How does a well-informed criminal defense attorney attack latent print evidence?
How does a well-prepared fingerprint witness fend off the attack?
What part does a latent print defense expert play in this courtroom drama?
How does the jury react to the expert witness testimony from both Prosecution and Defense?
Check out this link:
I have testified against latent print evidence in some major cases of police malfeasance, ranging from erroneous identification (Shirley McKie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_McKie ) to fabrication of evidence (Fred van der Vyver). I have won most of those cases for my clients. I am prouder of my defense of the innocent than I am of my testimony against criminals (including several capital verdicts).
The key for the defense attorney is to understand the evidence and choose the best defense for the client. A highly qualified latent print examiner can guide the attorney in that regard.
For the prosecution, the key is an accurate presentation of the evidence. An unqualified fingerprint witness can lead to disaster (see the case of Lana Canen http://forejustice.org/db/Canen–Lana-.html ).
A good expert will know the science, the Daubert criteria, the current best practices, and be a polished presenter. Practice in public speaking, whether at civic clubs, mock trials, conference presentations, or anywhere else, is invaluable.
I am currently examining the #FingerprintEvidence in a post-conviction case involving a multiple homicide. The case was built on fingerprint evidence. The identifications are good, but the case has all the earmarks of planted evidence. The original defense attorney hired a fingerprint consultant who was never a latent print examiner and who has a reputation for outlandish and unrealistic theories. One can only speculate what the original verdict might have been had the #TrialAttorney consulted with a qualified examiner.
In another post-conviction case I reviewed, the only evidence was a single latent palm print. The ID Tech who lifted it testified it was 3 to 5 days old (WHAT?), but the defense attorney never questioned the age of the print nor the fact that the location was not where the perpetrator had been seen. The defense attorney only attacked on the number of points (the print had over 22 easy points). The original defense attorney never consulted with an expert.
To achieve a true verdict, the prosecution must present all the evidence indicating guilt. The defense must present all the evidence indicating innocence. The experts on both sides must guide the attorneys through the best interpretations of the evidence. But the experts on both sides owe it to the court and to their professions to be both knowledgeable and ethical in their zeal to provide advice.
The court demands “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” The jury deserves no less. It takes a competent prosecution, an aggressive defense, and professional experts to achieve that goal.