United States v Crisp.docx
- 文档编号:4563829
- 上传时间:2023-05-07
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:24
- 大小:34.97KB
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
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- United States Crisp