answers; (2) all 3 question types in mixed order; (3) only subj & examiner present; (4) recording / taping allowed 3. Polygraph Uses Crim. Context: a. Suspects (e.g., Hanssen espionage case: poly used in plea deal to ID secrets given away) b. Deft helps state to decide whether to proceed w/ case (e.g., Nations Bank robbery poly used to determ. deft took part in murder) c. CWs state often gives immunity to CWs; polys help ensure a CW isnt mass murder (criminal) d. Testifying co-defts. e. Clients f. Situations where evid. doesnt reveal guilt / innocence 4. Polygraph Uses Post-conviction: a. Used in debriefings; asset forfeiture cases (to ensure all fruits of crime seized); prob./parole events 5. Polygraph Uses in Employment: Private employers cannot reqr polys of employees 6. Workings of Polygraph: psych. technique & tool used to measure involun. physiol. responses from stress caused by fear of detection 7. Whats Being Measured a. Galvanic skin response: detects sweating by measuring conductivity when sweating b. Incr. heart rate & BP c. respiration d. autonomic nervous system triggers flight/fight syndrome e. Machine Parts Used in Monitoring: BP cuff, pneumographs, galvanometers 8. Procedure = Three Stage Test a. (1) pretest interview general questions re: personal hx, meds: i. To est. rapport ii. To assess suitability f/ examination (e.g., must know diff. b/w right & wrong; must not be overly tired or on medication iii. To prime subj.: incl. subj. getting acquainted w/ technique iv. To develop relevant questions & focus subj. on them b. (2) examination incl. relevant-irrelev. Q test; guilty knowl. test; ctrl. question technique i. Relevant-Irrelev. Q Test - compare responses to relev. (incrim.) Qs vs. irrelev./neutal Qs

Problem: how do you ctrl f/ instances of truthful subj. reacting nervously to relev Qs?

ii. Guilty Knowledge Test Qs incl. info only perp would know & ergo exh. response to

Problem: reqr examiner to know concealed info beforehand

iii. Ctrl. Question (most common) Technique - compares responses to 3 types of ?s:

Irrelev./neutal ?s should elicit normal truthf. Reactions Ctrl. ?s should elicit probable but irrelev. Lies
17

Relev. ?s - specific to subj matter about which info subj is concealing Problem: assumption that innocent subj. will react more to ctrl. ?s than guilty subj.

c. (3) post-test follow-up interrogation of subj. re: responses indicated as false i. If NDI test concluded ii. If inconclusive further testing

Trojan horse examiner gets oppy to interrogate subj w/o counsel. Examiner can elicit inconsistencies to use against subj. at trial.

iii. If DI further testing done w/ goal of admission / confession

Miranda waiver reqd - so any confession would be admissible. SCOTUSs view: subj. not in custody so participation in test = voluntary. Effect = results cant be excl.

9. Countermeasures a. Inflicting pain can determ. if subj. trying to beat test b. Contracting anal sphincter prevented by employing special chair 10. Three Possible Outcomes (1) no deception indicated; (2) deception indicated; (3) inconclusive 11. Scoring incl. (1) examiners score; (2) computerize score; (3) QC score (3rd pty review & score) 12. Admissibility a. Per Se Exclusion (majority (27 states), including federal) polys inadmissible per se i. Reason: not gen. accepted under Frye (no empirical validation; subj. nature of exam; no stds. f/ assessing qualifications of examiner) ii. Any mention of poly per se excl. by 2 fed cir. b. Not permitted to testify whether subj. offered or refused to take poly c. Admission upon stipulation (subst. minority) i. Parties can stipulate to admissib. of poly evid. but ii. Ct. still has discretion over admitting evid. 13. Defense Considerations a. Do not volunteer client f/ poly w/o taking priv. administered test 1st b. Due to waiver of Miranda rights in post-test stage def. should be careful of admissions client makes in post-t stage

18

COMPUTERS & FORENSIC SCIENCE

Issue: whether warr. should be reqd f/ law enf. to engage in computer surveillance. U.S. v. Jones Issue: whether consent reqd to track someones cell to obtain their geographic loc. Conn. case 19

1. Use computers to: (1) commit crimes; (2) solve crimes; (3) display evid.

Commission of Computer Crimes

2. Piracy & Infringement see Ninja video case: videos/movies sold online constituted piracy & infringement. Website shut down by law enf. & operator convicted of conspiracy. 3. ID Theft & C.C. Fraud see U.S. v. Perez: perp convicted of running online bsns that sold counterfeit c.c.s encoded w/ stolen acct. info 4. Computer counterfeiting see U.S. v. Zhao: deft sold counterfeit cisco netw. Equipment, was convicted. 5. Cyber bullying computer forensics used to prove crime 6. Investment/ sec. x-chng fraud American stole investors $ under guise it was used to purch. Chinese investments, but later $ would disappear 7. Sextortion computer crime where ppl extorted w/ threats to publicize their nude images a. See U.S. v. Mijangos: hacker hacked in computers of young women to loc. explicit pics & extorted them thru blackmail (threatening to leak them online)

Computer Privacy
1. Implicates 4th Am. prohibition on unlawf. search / seizure. 2. When comp. can be seized should be based on FREs. a. If its contraband (e.g. is a counterfeit computer OR houses illegal materials) b. If its evid. of crime (e.g. contains info on stolen bank accts.) c. If its instrumentality (used to commit) of crime 3. Reasonable expec. of privacy that persons shall be secure in their persons & effects a. If theres reas. expec. of privacy ofc. need warr. To search closed, indiv. owned item i. Computer seen as closed container (i.e. disc drive) warr. or p.c. reqd f/ search but if ii. Container becomes open (e.g., lose disc drive, use file on public netw) expec. of priv. lost

Solving Crimes w/ Computers

1. Pen/Trap statute: permit govt. to set up pen register / trace device to get addressing info of online communications like addr. info f/ cell phones a. To see email content must get content warrant per Title III of Wiretap Act 2. Whether warr. reqd to search smartphone dependent on j/d. See People v. Diaz (Cal.) a. field tablets instantly allow police to obtain all info on smartphone b. faraday bags block reception income calls to allow techs to analyze info on phone c. einstein sensors used by govt to filer public emails 3. C/S Diagrams comp. used to replicate polices c/s sketches 4. Total station mapping techn uses lasers to measure distance, to accurately recreate 3D c/s incl evid. items 5. Computer analysis of video surveillance pics: comp. pgrm. used by police to ID similarities among pics (e.g. same item of clothing susp. wears is worn by perp seen on video 20

6. Computer voice stress analyzer generates images showing graphs w/ variable lines to connote deception 7. Use of Computers in Print Identification after Q prints at c/s are dusted, lifted, mounted, and copied to a sheet thats scanned into AIFIS comp. pgrm runs print against those in system & assigns score based on frequency of similarities. Closest matches displayed a. Matching prints via comp. & db = questionable method b/c for-sci. should look f/ dissimilarities, not similarities Comp. Chain of Custody Issues defense can discredit comp. evid. due to chain of custody problems 8. Computer Evid. Exonerates in Att. Murder case: deft. Accused of ADW (knife). Evid. showed anything couldve caused CWs wounds, not neces. defts knife. a. Def. atty. used comp. to create picture evid. supporting defense. Deft. Acquitted. 9. Computer evid. used to determ. manner of death: in Merriweather Lewis death, comp. animation used to recreate c/s showed that Lewis wouldve had to reload pistol after already shot in the head in order to shoot self in the chest. NOT likely

FORENSIC PHOTOGRAPHY
1. Forensic portraiture e.g. mug shot 2. Forensic photography (100% digital) has 2 purposes: (1) document & preserve visible info; (2) reveal & document invisible / latent info that may be evid. a. Energy spectrum = what we see; contains cosmic, gamma, UV & x-rays; infrared, TV, etc. i. What we can see only w/in 300 nanometer spread. To see beyond must employ techn. UV infrared - most commonly used to see things we naturally cant on either side of spectrum b. Energy (1) reflects, (2) absorbs, & (3) transmits i. Reflect: when no energy reflected back color is black; when all energy reflected color is white. When portion of wavelength reflected color is b/w black &white(e.g. red) X-rays cant see thru bone b/c whole wavelength absorbed by it & no energy reflects 3. Nir-infrared reflectance mech. Allows us to see right beyond visible spectrum a. Causes appearance of obj. to change 4. Infrared photography (at longwave end of spectrum (ranges in waves from red to violet)): uses a. infrared radiation - part of electromag. spectrum (incl. many kinds of energy waves). Humans can see only white light & colored light very small part of EM spectrum. i. White light all colors of light combined. ii. Red = longest wave & violet = shortest wave. All other colors in b/w. iii. Beyond red = infrared waves even longer than redinvisible iv. Beyond violet = ultraviolent invisible b. Applications: use of infrared plates together w/ filter to screen out all light reveals: erasures on docs; obliterated handwriting; blood stains & powder burns on cloth; people in the dark 21

5.

6. 7.

8.

c. Nir-infrared luminescence - energy & sensor are in difft places on spectrum, so sensor cant see infrared i. Mercury heats up, giving off UV rays (invisible) UV light rays hit visible portion of spectrum. Light strikes it & converts UV to infrared, which we see thru camera d. Ultraviolet (black light) luminescence gives neon glow, unlike UV reflectance (causes invisible obj. to show up in black). E.g. shine black light in dark room white shirt glows. Used to: i. Detect theft using UV powders (in cash boxes, coat pockets) will fluoresce under UV light ii. adding fluorescent powder on surfaces dusted f/ prints prints may appear under UV light iii. Bodily secretions: may glow when illuminated w/ UV rays iv. Questioned documents: obliterated writings may show up under UV rays v. Marking items f/ Identific.: w/ invisible crayons that fluoresce under UV light Photographic Examinations a side by side visual comparison of 2 photos, comparison 1st: genl characteristics (both are cars), followed by 2nd: indiv. characteristics (both Caddys) a. E.g.: Comparison of photos showing Lincolns gun: scratches, dings matched orig. gun Photogammetry process of determ. geometric properties of objects from photos a. Distance cant be measured from photo Facial comparisons Using Photos: all show class characteristics (abundant, but not very helpful). E.g., man w/ red hair, square jaw, big nose possibilities narrowed only to all red-haird, square-jawed, big-nosed men on earth. Most dont show indiv characteristics (more important) (scars, chipped tooth, ear pattern) to compare w/ K indiv. IDing characteristics: a. the greater the # of indiv. IDing characteristics the more specific the ID b. Difference b/w recognition & identification:- illustrated by looking at fuzzy pic of Mona Lisa Admissibility of Photo Evid. photo admissible as evid. as long as it: a. Fairly, accurately portrays what it purp. to portray b. Is relevant and probative i. re: relevance: if fact is relevant so is photo depicting that fact (and vice versa) ii. re: relevance: if a scientific techn. not admissible photos in supp. of techn. not admissible c. Is not overly prejudicial or inflammatory i. relevant v. inflammatory or prejudicial: where relevance of photo outweighed by inflammatory character inadmissible

FALSE TESTIMONY ABOUT FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY RESULTS American legal system stands f/ indiv. rights 5th Am. guarantees no depriv. of life, liberty, prop. w/p DP of law Brady v. Maryland = *landmark case affirms 5th Am*. Est. prosec. must produce all material, exculpatory evid. w/ or w/o request from def. Failure to discl viol. defts DP right to fair trial. 6th Am. gives deft. right to counsel, to subp.& confront witns, evid. against him/her Disingenuous testimony testimony lacking in candor; giving false appearance of something Perjury absolute lie VS. misleading stmt. made in ct.
22

Need for Defense Experts: (1) keep other side honest; (2) due to existing imbal. In investigative resources; (3) ensure compliance w/ 6th Am.; (4) repeated instances of govt/( witn.) withholding exculp. evid in viol. of Brady Investigative Resources - Imbalance: e.g. FBIs Open Door policy: def. who use FBIs svc. to test evid. must sign agreem. to provide copy of results to prosec.; no such reqm f/ proec. Right at stake is defts discov. of exculp. evid. discl. of which would make trial a quest f/ truth rather than a sporting event. U.S. v. Bryant; U.S. v. Turner Certificates of evid. testing cannot be admitted into trial record. SCOTUS held: certificates of foren. analysis = testimonial (like affidavit) & 6th Am. prohibits prosec. from proving crim. case via ex parte out-of-ct. affidavits. Unresolved question: whether everything done in lab is subj to 6th Am. confr. clause Theoretically, constit. right trumps govts over-burdensome argument. Melendez Difference b/w Being Gov. Witn. & Def. Witn. Def. witn. job find out what happened based on tox. evid.; more autonomy in putting evid. case together BUT no immunity unlike w/ gov witn.; develop own testimony & have full discretion over decision to testify Gov. witn. job help build case f/ proece.; testimony is at prosec. discretion; boss has sovereign immunity Unethical, Prejudicial Toxicology Lab Results See State of NC v. Taylor deft. ingests cocktail of drugs 1 night. While driving, car gets stuck in mud at c/s. He discovers dead body, but fails to call police b/c high. Deft leaves car at c/s unknowingly. When returns next day to get it, hes met by police & arrested. Then charged, convicted of murder even though dead body wasnt his. Eventually exonerated. Reason Taylor Railroaded & Convicted: Lab did only screen (prelim) test of DNA but claimed blood on body matched what was found in defts truck. Also did confirmatory test but couldnt prove blood was human. Pblm w/ Lab Reporting reported prelim. positive results but withheld confirmatory neg. results (evid. that exculp. deft.). failure to oblige by scientific std. of transparency led to fales conviction in this case, many others. Positive Urine Tests not neces. proof of present impairment / cannot be shown w/ reas. scien. certainty. Proves only prior exposure. Using positive urine test to allege impairmt: disingenuous, misleading, confuse jury /issues, prejudicial After blood / urine sample tested, toxicologist asked: (1) if s/he was impaired; (2) if drug caused / prox. cause of injury?; (3) if drug killed user? Drug Testing / Results Issues Presence / Excretion of Drugs: Takes 6 half-lives to get it below orig. level. After 810 half-lives, presence = neglig. Difference b/w specificity & sensitivity: Specificity how specific a test f/ partic. agent Sensitivity - whats lowest limit of subst. concentration a partic. test can pick up Qs Related to Test / Result Accuracy From what site was blood sample drawn? How was sample stored and processed? How much time elapsed b/w sample drawing & analysis? What is name & type of screening procedure used to assay the blood? Was confirmatory testing performed? Which lab did the testing (accredited/(not)? 23

 What is the specificity & sensitivity of the test? Areas of Inquiry on Cross-Ex. Qualifications Knowl. of facts of case Methods / tests used to arrive at concl. & ops. must satisfy Daubert / Frye criteria Completeness of review & Degree of certainty only 51% degree of certainty reqd to be scientifically reliable Bias, financial gain, advertising Alternative possibilities considered Pose hypothetical questions

QADDAFI DEATH Forensic pathologist determines: (1) 2-4 bullet wounds in his head. (2) that they were fired at close range b/c wounds almost identical (which is diffic. To do from distance) looks more like an execution than something that happened during a struggle examining /commenting on case not under ones auspices = unethical (viol. of code of prof responsibility) entrance wound shown =not clear & shows no signs of stippling -fragments of burnt & unburnt bullet Can test to determ. distance needed b/w gun and victim to leave stippling marks (p. 424-25) Not possible Qaddafi committed suicide: b/c 4 bullets w/ 4 difft entrance wounds found Can someone shoot himself multiple times & survive? YES. ASSASSINATION OF HUEY LONG (see handout) Criticism of Varying Use of Nomenclature: Difft terminology used in forensic sci. disciplines no clear understanding of whats meant by descriptive terms Difference b/w Perforating & Penetrating Bullet Wounds: Lead is soft & distorted upon hitting bone. Therefore, ability to ID bullet & match to gun is difficult Gunshot wound A penetrating (see p. 3/6) Gunshot wound B perforating Cause of death isnt listed as gunshot wound must consider if theres preceding or contributing cause of death. Manner & Cause of Death Must be Determ.: (1) Cause of Death = gunshot wounds; (2) manner of death = could be homicide or natural death inconclusive. legit explanation f/ S-D would be suffic. to excl. suspect Difference b/w Homicide & Murder: hom. = killing of one by another BUT murder = intentional killing Entrance / Exit Wounds Appearance helps determ. trajectory of projectile Cannot tell bullet caliber based on wound appearance (large / small, etc.) Can tell from wound whether bullet recovered from body was slipped in after death Exit wounds can appear like entrance wounds if: skin doesnt fragment out as expected Shored Exit Wounds: Shored, gunshot exit wounds appear when outstretched skin is impaled, sandwiched & crushed b/w outgoing bullet & unyielding object over exit site, leaving abrasion on wound margin. Proper cooptation of wound margin = impossible due to loss of skin (like what happens w/ entrance wounds)
24

FINGERPRINTS Fingerprint Identification Fingerprint-based identification is oldest method of all biometric techniques Every person has unique, immutable fingerprints can be regarded as indiv. signature proving their identity. A fingerprint consists of series of ridges and furrows on a finger surface. Uniqueness of a print: can be determined by pattern of ridges and furrows as well as minutiae points local ridge characteristics occurring at a ridge bifurcation / ridge ending. Fingerprint Basics (minutiae)

Ridge crossing Opposed bifurcation Ridge ending Lake (enclosure) Trifurcation Island (short ridge) Opposed bifurc./ridge ending Delta of rolled up finger Bifurcation Hook (spur) bridge Double bifurcation dot

Fingerprint Identification Points Single print may have 100+ ID points which can be used for identification purposes. There is no size requirement the # of points found on print impression depend on prints loc. E.g., area immediately around delta usu. has more pts/ sq. mm than area near fingertip Fingerprinting: Background Info Fingerprinting was first created by British surgeon - Dr. Henry Fault. Prints general shape used to pre-process fingerprint images, and reduce searches in large db. The General Shapes: Loop Whorl most common type of fingerprint 25

Arch Sub-categories of gen. shapes: right loop, left loop, Single or double whorl Plain or tented arch Ulnar or radial loops Representation of % of each type of print in human population: Loop 65% Whorl -- 30% Arch -- 5% Fingerprint matching techniques Two categories of matching techniques: (1) minutae-based and (2) correlation based. Minutiae-based techniques: find minutiae pts, then map their relative placement on the finger. Correlation-based technique: overcomes some difficulties of the minutiae-based approach. Fingerprint Processing Minutiae-based processing problems: In real life you would have impressions made at difft times & subject to difft pressure distortions. In many actual c/s, prints are not very clear In some prints, a core pattern & delta cant be clearly seen; only latent print (could be a fingertip, palm, foot impression, etc) can be IDd Minutae-based processing doesnt take into account global pattern of ridges and furrows. Print matching based on minutiae has problems in matching unregistered sizes of minutae patterns. Local ridge structures not characterized only by minutiae. Solution: find alternate representation of prints that captures more local info, yielding code for all prints Correlation-based processing has separate set of limitations: Correlation-based techniques require precise loc. of registration point Also affected by image translation and rotation. Straightforward matching b/w Q fingerprint and K fingerprint is difficult due to high sensitivity to errors (e.g. outside noises, damaged print areas, finger being placed in difft areas of print scanner window and at difft angles, finger deformation during scanning procedure). Modern techniques - focus on extracting minutiae pnts - (pnts where capillary lines have branches or ends) from fingerprint image, and check matching b/w the sets of print features. A reliable fingerprint processing technique requires sophisticated algorithms f/ reliable processing of fingerprint image: noise elimination, minutiae extraction, rotation and translation-tolerant print matching. Also, algorithms must be fast f/ comfortable use in apps w/ many users & must be able to fit into a microchip. Cannot rely on subjectivity to make identification! Progressive Fingerprint Matching 26

Image Processing capture fingerprint images & process thru series of image processing algorithms f/ clear skeletal image of orig. gray tone impression, improving smudges, removing extraneous artifacts & healing scars/cuts/breaks. General Model for Fingerprint Authentication
Data co llection Raw d ata Signal proc. Extracted features matching template storage

Match score Ap plication Authentication decision decision

Feature Detection for Matching Ridge ends and bifurcations (minutiae) w/in skeletal image are IDd and encoded, providing critical placement, orientation and linkage info f/ print matching process.

Matching Fingerprint Search Fingerprint matcher compares data from inputted search print against all possible db records f/ possible matching print. Minutia relationships, one to another are compared. Each template has many info chunks, each representing a minutia and comprising a site, a minutia slant and a neighborhood. Fingerprint Classification: Large dbs of stored prints are used f/ many purposes: forensics, access ctrl, DL registration, etc An automatic recognition of people based on prints requires that input fingerprint is matched w/ large number of prints in db FBI database contains approximately 70 million fingerprints Fingerprint Characteristics Biometric (Fingerprint Strengths) Finger tip = most mature measure Accepted reliability High quality images Small physical size Low cost Low False Acceptance Rate (FAR) Small template (less than 500 bytes) Biometric (Fingerprint weaknesses) Requires careful enrollment Potential high False Reject Rate (FRR) due to Pressing too hard, scarring, misalignment, dirt Vendor incompatibility Cultural issues: e.g., Perceived privacy issues with North America Fingerprint Technology As fingerprint technology becomes more advanced, technology options also increase Optical finger scanned on platen (glass, plastic or coasted glass/plastic). 27

Silicon uses silicon chip to read capacitance value of fingerprint. Ultrasound requires large scanning device appealing b/c it can better permeate dirt. Acronyms AFIS: autom. Fingerprint info system IFIS: integr. Fingerprint ID sustem ACEV (analysis of crime scene & exemplar-comparison-eval-verification): techn. preceding challenges to printing in 1980s. SWGFAST: Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technique Intl Assoc. for Identification IAFI: Intl Org. for Identification est. RULE that min. # of pts. of ID = NOT neces. to make ID Cannot rely on subjectivity to make identification! Problem: identifiers experience cannot be challenged b/c cannot prove that identifiers subjective opinion is false Individual objectivity should be pt. about which identification turns. Four Possible Fingerprint ID Findings: (1) inclusion, (2) exclusion, (3) inconclusive, (4) of no value (not common finding lacks specificity) Probabilistic Statements & Challenges: frequently attacked in ct. by successfully eliminatin. degree of probability to which examiner testified (e.g. to reasonable degree of ballistic certainty) Firearms VS Ballistics Fingerprint Identification:
Firearms IDing: determining caliber, bullet, bullet track used vs. Ballistics IDing: determining motion that firearm imparted on bullet Latent vs. ink prints: latent print IDing is tougher b/c print is messier than more clear ink print Can have many points of similarity b/w exemplar & lifted print: up to 150 (est.) Showing of 12 pts. of similarity = suffic. to show identical print Fingerprints are impermanent b/c of: (1) natural wear; (2) when exposed to chemicals Familial Sharing of Fingerprints: siblings share some features of DNA. Should have familiar statistical base. Arches, loops, whorls = shared features, but minutiae) = not shared & used to make Error Rate: false positive = only 0.1%

28

MICROSCOPIC HAIR COMPARISON Morphological parts of hair cuticle, cortex, medulla Difference between: forcibly removed hair vs. naturally shed Forcible removed root- contains cells from which to extract nuclear /mitochondrial DNA Naturally shed - Mitochondrial? Hair comparison = not a means of individualization NOT a one-to-one comparison of one Q hair to one K hair Several hairs tested to see if range of characteristics in Q hair appear in K hair Involves subject part & objective part Microscopic comparison involves categorization into smaller groups: i.e. human or animal, racial group, body area (head, chest, public, limb, eyebrow), phase of growth Hair comparison uses pattern recognition To see if similar patterns of microscopic characteristics exist at each pt along the hair in both Q & K hair K hair exemplars: composite of representative hairs from target region of the body Other characteristics observed and compared: Cuticle Thickness, variation of thickness, presence of pigment, color Cortex Pigment granules: organization, density, size, distribution Cortical fusi Ovoid bodies Cortical cell: texture, size, damage, shape Additional characteristics compared microscopically Tip (distal end), diameter of hair, length, artificial treatment, hair damage, diseases or other abnormalities No 2 hairs, even from the same person looks alike intra and inter person variability 3 possible conclusions: exclusion, no conclusion, association Exclusion: can definitively make positive exclusion based on hair evidence Just because hair isn't the Ds doesnt mean he didnt do it No conclusion: possibility that its suspects hair but they cant exclude OR include Association - that it couldve come from D OR from anybody else w/ same characteristics and because they dont know how many people exhibit those characteristics, they cant give a probability. Merely includes D in a realm of possibilities. Association result reported as such: Q hair exhibits same microscopic characteristics as hairs in known hair sample the Q hair is consistent w/ originating from same source as K sample. Report must qualify: experts opinion and say its not a means of individualization Misleading Terms: hairs match / hairs are consistent = overvalues probative val. of evid o Accred. lab scientists may not testify so as to mislead jury OR allow jury to be misled Why Association Result is Problematic: How do you explain this in court?
29

This characterization can lead to miscarriage of justice Hair is most commonly found trace evid when a crime that concerns contact b/w 2 people Modern use of hair comparisons Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA testing Nuclear DNA gives same range of probably as real DNA (e.g. sperm) mtDNA is not individual trait probabilities are much lower with mtDNA If microscopic hair comparison & mtDNA results each match much higher probability that they came from same person Take Caution Not to Overvalue Results of Hair Comparison file motion in limine asking ct. to warn witness & prosec. not to overvalue conclusion and not use terms like match and consistent w/ b/c match must be of range or characteristics. Barry Gaudet-Royal Canada Mountie -- did microscopic hair comparison & studies to estab probabilities Hair comparison and false IDs played a role in number of exonerations ACE-V now used in hair comparison like w/ fingerprinting ADMISSIBILITY OF SCIENTIFIC EVID.: 2 LEADING JUDICIAL TESTS 1. Frye v US, 293 F. 1013 (1923) (DC Circuit) General acceptance (counting noses) If particular technique has general scientific acceptance in the community to which it belongs Did those in the field using technique believe it was valid? Frye inquiry applies only to novel scientific techniques -accord. to subseq. ct. decisions This wasnt in the case, but subsequent writing says it only applies to novel 2. Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm, 509 US 579 (1993) (civil case) Issue: in federal court, does Frye control evidentiary std. of admissibility or does Rule 702? SCT Holding: R. 702 applies & new set of standards est. that have to be applied. Replaces Frye in all fed. cts. Per R. 702: must ensure that expert testimony = relevant (will assist trier of fact) & methodology underlying testimony = scientifically reliable Validity (of underlying scientific data) & reliability (theory is reproducible in technique employed & comes up w/ same result under same circumstances) o judge decides and is the gatekeeper on admissibility of scientific evidence Validity and reliability + relevancy = evidentiary reliability o Daubert std. = more liberal than Frye Criticism of Daubert: putting scientific issues in hands of judges who dont have bkgr. Daubert replaces Frye in all federal courts State cts. that follow fed. rules of evid. have adopted Daubert std. DC, CA, FL, MI, NY, TX employ Frye test or combo of Frye & Daubert factors Daubert only applicable in civil cases
30

 Daubert factors (1) testable hypothesis (2) Subjected to peer review and publication (scientific journal, law review, etc.) Others in sci. community have oppy to comment on validity and reliability (3) Known or potential error rate Controversial what is an error rate? How do you determine the error rate? (4) Maintenance of standards controlling the testing (5) Generally accepted within the scientific community Daubert: not a new approach -- consistent with fed rule of evidence approach Evidence must be relevant and probative, and outweigh prejudicial impact Clarification: does Daubert only apply to scientific disciplines? it applies to scientific, technical AND any specialized knowledge (e.g. handwriting examination technical in nature, not a science) Kumho tire co. v. Carmichael After kumho: doesnt matter if technical or scientific expertise all controlled by Daubert Kumho Daubert factors arent a definitive checklist b/c its a flexible inquiry Daubert has made it more difficult for lawyers and judges Requires scientists to be educators Forces scientists to validate underlying science and procedure Lawyers are reqd to qualify expert and science/ technique Admissibility of expert opinions govern by FRE 702 Sufficient facts and data Testimony is product of reliable principles and methods Witness has applied principles and methods reliably to facts of the case Objections to Admissib. of Expert Opinions most successful attacks are how technique was applied in particular case

LABS & FORENSIC TESTING Protocols to Minimize Lab Errors: Technical reviews review entire file f/ presence or absence of scientific basis f/ examiners concl. (second opinion) If accredited lab, your expert should be able to review record and tell you if you have credible chance at challenging it Quality manager and manual makes sure quality standards are in place in lab Quality manual with code of prof responsibility, protocol, techniques for instruments, Testing protocols tests should be done via validated & same method each time If you have to divert from that because of usual nature of evidence, you first have to validate the variation and have to explain in case record why you did it 31

Proficiency testing not really a way to determine an error rate, but it can be argued that its probative of an examiners competency lab accreditation usually has all of these criteria Lab accreditation can affect quality of examinations Lab accreditation gives range of benefits Lab need not be accredited in order to maint. proficient testing & results Error rate: Verification Certification applied to individuals (accreditation applies to labs) Professional responsibility (ethics) and training Existence and maintenance of standard controlling the tests Witness has applied principles and methods reliable to facts of case forensic scientists arent covered by uniform code of professional responsibility NH v Langill (2007) expert witness violated own labs oper. proced. by not taking contemporaneous bench notes Evid. = inadmissible Verification process was NOT blind & subj. to confirmation bias (not part of manual) Knowl. of prior examiners opinion bias in current examiners opinion Cognitive bias how you are affected by things in your environment or things that you know Context bias when you look at something and are influenced by context in which you find yourself w/ that evid. If you get additional info, it might make you want to find a match (e.g. ofc. says can you compare this K and Q, we think this guy raped a little girl) Solution: Some labs have evid. ctrl staff who manages evid. and exams by others to prevent bias Tripartite nature of forensic science lab work, report of lab work, and testimony Single Accred. Requirement: every analyst must be reviewed in court or testimony must be reviewed yearly What might trigger a Daubert hearing? Complexity of scientific evidence Uniqueness of scientific evidence Extent of individualization Significance of evidence to case Need for discovery Consumption of evidence Rules of evidence dont apply dont need to bring qualified experts Daubert hearing might be held during pretrial, during trial and (voir dire)

Bullcoming v. NM - surrogate testimony doesnt meet constitutional standards

FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY Skull = cranium + mandible, but

32

 Cranium = cranium w/o mandible I. TERMINOLOGY A) Osteology breanch of anatomy that studies skeletal structure and function B) Anthropology study of humankind, cultural and otherwise C) Phys. anthropologist becomes forensic anth. when dealing w/ bone matters II. BONES A) # of bones in human body: 206-210 B) # of bones in childs formative years: up to 300 a. Reason f/ difference: some bones fuse in adulthood **dbl teeth important IDing feature
C) Bone (osseous) tissue is of 2 types: 1) 80% of bone tissue = cortical / compact bone exterior, hard surface, in layers 2) Trabecular or cancellous bone = spongy bone interior; makes up bulk of interior of bones 3) Adult subadult 4) Cranial postcranial 5) Distal proximal 6) Anterior posterior (front and rear) 7) Foramen - holes in bones f/ transmit of nerves or blood vessels 8) Phalanges bones of hands, feet D) # of Bones in Vertical Column: 33 vertebrae; 7 cervical (#1 the atlas) 12 thoracic; 5 lumbar; 6 sacral; 4 coccygeal a. # of wrist (carpals) bones: 8 b. # of ankle (tarsals) bones: 7 c. E) Diseases of the Bone 1) Osteogenesis imperfect (brittle bone disease) genetic disorder relevant in child abuse cases 2) Harris lines (transverse) - found on long bones near growth plate, often mistaken on x-ray as bone fracturing but is actually indicative of malnutrition during developmental years. F) Types of Bones: a. Long bones (femora, tibiae) b. Short bones (sternum, manabrium - broad, upper part of sternum; how you can tell if its man or woman) c. Flat bones (scapulaw, innominates 3 that circle pelvic region: ilium, pubis, ischium) d. Irregular bones (carpals, tarsals) e. Unique bones radii ulnae (chng position) f. Radius and ulnar = only 2 bones in body that chng. location when you twist arm into gift pose g. Paired bones long bones, etc. G) Bone Size 3) Largest bone = femur 4) Auditory ossicles = smallest H) Bone characteristic: remodeling but not teeth?? I) Sutures Lines of the Skull: fusion (ossification) epiphysis occurs from inside (endocranially) out (ectocranially) a. Sagittal divises right from left b. Coronal divides front from rear c. Lambdoidal in rear of skull 33

d. Squamosal over right and left ears J) General or Class Characteristics 1) Determination of age of person @ death: look at cranial suture epiphysis; dental condit. (gums folded over?) 2) Sharp, pointy, cutting teeth; no grinding molar type teeth in back indicative of non-human dentition i.e. herbivore 3) Determination of time since death (postmortem interval): a. look at skeletonization; bone color b. arthritic chng in 2rd coastal (rib) cartilage c. arthritic lipping of vertebrae K) determination of sex or ones remains 3 markers: (1) public area; (2) mastoid process (behind ear); (3) supra-orbital (brow) ridge; (4) nuchal ridge (back of head, above collar) prominence skull features a. general standard: male = robust vs female = gracile b. teeth or lack thereof indicative of ones lifestyle 4) Determination of race of remains: Racial types: a. 1. negroid; b. 2. Caucasian (incl. Hispanics) is controversial classification 1st enunciated in 1775 by Blumenbach; c. 3. Mongoloid (incl. Native Am.) L) Estimation of stature of person during life can tell from long bone measurements M) Bones of the Skull: 1) Frontal bone (1) - forehead 2) Occipital bone (1) rear of skull 3) Parietal bone (1) top and side of skill 4) Temporal bone (1) = over right and left ears 5) Sphenoid (2) = in front of temporal bones 6) Calvarium = dome of skull, separated at autopsy 7) **Hyoid bone** - horse-shoe shaped bone lying at base of tongue, w/ a body and left & right wing. a. May or may not fracture during manual or ligature strangulation N) Issues in Skeletal Identification 1) is the specimen bone? Plastic after fire (garden hose) 2) is the bone of human origin? Childs hand or bear paws? 3) is the bone of such an age to be of forensic significance? 4) Warping of bone after death O) Individual Features 1) bone trauma (e.g. overuse leaves marks/gouges caused by inward expansion of muscle wearing on bone) a. can be used to tell physical stressors during life 2) **bone wear** important in IDing; from occupational stresses, degenerative changes 3) Photographic superimposition 4) Facial reconstruction - not likely to be admissible in ct. due to much subj. interp. involved JESSE JAMES CORPSE EXCAVATION People are buried in supine fashion, on their back (b/c its believed that buried bodies will rise during 2nd coming and would rise w/ head toward west side & feet on east side, so dead would be able to view 2nd coming from east) Start digging at feet end to avoid doing damage @ head end 34

 Labs have DNA of all employees in lab so if unknown profile appears, they can run employees DNA to be sure it isnt a spurious profile Trace evidence Hair examined to determ. if human Gold teeth - kept for DNA analysis FBI testify they are certain the person/evid. could be of no one else; dont testify to the % of certainty to billions. DNA only can give 99.7% certainty ONE-DISSIMILARITY DOCTRINE FIRST ENUNCIATED IN 1904; IF JUST ONE DISSIMILARITY NOTED IN COMPARISON OF FINGERPRINTS IT WOULD BE ASSUMED PRINTS WERE MADE BY DIFFERENT FINGERS. DOCTRINE HAS NOT BEEN STRICTLY FOLLOWED THROUGH THE YEARS BUT IS BEGINNING TO BE PRONOUNCED ONCE AGAIN BY COURTS. REASONS FOR A SINGLE DISSIMILARITY INCLUDE: DUST OR DIRT ON FINGER AT THE TIME PRINT WAS MADE, UNEVEN INKING WHEN TAKING PRINTS, SLIPPAGE DURING PRINT-TAKING, AND SCARRING.

35