Sub Outline - Online - Crime Scene Reconstruction

8/3/2019 Sub Outline - Online - Crime Scene Reconstruction

1/35

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 fingerprintb. No supporting data/stats it holds up as indiv. identifier, but still accepted by

courtsc. 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 testc. 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 leavesimpr.

Identical twins have identical DNA but difft fingerprints

d. Ear impression, not ear print used ear impression as its part of impressionevid. & has broader range Grubb, impression expert who can provide experttestimony

2. 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 doors3.

Method of Taking Exemplars f/ Obtaining Matcha. Done to excl. suspect (prove exemplar isnt match to ear print left on doori. 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

4. Criminologist studies crimes based on cause of a crimes & nature of behavioralpattern neces. to commit given crime VS

5. Criminalist studies crime scenes & evid. left at scene; examines scientific dataa. 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?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 whichthey cant inform themselves (lack expert knowl) b/c dont want toleave subst. issues to jury speculation

1


2/35

court is who determ. witn. qualification & expert testimonyadmissib. rather than expert testifying & then jury not crediting thetestimony

a person cant come into ct. & claim to be an expert; specific rulesmust be followed

2. Bodily Fluid as Trace Evidence : non-secreters: some ppl dont secrete partic. bodilyfluid. 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 typingi. 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 inrelevant 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 disputedscientific issue

i. if not novel cant raise Daubert or Frye argument on admissib. i.e.,fingerprinting: not unique currently cant excl. evid. from fingerprintingby 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 orcrediting/(not) scientific evid.

b. State v. Polite (FL) Frye j/d evid. inadmissiblec. People v. Anzillotti ( CA) admissib. undisputedd. Mark Dallagher Royal ct. of Justice (2002) (England) conviction held as

unsafe & set aside5. 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 (incldetermin. of manner, means & cause)

2


3/35

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

a. DNA plays pivotal role in crime2. Obtaining Meaningful & Admissible Scientific Evid must be derived using

scientific methodologya. 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 disputed. Tested: requires: (1) measuring against gen. accepted std.; (2) by judicial

gatekeeper (as to admission); (3) by adversarial system3. Associative Evid. used to excl. / incl. connection to victim; helps to build

circumstantial case4. Inconclusive Evid. has value f/ comparison purp. but minutia of evid. is missing.

Thus, determination = inconclusive. E.g., latent print5. Locards Exchange Principle: every contact one makes w/ anything/anyone else

leaves a tracea. Forensic scientists & Evidence:

i. Have to find it sometimes tough to find & invisible even under

microscopeii. Have to recogn . its value to that partic. caseiii. Have to recover it evid. must be recovered carefully or else risk losing

probative valueiv. Have to maintain its integrity otherwise loses probative valuev. Have to analyze it often too much evid. to analyze & not enough lab

staff vi. Have to formulate an opinionvii. Have to meet admissib. requirements or conviction could get

challenged, reversedviii. 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 IDmatch

b. CODIS FBI system that allows comparison of DNA at c/s w/ DNA profiles storedin system

c. NIBIS used f/ ballistic imaging; digital images of bullet, cart. case, etc iscompared 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.

Reqd8. 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 positivei. Negative results = lack of drug but positive result = possible presence of

drugb. Confirmatory Test determin. of presence of specific fluid type

3


4/35

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 & datefound

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 Scenea. 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/sii. 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 preventunauth. entry

c. Ctrl Persons on Scene: ensure evid. kept separate from other items to avoid

contamin./ adulteration11. 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 1 st

retail purchaser

4


5/35

b. Examine what is overhead & loc. of evidence (e.g. blood splatters and bulletholes).

c. Videotape : use videotape recorder w/ time, date functions

iii. Condit. of scene should remain unaltered thruout documentationiv. 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 sceneiv. 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 theycan be accurately reflected (to scale) in the sketch

C/S reconstruction - characterized by 4 methods: 1) profiling, 2) psychological autopsy, orequivocal death analysis. Determining most probably sequence of events.

a. Profiling method of c/s reconstruction involving linkage analysis or signatureanalysis

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 canhave difft interpretations

d. 1 st Step in C/S Reconst. detectives do walk-through of c/s, simulatingevents mentally that mightve happened in order to prove or disprovesequences of events.

Reconstruction done by: detectives, criminalists, investigators,profilersMUST 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 victimsdominant hand

Reconstruction Protocols/ Steps 1. Wound pattern analysis

o Should be done at both c/s & autopsyo ?s to answer: 1) could deceased have caused own injury; 2) did deceased know

the methods of death2. Victim state of mind & mental health

o Study police, hospital & treatment, employment & school records; interview pplabout victims bkgr

5


6/35

o Find out about interpersonal relationshipso Look f/ classic warning signs of suicide giving away stuff; sudden happiness

after l-t depressiono Learn of reactions to victims death from any persons in any way assoc. w/

victim & question them about warning signs and who mightve intended harmo Analyze victims goals / life plans helps determ. intention about victims role

in their own deatho Reconstruct timeline of events leading up to day of death

Evidentiary Value of Facts - # & kinds of facts deduced from reconstructionAND 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 committhe crime.

o Learned behavior that is dynamic (can chng. over time) Signature behaviors behaviors committed by perps that serve psych. andemot. needs

Scientific Method of Reconstruction Step 1 state the question to be answered by looking at type of crimecommitted 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 byeach pty to crime & weigh stories against phys. evid. & known rules that couldinterpret phys. evid. Step 5 pursue most promising theories by doing proc. that might prove ordisprove 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 ; 2most 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 givenmanner

RULES ON DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE

Almost anything visual from c/s can be presented as a visual exhibit in court (undercertain 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 needsto be demonstrated is neces to use demonstratives.

o Scientific evid. = demonstrative evid. , e.g., when toxicologist testifies thatvictim dies of lead poisoning & refer to chart of human body showing pathwaythe toxin traveled.

6


7/35

o Common types of demonstrative evid. : molds, scale models, maps, charts,diagrams, police composites, sketches, mug shots/photos, microscopicenlargement, videotape, computer reconstruction, scientific tests

o Foundational reqm f/ presenting demonstratives & scientific expertise - requireslaying foundation

Authentication subj of demonstrative may not alter, destroy, chng.appearance or condit. of something significantly ( e.g ., comp. enh. pic tomake c/s look lighter = inadmissible)

Representational accuracy demonstrative must fairly depict scale,dimensions, etc of underlying evid. (e.g., photo w/ some small sectionenlarged to focus in on something is likely inadmissible). Very importantwhenever comparisons (such as 2 writing samples) are made, so evid. canbe 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 theone that boot-stomped her.)

Cannot be stipulatedo Demonstratives must pass 3 hurdles of admissibility: relevancy; materiality;

competency. Relevancy demonstrative must make ref. to chrg, pt. of law, question of

guilt/innocence, etcmust also pass test of probative vs. prejudicial (inflamespassions/prejudices of jury) consider the intent, principal valueand effect of evidence on jury

autopsy pic/ other staged photo could be argued as moreprejudicial than probative even if accurately depicts subj.matter.

Materiality that it goes directly to purpose of illustration, is easilyunderstandable, 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 computeralgorithm) must be shown that simulation based on accepted principlesof physics

7


8/358


9/35

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/ testinga. Some state laws reqr atty. to preserve evid. or be held in breach of statespractice/ethics rules or guilty of crim. destr. Of evid.

b. If atty. proceeds to test evid. must instruct examiner to not use entire sampleOR 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, allsiblings 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; envelopes6. Perspiration/ skin cells - DNA off of clothing7. 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; steeringwheels

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 common9. Trace evid.: evid. from c/s is collected to determ. who/what deposited it

a. Evid. from hat = DNA, hairb. 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 cosmetictreatm; (6) if suitable f/ comparison

9


10/35


11/35

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 Examinationa. Examinations Performed : handwriting, typewriting, indented writing, impression

devices (rubber stamps), photocopiesb. 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. operabilityi. 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 ammocomponents fired from same arm

b. Other Exams : function testing; IBIS entry, ID of tools/toolmarks; fracturematching to arms/tools; restoring obliterated markings & serial nums; technicalon-scene assistance (inv. Trajectory analysis, c/s reconstruction); distancedetermination [based on GSR] further away shooter is from subj matter, themore spread out the stippling

c. Bullet Comparisons : comparison of test fired bullet w/ one recovered from victimd. Cartridge Case Marks : analysis of breechface marks; firing pin imporession;

extractor, ejector & chamber markse. 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. bulletlead 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 waspositioned; (2) whether shooter/target was moving; (3) no. of shooters; (4) orderof shots (maybe)

g. Toolmark Exams used to: (1) search f/ trace evid; (2) determ. if partic. toolused; (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 madetoolmark; do microscopic comparfson of toolmark w/ test mark fromsuspects tool; inter-comparison of toomarks from difft scenes or cases

19. Eyelash & Mascara Identificationa. 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/ certaintyb/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 andmovements

11


12/35

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 expectationsw/ re to level of proof & expect hard forensic evid. which sometimes cannot beproduced

a. Perry Mason Effect jurors instructed to expect full confession by deft. In lastact

b. Quincy M.E. Effect jurors geared to anticipate that mystery would be solved byQuincy, 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 bodybotched c/s investig. deprived scientist of trace evid neces. toresolve death

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

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

iii. 11 yr. old eyewitn. testified she saw D shoot her father Jury acquitteddue to insuffic. evid . of defts prints on murder wpn, but wpn gen. notsuitable 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 Failsto 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 absenceContrary to Locards Principle perp. who cmtd. crime had toleave something behind. If nothing left behind, perp wouldve takensomething 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 SCREENForensic sci. often misrepresented in movies/TV shows diminishes value of foren. sci.

12


13/35


14/35

To determ. nature of gunshot wound/size of knife used in murder, for-sci. woulduse similar wpn post-mortemTime limits f/ evid. preservation see Arizona v. Youngblood

1. Holmes Beating Dead Body : he was seen beating corpse w/ stick to reveal visualdifferences b/w post-mortem & ante-mortem bruises

2. Medgar Evers : His killer, Beckwith, convicted of murder in 80s even though acquittedin 60s.

a. state exhumed body over 20 yrs after muder. Chest x-ray showed dispersedmetallic partic. in chest indicates shooter was near Evers when shooting.

i. Known as billiard ball effect > incoming bullet hit others pellets inbody, causing them to spread. Thus, cannot tell distance of shooterfrom victim.

3. Boston Strangler : victim #11 remains exhumed . It was suspect that DeSalvo was thekiller b/c fluorescents in head, pubic hair, underpants indicated seminal fluidpresent .

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 DeSalvoraped & murdered4. Exhumation

a. Persons generally not allowed to witn. exhumationb. 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 BF2. 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 tostate ct., defts samples were tested against those taken from victim, revealing nomatch!!

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/ anydegree of accuracy if gun was recently fired

a. Residue inside gun barrel: does not indicate approx. time since firing; onlythat 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


15/35

i. Ins. can defeat claim thru examining toolmark left by key ( LocardsPrinciple ) 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 sounddetermin. to be made

6. Blood Hematology variables in drying time of blood of difft persons makes itdifficult to determine time a crime was committed (resulting in blood spillage)

a. Blood Drying Time Variables: (1) size of blood sample; (2) medicinal itemscouldve altered victims blood viscosity; (3) wound-aging based on wound color

b. E.g., Lizzie Borden murder case: unable to discern if mother, stepmother orfather 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 knifewound.

ii. Prints, Blood found on counterfeit $: cannot determ. if blood left before or after crime

7. Anthropologya. Tooth Wear helps to determ. persons ageb. Costal cartilage (where ribs join sternum) indicates aging when cartilage

become evident due osteoarthritic changesc. Fluorescent rings indicate antibiotic use. Blood found was tested & showed

evid. of tetracycline = confirmation it belonged to her. State v. Davis8. Drugs

a. Rohypnol = date rape drug w/ very short half-life fails to show up in testeven short time after use

9. Pathology discipline used to est. time of death determ. by est. post-morteminterval

10. Pathology (Child Abuse) look at post-fracture healing time : if time of inj. doesntmatch w/ callus (indic. 1 or multiple inj.) injury not recent

Estimating Time Elapsed Since Death : most important indicator = extent of tissuedecomposition (i.e. rigor / livor / algor). variability in decay rate is the rule & severalfactors 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 speciesinvade 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 woundsf. Location of body after death remains touching ground decomp. faster than

when buried/ wrapped

15


16/35

g. Rainfall - slows decomp. By deterring insect popul. on remainsh. Clothing accelerates decomp. b/c it protects insect larvae from suni. 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 bypost-mortem chem. change in muscle

a. ATP production stops at death no metabolic process post-mortem musclestiff & 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-mortem3. Algor mortis signified by lowering of body temp. post-mortem; proc. affected by

external factors.a. Decomposition rise in body temp. again4. 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 post-mortem throws off insect activity

i. Evaluation of what insect ingested: victim or suspects DNA likelypresent

b. Use of fresh in for. evid. is common - connotes timeframe , but that isntdeterm. 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 momsDNA wouldnt match

ii. Bone mineral analysis: Test to determ. whether Jtown man & Tilneygrew up in same loc.

d. What Bones Can Tell (presumptive test ): antibiotics traces in bone wouldserve as circumst. evid.

i. Antibiotics deposited in bone form osteon fluor. Rings . Blood w/ tracesof osteon rings means blood owner took antibiotics.

ii. Issues w/ Reporting Presumptive Test reporting thing/place + forblood trace causes specul. of wrongdoing but blood from other itemscouldve 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 & sufferingi. 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


17/35

1. Fear of Detection Theory poly exam operates on this theory whereby polyexaminer infers deception from greater chng. in physiol. response to relevantquestions about crime than from irrelevant / ctrl. questions

2. Key Characteristics of Poly Exam : (1) only yes / no answers; (2) all 3 questiontypes 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 Bankrobbery 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. Clientsf. 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 events5. Polygraph Uses in Employment : Private employers cannot reqr polys of employees6. Workings of Polygraph : psych. technique & tool used to measure involun. physiol.

responses from stress caused by fear of detection7. Whats Being Measured

a. Galvanic skin response : detects sweating by measuring conductivity whensweating

b. Incr . heart rate & BPc. respirationd. autonomic nervous system triggers flight/fight syndromee. Machine Parts Used in Monitoring: BP cuff, pneumographs, galvanometers

8. Procedure = Three Stage Testa. (1) pretest interview general questions re: personal hx, meds:

i. To est. rapportii. To assess suitability f/ examination ( e.g., must know diff. b/w right &

wrong; must not be overly tired or on medicationiii. To prime subj.: incl. subj. getting acquainted w/ techniqueiv. To develop relevant questions & focus subj. on them

b. (2) examination incl. relevant-irrelev. Q test; guilty knowl. test; ctrl. questiontechnique

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. reactingnervously to relev Qs?

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

Problem: reqr examiner to know concealed info beforehand

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

Irrelev./neutal ?s should elicit normal truthf. ReactionsCtrl. ?s should elicit probable but irrelev. Lies

17


18/35

Relev. ?s - specific to subj matter about which info subj isconcealingProblem : assumption that innocent subj. will react more to ctrl. ?sthan guilty subj.

c. (3) post-test follow-up interrogation of subj. re: responses indicated as falsei. If NDI test concluded

ii. If inconclusive further testing

Trojan horse examiner gets oppy to interrogate subj w/ocounsel. Examiner can elicit inconsistencies to use against subj. attrial.

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. Countermeasuresa. Inflicting pain can determ. if subj. trying to beat testb. 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 ptyreview & score)

12. Admissibilitya. Per Se Exclusion (majority (27 states), including federal) polys inadmissible

per sei. 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 polyc. 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 Considerationsa. Do not volunteer client f/ poly w/o taking priv. administered test 1stb. Due to waiver of Miranda rights in post-test stage def. should be careful of

admissions client makes in post-t stage

18


19/35

COMPUTERS & FORENSIC SCIENCE

Issue : whether warr. should be reqd f/ law enf. to engage in computersurveillance. U.S. v. Jones

Issue : whether consent reqd to track someones cell to obtain their geographicloc. Conn. case

19


20/35

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 onlineconstituted piracy & infringement. Website shut down by law enf. & operator convictedof 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. info4. Computer counterfeiting see U.S. v. Zhao : deft sold counterfeit cisco netw.

Equipment, was convicted.5. Cyber bullying computer forensics used to prove crime6. Investment/ sec. x-chng fraud American stole investors $ under guise it was used

to purch. Chinese investments, but later $ would disappear7. Sextortion computer crime where ppl extorted w/ threats to publicize their nude

imagesa. 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 Privacy1. Implicates 4 th Am. prohibition on unlawf. search / seizure. 2. When comp. can be seized s hould 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 getaddressing info of online communications like addr. info f/ cell phones

a. To see email content must get content warrant per Title III of Wiretap Act2. 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 smartphoneb. faraday bags block reception income calls to allow techs to analyze info on

phonec. einstein sensors used by govt to filer public emails

3. C/S Diagrams comp. used to replicate polices c/s sketches4. Total station mapping techn uses lasers to measure distance, to accurately

recreate 3D c/s incl evid. items5. 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 seenon video

20


21/35

6. Computer voice stress analyzer generates images showing graphs w/ variablelines 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 printagainst those in system & assigns score based on frequency of similarities. Closestmatches displayed

a. Matching prints via comp. & db = questionable method b/c for-sci. shouldlook f/ dissimilarities, not similarities

Comp. Chain of Custody Issues defense can discredit comp. evid. due tochain 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 Lewisdeath, comp. animation used to recreate c/s showed that Lewis wouldve had to reloadpistol after already shot in the head in order to shoot self in the chest. NOT likely

FORENSIC PHOTOGRAPHY

1. Forensic portraiture e.g. mug shot2. 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 spectrumb. Energy (1) reflects, (2) absorbs, & (3) transmitsi. Reflect: when no energy reflected back color is black; when all

energy reflected color is white. When portion of wavelength reflectedcolor 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 spectruma. Causes appearance of obj. to change

4. Infrared photography (at longwave end of spectrum (ranges in waves from red toviolet)): uses

a. infrared radiation - part of electromag. spectrum (incl. many kinds of energywaves). Humans can see only white light & colored light very small part of EMspectrum.

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 redinvisibleiv. Beyond violet = ultraviolent invisible

b. Applications: use of infrared plates together w/ filter to screen out all lightreveals: erasures on docs; obliterated handwriting; blood stains &powder burns on cloth; people in the dark

21


22/35

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 visibleportion of spectrum. Light strikes it & converts UV to infrared, which wesee thru camera

d. Ultraviolet (black light) luminescence gives neon glow, unlike UVreflectance (causes invisible obj. to show up in black). E.g. shine black light indark room white shirt glows. Used to:

i. Detect theft using UV powders (in cash boxes, coat pockets) willfluoresce under UV light

ii. adding fluorescent powder on surfaces dusted f/ prints prints mayappear under UV light

iii. Bodily secretions : may glow when illuminated w/ UV raysiv. Questioned documents : obliterated writings may show up under UV raysv. Marking items f/ Identific .: w/ invisible crayons that fluoresce under UV

light5. 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 matchedorig. gun6. Photogammetry process of determ. geometric properties of objects from photos

a. Distance cant be measured from photo7. Facial comparisons Using Photos : all show class characteristics (abundant, but

not very helpful). E.g. , man w/ red hair, square jaw, big nose possibilitiesnarrowed only to all red-haird, square-jawed, big-nosed men on earth. Most dontshow indiv characteristics (more important) (scars, chipped tooth, ear pattern) tocompare w/ K indiv. IDing characteristics:

a. the greater the # of indiv. IDing characteristics the more specific the IDb. Difference b/w recognition & identification: - illustrated by looking at fuzzy

pic of Mona Lisa8. Admissibility of Photo Evid. photo admissible as evid. as long as it:

a. Fairly, accurately portrays what it purp. to portrayb. Is relevant and probative

i. re: relevance: if fact is relevant so is photo depicting that fact (andvice versa)

ii. re: relevance: if a scientific techn. not admissible photos in supp. of techn. not admissible

c. Is not overly prejudicial or inflammatoryi. relevant v. inflammatory or prejudicial : where relevance of photo

outweighed by inflammatory character inadmissible

FALSE TESTIMONY ABOUT FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY RESULTSAmerican legal system stands f/ indiv. rights

5th Am. guarantees no depriv. of life, liberty, prop. w/p DP of lawBrady v. Maryland = *landmark case affirms 5th Am*. Est. prosec. mustproduce all material, exculpatory evid. w/ or w/o request from def. Failure to disclviol. defts DP right to fair trial.

6th Am. gives deft. right to counsel, to subp.& confront witns, evid. against him/herDisingenuous testimony testimony lacking in candor; giving false appearance of something

Perjury absolute lie VS. misleading stmt. made in ct.

22


23/35

Need for Defense Experts : (1) keep other side honest; (2) due to existing imbal. Ininvestigative 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 useFBIs svc. to test evid. must sign agreem. to provide copy of results to prosec.; no suchreqm f/ proec.

Right at stake is defts discov. of exculp. evid. discl. of which would make trial aquest 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 6 th Am. confr. clause

Theoretically , constit. right trumps govts over-burdensome argument. MelendezDifference b/w Being Gov. Witn. & Def. Witn.

Def. witn. job find out what happened based on tox. evid.; more autonomy inputting evid. case together BUT no immunity unlike w/ gov witn.; develop owntestimony & have full discretion over decision to testifyGov. witn. job help build case f/ proece.; testimony is at prosec. discretion; bosshas 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. Deftleaves 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 didconfirmatory 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, prejudicialAfter 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 8-10 half-lives, presence = neglig.

Difference b/w specificity & sensitivity:Specificity how specific a test f/ partic. agentSensitivity - 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


24/35

What is the specificity & sensitivity of the test?Areas of Inquiry on Cross-Ex.

QualificationsKnowl. of facts of caseMethods / tests used to arrive at concl. & ops. must satisfy Daubert / Frye criteriaCompleteness of review & Degree of certainty only 51% degree of certainty reqd tobe scientifically reliable Bias, financial gain, advertisingAlternative possibilities consideredPose hypothetical questions

QADDAFI DEATHForensic pathologist determines : (1) 2-4 bullet wounds in his head. (2) that they werefired 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 astruggle

examining /commenting on case not under ones auspices = unethical (viol. of codeof 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 woundsfound

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 termsDifference b/w Perforating & Penetrating Bullet Wounds:

Lead is soft & distorted upon hitting bone. Therefore, ability to ID bullet & match togun is difficultGunshot wound A penetrating (see p. 3/6)

Gunshot wound B perforatingCause of death isnt listed as gunshot wound must consider if therespreceding or contributing cause of death.Manner & Cause of Death Must be Determ.: (1) Cause of Death = gunshotwounds; (2) manner of death = could be homicide or natural death inconclusive.

legit explanation f/ S-D would be suffic. to excl. suspectDifference b/w Homicide & Murder : hom. = killing of one by another BUT murder =intentional killing

Entrance / Exit Wounds Appearance

helps determ. trajectory of projectileCannot tell bullet caliber based on wound appearance (large / small, etc.)

Can tell from wound whether bullet recovered from body was slipped in after deathExit wounds can appear like entrance wounds if : skin doesnt fragment out asexpectedShored Exit Wounds : Shored, gunshot exit wounds appear when outstretched skin isimpaled, 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 whathappens w/ entrance wounds)

24


25/35

FINGERPRINTSFingerprint Identification Fingerprint-based identification is oldest method of all biometric techniques

Every person has unique, immutable fingerprints can be regarded as indiv. signatureproving 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 asminutiae points local ridge characteristics occurring at a ridge bifurcation / ridgeending.

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 onprints loc.

E.g., area immediately around delta usu. has more pts/ sq. mm than area nearfingertip

Fingerprinting: Background Info Fingerprinting was first created by British surgeon - Dr. Henry Fault.

Prints general shape used to pre-process fingerprint images, and reduce searchesin large db.The General Shapes:

LoopWhorl most common type of fingerprint

25


26/35

ArchSub-categories of gen. shapes:

right loop,left loop,Single or double whorlPlain or tented archUlnar 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 onthe finger.Correlation-based technique : overcomes some difficulties of the minutiae-basedapproach.

Fingerprint Processing Minutiae-based processing problems:

In real life you would have impressions made at difft times & subject to difftpressure 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 IDdMinutae-based processing doesnt take into account global pattern of ridges andfurrows.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, yieldingcode for all printsCorrelation-based processing has separate set of limitations:

Correlation-based techniques require precise loc. of registration pointAlso affected by image translation and rotation.

Straightforward matching b/w Q fingerprint and K fingerprint is difficult dueto high sensitivity to errors (e.g. outside noises, damaged print areas, fingerbeing placed in difft areas of print scanner window and at difft angles, fingerdeformation 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 thesets 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 ableto fit into a microchip .

Cannot rely on subjectivity to make identification!Progressive Fingerprint Matching

26


27/35

Image Processing capture fingerprint images & process thru series of imageprocessing algorithms f/ clear skeletal image of orig. gray tone impression, improvingsmudges, removing extraneous artifacts & healing scars/cuts/breaks.

General Model for Fingerprint Authentication

Feature Detection for MatchingRidge 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 comprisinga site, a minutia slant and a neighborhood.

Fingerprint Classification: Large dbs of stored prints are used f/ many purposes: forensics, access ctrl, DL

registration, etcAn automatic recognition of people based on prints requires that input fingerprint

is matched w/ large number of prints in dbFBI database contains approximately 70 million fingerprints

Fingerprint Characteristics Biometric (Fingerprint Strengths)

Finger tip = most mature measureAccepted reliabilityHigh quality imagesSmall physical sizeLow costLow False Acceptance Rate (FAR)Small template (less than 500 bytes )

Biometric (Fingerprint weaknesses)Requires careful enrollmentPotential high False Reject Rate (FRR) due to Pressing too hard, scarring,misalignment, dirtVendor incompatibilityCultural 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

Raw d ata Extract edfeatures emplate

Authentication decision

Datacollec tion Signal

proc.

matching storage

Matchscore

decisionApplica tion


28/35

Silicon uses silicon chip to read capacitance value of fingerprint .Ultrasound requires large scanning device appealing b/c it can betterpermeate dirt .

Acronyms AFIS: autom. Fingerprint info systemIFIS: integr. Fingerprint ID sustemACEV (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 TechniqueIntl Assoc. for Identification

IAFI: Intl Org. for Identification est. RULE that min. # of pts. of ID = NOT neces. tomake ID

Cannot rely on subjectivity to make identification! Problem: identifiers experiencecannot 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 successfullyeliminatin. degree of probability to which examiner testified ( e.g. to reasonable degreeof ballistic certainty)

Firearms VS Ballistics Fingerprint Identification :

Firearms IDing : determining caliber, bullet, bullet track used vs.Ballistics IDing : determining motion that firearm imparted on bulletLatent vs. ink prints : latent print IDing is tougher b/c print is messier than more clearink 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

chemicalsFamilial Sharing of Fingerprints: siblings share some features of DNA. Should havefamiliar statistical base.

Arches, loops, whorls = shared features, but minutiae ) = not shared & used to makeError Rate : false positive = only 0.1%

28


29/35

MICROSCOPIC HAIR COMPARISONMorphological parts of hair cuticle, cortex, medullaDifference between: forcibly removed hair vs. naturally shed

Forcible removed root- contains cells from which to extract nuclear/mitochondrial DNANaturally shed - Mitochondrial?

Hair comparison = not a means of individualizationNOT 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 hairInvolves subject part & objective partMicroscopic comparison involves categorization into smaller groups : i.e. human oranimal, racial group, body area (head, chest, public, limb, eyebrow), phase of growthHair comparison uses pattern recognition

To see if similar patterns of microscopic characteristics exist at each pt along thehair in both Q & K hairK hair exemplars: composite of representative hairs from target region of thebody

Other characteristics observed and compared :

Cuticle Thickness, variation of thickness, presence of pigment, colorCortex

Pigment granules: organization, density, size, distributionCortical fusiOvoid bodiesCortical cell: texture, size, damage, shape

Additional characteristics compared microscopically Tip (distal end), diameter of hair, length, artificial treatment, hair damage, diseasesor other abnormalitiesNo 2 hairs, even from the same person looks alike intra and inter personvariability

3 possible conclusions : exclusion, no conclusion, associationExclusion : can definitively make positive exclusion based on hair evidence

Just because hair isn't the Ds doesnt mean he didnt do itNo conclusion : possibility that its suspects hair but they cant exclude ORincludeAssociation - that it couldve come from D OR from anybody else w/ samecharacteristics and because they dont know how many people exhibit thosecharacteristics, 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 evido Accred. lab scientists may not testify so as to mislead jury ORallow jury to be misled

Why Association Result is Problematic: How do you explain this in court?

29


30/35

This characterization can lead to miscarriage of justice Hair is most commonly found trace evid when a crime that concerns

contact b/w 2 peopleModern use of hair comparisons

Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA testingNuclear 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 matchmuch higher probability that they came from same personTake Caution Not to Overvalue Results of Hair Comparison

file motion in limine asking ct. to warn witness & prosec. not to overvalueconclusion and not use terms like match and consistent w/ b/c match must beof range or characteristics.Barry Gaudet-Royal Canada Mountie -- did microscopic hair comparison & studies toestab probabilitiesHair comparison and false IDs played a role in number of exonerationsACE-V now used in hair comparison like w/ fingerprinting

ADMISSIBILITY OF SCIENTIFIC EVID.: 2 LEADING JUDICIAL TESTS1. Frye v US , 293 F. 1013 (1923) (DC Circuit)

General acceptance (counting noses)If particular technique has general scientific acceptance in the community to whichit belongs

Did those in the field using technique believe it was valid?Frye inquiry applies only to novel scientific techniques - accord. tosubseq. ct. decisions

This wasnt in the case, but subsequent writing says it only applies tonovel

2. Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm , 509 US 579 (1993) (civil case)Issue : in federal court, does Frye control evidentiary std. of admissibility ordoes 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 reproduciblein technique employed & comes up w/ same result under samecircumstances)

o judge decides and is the gatekeeper on admissibility of scientificevidence

Validity and reliability + relevancy = evidentiary reliabilityo Daubert std. = more liberal than Frye

Criticism of Daubert : putting scientific issues in hands of judges who dont havebkgr.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


31/35

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 andreliability

(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 approachEvidence must be relevant and probative, and outweigh prejudicial impactClarification : 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 tireco. 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 flexibleinquiry

Daubert has made it more difficult for lawyers and judgesRequires scientists to be educatorsForces scientists to validate underlying science and procedureLawyers are reqd to qualify expert and science/ technique

Admissibility of expert opinions govern by FRE 702Sufficient facts and data

Testimony is product of reliable principles and methodsWitness has applied principles and methods reliably to facts of the case

Objections to Admissib. of Expert Opinionsmost successful attacks are how technique was applied in particular case

LABS & FORENSIC TESTINGProtocols 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 labQuality manual with code of prof responsibility, protocol, techniques forinstruments,

Testing protocols tests should be done via validated & same method each timeIf you have to divert from that because of usual nature of evidence, you firsthave to validate the variation and have to explain in case record why you didit

31


32/35

Proficiency testing not really a way to determine an error rate, but it can beargued that its probative of an examiners competency

lab accreditation usually has all of these criteriaLab accreditation can affect quality of examinations

Lab accreditation gives range of benefitsLab need not be accredited in order to maint. proficient testing & results

Error rate :

VerificationCertification applied to individuals (accreditation applies to labs)Professional responsibility (ethics) and trainingExistence and maintenance of standard controlling the testsWitness has applied principles and methods reliable to facts of case

forensic scientists arent covered by uniform code of professional responsibilityNH v Langill (2007) expert witness violated own labs oper. proced. by not takingcontemporaneous bench notes

Evid. = inadmissibleVerification process was NOT blind & subj. to confirmation bias (not part of manual)

Knowl. of prior examiners opinion bias in current examiners opinionCognitive bias how you are affected by things in your environment or things that youknowContext bias when you look at something and are influenced by context in which youfind yourself w/ that evid.

If you get additional info, it might make you want to find a match ( e.g. ofc. sayscan 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 othersto prevent bias

Tripartite nature of forensic science lab work, report of lab work, and testimonySingle Accred. Requirement: every analyst must be reviewed in court or testimonymust be reviewed yearlyWhat might trigger a Daubert hearing ?

Complexity of scientific evidenceUniqueness of scientific evidenceExtent of individualizationSignificance of evidence to caseNeed for discoveryConsumption of evidenceRules of evidence dont apply dont need to bring qualified expertsDaubert 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


33/35

Cranium = cranium w/o mandibleI. TERMINOLOGY

A) Osteology breanch of anatomy that studies skeletal structure and functionB) Anthropology study of humankind, cultural and otherwiseC) Phys. anthropologist becomes forensic anth. when dealing w/ bone matters

II. BONESA) # of bones in human body : 206-210B) # 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

layers2) Trabecular or cancellous bone = spongy bone interior; makes up bulk of

interior of bones3) Adult subadult 4) Cranial postcranial5) Distal proximal

6) Anterior posterior (front and rear)7) Foramen - holes in bones f/ transmit of nerves or blood vessels8) Phalanges bones of hands, feet

D) # of Bones in Vertical Column: 33 vertebrae; 7 cervical (#1 the atlas) 12thoracic; 5 lumbar; 6 sacral; 4 coccygeal

a. # of wrist (carpals) bones: 8b. # of ankle (tarsals) bones: 7c.

E) Diseases of the Bone1) Osteogenesis imperfect (brittle bone disease) genetic disorder relevant in

child abuse cases2) Harris lines (transverse) - found on long bones near growth plate, often

mistaken on x-ray as bone fracturing but is actually indicative of malnutritionduring 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 poseg. Paired bones long bones, etc.

G) Bone Size3) Largest bone = femur4) 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 leftb. Coronal divides front from rearc. Lambdoidal in rear of skull

33


34/35

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) cartilagec. arthritic lipping of vertebraeK) determination of sex or ones remains 3 markers : (1) public area; (2)

mastoid process (behind ear); (3) supra-orbital (brow) ridge; (4) nuchal ridge (backof head, above collar) prominence skull features

a. general standard: male = robust vs female = gracileb. 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 1 st enunciated

in 1775 by Blumenbach ;

c. 3. Mongoloid (incl. Native Am.)L) Estimation of stature of person during life can tell from long bonemeasurements

M) Bones of the Skull :1) Frontal bone (1) - forehead2) Occipital bone (1) rear of skull3) Parietal bone (1) top and side of skill4) Temporal bone (1) = over right and left ears5) Sphenoid (2) = in front of temporal bones6) Calvarium = dome of skull, separated at autopsy7) **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 Identification1) 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 Features1) 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 superimposition4) 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 willrise during 2 nd coming and would rise w/ head toward west side & feet on east side, sodead would be able to view 2 nd coming from east)

Start digging at feet end to avoid doing damage @ head end

34


35/35

Documents

Sub Outline - Online - Crime Scene Reconstruction