United States v Crisp.docx

United States v Crisp.docx

《United States v Crisp.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《United States v Crisp.docx（24页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

UnitedStatesvCrisp

AbriefanalysisofthecaseofUnitedStatesv.Crisp（2003）andsomemusingsaboutitsdissentingopinion.

ByAndreA.Moenssens

DouglasStrippProfessorofLawEmeritus

UniversitryofMissouri-KansasCity

OnMarch31,2003,theCourtofAppealsfortheFourthCircuithandeddownthedecisionofUnitedStatesv.Crisp,324F.3d261（4thCir.2003）,holdingthatexperttestimonyonhandwritingcomparisonsisadmissibleundertheDaubertrulessetbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.Thesameopinionalsoheldthatitwasnotanabuseofdiscretionforatrialcourttoadmitexperttestimonyregardingtheidentificationofdefendant'spalmprint.Thecourtconsideredpalmprintevidencetobeadmissiblejustlikefingerprintevidence.

WehavediscussedcasescomingtosimilarresultselsewhereonthisWebsite,butunlikesomeoftheseotherdecisions,whichwererenderedbytrialcourts,thecasewediscussherewashandeddownbyanappellatetribunal,andisthereforebindingprecedentintheFourthCircuitaswellaspersuasiveauthorityforothercourts.Itdeservesspecialmentionattheoutset–aswasrecognizedbythecourt'smajority–thatnoappellatecourthaseverheldthatfingerprintidentificationevidenceandhandwritingcomparisonevidenceisinadmissible!

Themajorityopinion,whilebrief,requiresnospecialintroduction.Itsimportisreadilyabsorbed.Afewwordsneedtobesaid,however,aboutthedissentingopinion.WedonotdoubtthatthedissentingjudgeisearnestinhisconvictionthatfingerprintandhandwritingidentificationtestimonydonotmeettheDaubertfactors.Norcanthejudge,oranyoneelse,becriticizedforhavingsuchabelief,eventhoughitconstitutesavaluejudgmentwithwhichtheoverwhelmingmajorityofjuristshavedisagreed.Thereareareasinwhichthefingerprintandhandwritingcomparisonprofessionsmightberightlycriticizedfornothavingassembledwhatintoday'svernaculariscalled"asufficientbodyofempiricalresearch"tobuttressthedisciplines'basictenets.Butitisclearlyanon-sequiturtosuggestthatifmoreresearchwereconductedthefindingsofsuchresearchwoulddisprovethevalidityofeitheroneofthesetwodisciplines.Indeed,ongoingresearchcontinuestovalidatebothsciences/techniques;noresearchhasasyetdisprovedtheuniquenessoffrictionskinevidenceorofanindividual'shandwritingcharacteristics.

Theeminentlypracticalreasonwhynotmoreempiricalstudieshavebeenconductedinthemorethanacenturyofcourtacceptanceaffordedbothprofessionsissimplythat,untiltheDaubertandKumhoTireopinions,thelawdidnotrequirethatan"empiricallyestablishedscientific"foundationbedemonstratedfortheopinionevidencetobeadmissible.Decisionsholdingbothfingerprintandhandwritingevidenceadmissiblepredateeventhe1923Fryecasegivingbirthtothefamiliar"generalacceptance"requirement.Itmaywellbethat,unlikewhatwasrequiredearlier,moreempiricalresearchmightberequiredweretoday'scourtstodecidetheadmissibilityissueforthefirsttime.Butthatwasnotthecaseinearlieryears.

Despitewhatisstatedabove,validationresearchdoesexist.Ithassimplybeenignoredordeprecatedbythelaycriticswhohavesetthemselvesupasthesupremeauthoritiesonwhichbranchofforensicscienceisorisnotreliable.Howdotheygetawaywiththis?

Thecriticalcommentaryfollowsapatternthatiseasilyrecognizedbylawyersandjudgesiftheybutcaretoexamineit.Thefew,butvocal,criticsare,onthewhole,eruditeandarticulatelawprofessorswhohaveafargreaterfacilityintheuseofwordsandinlegaladvocacythanthemajorityoflessscholarlyorientedandfarlessarticulatebench-workingexpertsinbothfields.What'smore,lawprofessorshaveeasyaccesstolegalpublicationsinwhichtoadvancetheirarguments–publicationsthatarealsofarmoreaccessibleandavailabletocourtsthanisthetrulyscientificandtechnicalliterature,anaccessthatisdeniedthenon-legallytrainedexperts.Lawreviewstypicallydonotacceptarticleswrittenbynonlawyersonsupposedly"legal"topics,thoughtheyhavenodifficultyacceptingarticlesonscientificfactsaslongasthesearticlesarewrittenbylawyers!

Itisratherremarkablethatthedissent,puttinggreatstockin"scientific"studiesandin"peerreview,"neverthelessreliesforitsauthoritysupportingtheassertedunprovenvalidityoffingerprintandhandwritingevidenceonthesenon-peerreviewedlawreviewarticlesandbooks.Thedissentseemstoacceptasscientificfactthatwhichthesecriticsassert.Suchanacceptanceisunwarranted.Thelawreviewarticlesandbookscitedcontainmanymisstatementsofscientificorevenhistoricfacts,whicharerepeatedastheunquestionedtruthbyotherlawreviewauthors.Thus,aparticularlineofthoughtfollowedinseverallawreviewsmaybetracedtoasinglesource.Legalauthorstendtoacceptuncriticallywhatisassertedinthesametypeofpublicationinwhichtheypublish.Conclusionsdrawnbysomeofthecritic-authorsarenodoubthonestlyheld,butothersaredemonstrablyfalse,asaresomeofthefactsonwhichtheyrely.

SuchisalsothecaseinthedissentinCrisp,whichappearstoacceptastruethatwhichnon-scientistlawreviewcriticsstateasscientificfact,withoutmakinganindependentverificationofthefactualbasisofthecriticism.Ifamoreinquiringattitudeweretoprevailwithrespecttolawreviews'renderingsof"science,""appliedscience,"or"technology,"itwouldalsosoonbecomeobviousthatafewofthecriticswhoarefrequentlycitedbyothershaveonlythinlyconcealedadvocacypurposethatstronglycolorsthecredibilityabouttheirconclusions.Somecriticalarticlesarenottheresultofanimpartialandsearchinginquiry,butratherarespawnedbyapreconceivedadvocacypositionforwhichthearticleistoserveas"legalauthority."Aforthcomingarticle,tobepublishedina（obviously"non-peerreviewed"）lawreview,willprovidechapter,verse,andsectiontojustifytheratherharshcondemnationofsomecriticsbythisauthor.

Inrelyingonlegal（ratherthanscientific）sourcesdiscussingpeerreviewinfingerprintcomparisons,thedissentingopinionstatesthatfingerprintexaminershavetheirownprofessionalpublications,butthatthesepublications,"unliketypicalscientificjournals,...donotrunarticlesthatincludeorpromptcritiqueorreanalysisbyotherscientists."Thatassertion,asmoststatements,ispartiallytrueandmostlyincorrect.Thereare,ofcourse,policejournalsthatoccasionallydiscussfingerprints.Buttherespectedjournalsinwithbothfingerprintandhandwritingcomparisonexpertspublishinclude.amongothers,theJournalofForensicScienceandtheJournalorForensicIdentification.Botharepeer-reviewedjournals.Frequently,articlesorletters-to-the-editorinbothofthesejournals–andinotherjournals–offerconstructivecriticism（asopposedtoslash-and-burndestructivedismissalsofvalidity）ontopicsdiscussedpreviouslyinthesamecolumns.

Thus,thejudge'ssomewhatdeprecatingreference,nodoubtmadeingoodfaithinviewoftherecordofthecase,to"police"journals,isunwarranted.What'smore,thefetaldevelopmentoffrictionskinandtheresultingscientificknowledgeoftheuniquenessoffrictionridgedetail（resultingin"fingerprints"and"palmprints"）hasbeenestablishedbymanyhighlycredentialedscientistswhohadnothingtodowithlawenforcement.Theyweremedicaldoctors,anatomists,embryologists,geneticistsandanthropologists;theirpublicationsarefoundinbooksandarticlespublishedinscientificjournalsnotrelatedtoforensicscienceovermorethanhalfacentury.Neitherthecriticsnorthedissentcreditorcitethesewritings,despitethefactthattheyunanimouslygivescientificsupporttotheuniquenessoffrictionridgedetail,asupportthatstandsunrebutted.[Forareferencetosomeofthesewritings,seetherelatedstorybythisauthortitled"TheReliabilityofFingerprintIdentification–ACaseReport"discussingtheLleraPlazadecisioncitedbythedissent.]

Indeed,theCrispdissentstates,"Thislackofcriticalanalysisinthefingerprintidentificationfieldhashadapredictableeffect.Unliketraditionalscientificfieldswherecriticismandvibrantexchangeofideashaveledtodramaticadvances,thetechniquesusedbyfingerprintanalystshavechangedlittleovertheyears."Thejudgecites,asauthorityforthisblatantlyerroneousproposition,awritingbyayounggraduatestudentandPh.D.candidate–whicharticlewaslaterparlayedinabook–whodidaliteraturestudyonpersonalidentificationforhisthesis.Intheprocess,hemissedanawfullotofscientificdatawhileatthesametimedrawingerroneous（thoughunderstandable）conclusionsfromthatwhichheinaccuratelyunderstood.

Onthehandwritingreliabilityissue,thedissentingopinionlikewisereliesoncriticismofdoubtfulaccuracy.Thelawprofessors-handwritingcritics'initial1989lawreviewpublication（inotherwords,publishedpre-Daubert）wasbasedonaliteraturestudydonebytheauthors.Thearticle,thoughpresentedinanargumentativefashionandusingdistorteddata,raisedsomevalidpointsabouttheabsenceofadequateempiricalstudiestoestablishtheuniquenessofanindividual'shandwritingandtheabilitytodocumentexaminerstodiscoveranddemonstratethattwowritingsweremadebythesameperson.

SinceDaubertwasdecided,andafteratrialcourtrelyingonDaubertlimited（butdidnotbar）handwritingcomparisonevidence（UnitedStatesv.Starzecpyzel–1995）,halfofdozenormorehighlycredentialedPh.D.researchscientists,associatedwithuniversities