Brady violations by DPS fingerprint examiners? Is fingerprint examination even science? (Grits for Breakfast. Saturday, October 09, 2010)
"There was an astonishing moment yesterday at a breakout session on fingerprint examination at the Texas Forensic Science Seminar, at which Department of Public Safety fingerprint examiner [DPSFE] ... was describing how his division implemented the ACEV method of fingerprint examination in ways that may violate the state and prosecutors' obligations under Brady v. Maryland.
"ACEV stands for Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation and Verification. That's bureaucrat-speak for looking at the fingerprints visually and subjectively deciding if they're the same based on "training and experience" (as opposed to any sort of objective standard), then having a second examiner
look at them to "verify" the results. There is no minimum number of similarities or comparison points required to declare two fingerprints a "match," though many other countries have established such standards. (Notably, at DPS if an examiner finds fewer than 11 points of comparison, two people must verify the conclusion.)
Anyway, the [DPSFE] described what happens when the first examiner finds a match but the verifying analyst doesn't agree. In such instances, he said, they notified their supervisor and all of them conferred to make a decision. A defense attorney in the crowd asked what seemed to me an obvious question: When two examiners originally disagreed but a supervisor resolved the issue in favor of a match, was that disagreement recorded in the final report? No, replied [the DPSFE], only the conclusion.
At this, the audience began to murmur and fidget. Somebody from the back cried out,"Have you ever heard of Brady v. Maryland?," which is the US Supreme Court case requiring the state to turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defense before trial. No he had not, replied the credulous fingerprint examiner, a statement which elicited an audible gasp from the crowd. ..."
So essentially, if two examiners who looked at the prints come to different conclusions but a supervisor resolves the question against the interests of the defendant, according to this presentation, that information is not routinely disclosed to defense counsel. On its face that's a straightforward violation of Brady. Who knows how many times that scenario has occurred over the years!" ... (REST OF POST)
