FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE

Evidence-in-chiefand

Cross-examination

Plan your evidence

The Witnesses

The Exhibits

EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF

•Developing fingerprint impression at crime scene•Performing Research•Making Comparison•Arriving at Conclusion

Expert

•Contact print•Enlargements of Fingerprint Slip impression & Contact print•Photograph of Mounted Card

Photographer

•Procedure adopted on recording fingerprint impression of accused on fingerprint slip•Signature of accused on fingerprint slip

Person recording impression of

accused

THE WITNESSES

Object upon which impression developed - ‘A’

Contact print of impression on object – ‘B’

Fingerprint Slip with impressions of accused – ‘C’

Original Mounted Card – ‘D’

Photograph of Mounted Card – ‘E’

THE EXHIBITS

THE NARRATIVE

Qualifications •Certificates, diplomas, fellowships, etc.•Experience as Fingerprint Expert•Amount of sets of fingerprints examined

Principles of fingerprint identification

•Fingerprints are impressions made by the end joints of the fingers and, therefore, are reversed reproductions of the skin surface details•Positive identification, or elimination, of fingerprints is dependent upon the individual ridge characteristics in a fingerprint, their relative position to each other, and whether or not there are any dissimilar characteristics that cannot be explained.•Ridge characteristics – types (bifurcation, endings, dots, cross-overs, etc.)•Technique - application of brush and powder to develop latent fingerprint impression•Uniqueness – Each of the 10 fingers on every person’s hands bears its own individual and distinctive trademark in its ridge pattern and characteristics. No two fingers have ever been found identical in their ridge patterns and characteristics•Permanence – fingerprints formed as foetus and, except for size, remains unchanged throughout life and even after death, until decomposition.

FINGERPRINT EXPERT

Discovery of latent fingerprint impression

•Expert visited and processed the crime scene•Found object•Applied brush and powder•Developed latent fingerprint impression

The Object•Expert took possession of object•Markings placed thereon•Protection of latent fingerprint impression by covering•Admit into evidence – “A”

DISCOVERY OF LATENT PRINT AT SCENE

Expert passes object to photographer for latent fingerprint to be photographed

Photographer Evidence -•Identifies Object passed by Expert – (‘A’)•Contact print developed (markings, etc.)•Admitted into evidence – (‘B’)•Explain contact print•Object (‘A’) and Contact print (‘B’) returned to Expert

PREPARATION OF CONTACT PRINT

Expert:• Identifies contact print (‘B’)• Verifies that contact print and latent

impression on object identical

Expert performs research and comes to an opinion

Expert gives blank fingerprint form to Officer (generally Complainant) to take

impressions from accused

RESEARCH BASED ON CONTACT PRINT

Officer taking impressions from accused

Received

blank fingerp

rint slip from

fingerprint

expert

Informs

accused of

intention to take

fingerprints

Any objections or compla

ints

Each finger placed in Ink Slab

Rolled onto

fingerprint slip

Signature of accuse

d at foot of fingerp

rint slip

Admit signed fingerp

rint slip into

evidence – (‘C’)

Return of

completed

fingerprint

slip to fingerp

rint expert

FINGERPRINT SLIP

Expert•Receives fingerprint slip•Compares impressions on fingerprint slip with Contact Print•Identifies matching impression and places mark above relevant digit on fingerprint slip and on contact print•Identifies fingerprint slip – (‘C’)•Contact print (‘B’) and fingerprint slip (‘C’) returned to photographer

Photographer•Receives marked contact print and fingerprint slip•Places marking on fingerprint slip•Identifies fingerprint slip (‘C’) with marking•Makes enlargements of contact print and impression designated on fingerprint slip (markings of photographer)•Submits enlargements, together with contact print (‘B’) and fingerprint slip (‘C’) to Expert

CONTACT PRINT –V- FINGERPRINT SLIP

Expert•Verification of enlargements as that of contact print (‘B’) and fingerprint slip (‘C’) •Places enlargements side by side on mounted card•Prepares a features table•Signs at back of Mounted Card•Admit original mounted card into evidence – ‘D’•Transmit original mounted card to photographer for photograph to be taken

Photographer•Receives from Expert original Mounted Card – ‘D’•Identifies original mounted card – ‘D’•Takes photograph of original mounted card – (markings, etc.)•Admit into evidence photograph of original mounted card – ‘E’•Returns original mounted card and photograph (‘E’) to Expert•Produce copies of photograph of original mounted card for Magistrate and Defence Counsel

MOUNTED CARD

Expert receives original mounted card (‘D’) and photograph thereof (‘E’)

Identifies photograph of original mounted card (‘E’)

Verification that photograph of original mounted card is identical to original

mounted card

Copies of photograph of original mounted card passed to Magistrate and Defence

Counsel

Expert then explains the content of the original mounted card (‘D’)

ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION

Magnifying glasses to be made available

Treat with each ridge characteristic individually from the features table

Conclusion - • Based on the number of corresponding

ridge characteristics both in continuous sequence and agreement

• Opinion – the source of the latent print is the accused

•Subjective exercise•Number of ridge characteristics required in order for positive identification•Mistakes made in the past

Erroneous Identification

•Impossible to determine time of placementAge of latent

print

•Utilizing an adhesive tape to remove an impression and replace it on another object

Planted or forged prints

•Pre-emptive evidence to defence claimsLegitimate

(innocent) access

•ProcedureOn Academic Material

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Statutory powers

Right of accused person to object

TAKING OF AN ACCUSED’S FINGERPRINTS

Statute

•Police Service Act, (repealed) Ch. 15:01 – s. 37•Police Service Act , 2006 (as amended) – s.50

Common law

•Buckley 163 J.P. 561•Culpepper, 58 WIR 420•Hallam, Court of Appeal N.S.W. 10/09/90•Tyres –v- Barr, 45 WIR 7•Small, 27 WIR 64•Tottenham Justices, 82 Cr.App.R. 277•Chappel, 89 Cr.App.R. 82

Texts

•Scott’s Fingerprint Mechanics, 1978 (Olsen)•Modern Scientific Evidence, Vol. 4 (Faigman)

Precedents

•Sean Subransingh et al (Bobart Kidnapping)

•Sidiqque Martin and anor

•Kevin Culpepper

•Pitman & Agard (Cascade Murder)

•Junior Colin Nicome

•Timothy Wise

•Marlon Mackain

•Shawn Parris

Useful References

N.B. the Prosecutor must take great care in leading fingerprint evidence not to

inadvertently disclose the previous bad character of the accused.

THE END