The Case Of Brian Keith Rose - Term Paper Example

The Analysis of Latent Fingerprint Evidence In The Case Of Brian Keith Rose -V- Maryland September 18, Introduction Brian Keith Rose was indicted in April of 2008, at the age of 22, in Baltimore, Maryland in connection with a 2006 murder, which initially began as a carjacking that ended with the murder of the victim; Warren Fleming. The indictment included three charges, Fleming was shot to death, and the counts were attempted carjacking ending in death and murder in the discharge of a firearm during a violent crime (Brian Rose…2008). The ACE-V Fingerprinting Methodology Examination Rose was initially charged in State court in Baltimore County though evidence in the form of a partial fingerprint was thrown out by a Baltimore County Judge. The United States Attorney took over the case after Judge Souder’s October 2007 ruling. Souder’s ruling was based on the fact that technique used to analyze the fingerprints was not scientifically reliable. State charges against Rose were then dropped and the case was re-filed in the US District Court (Brendan, 2010). MD Rule 5-702 requires that latent fingerprint identification methods rest on reliable factual foundations and in this case the ACE-V method used was not proved to be reliable and factual in State Court. Initially no latent fingerprints were identified by the crime lab and homicide Detectives suggested several names of suspects to the crime lab. At that time these names, including Brian Rose, were compared to the latent print recovered (State of Maryland v. Bryan Rose, 2007). Both sides in this case requested that the Court determine the reliability of the ACE-V methodology, hence allowing or disallowing the latent prints as evidence. The defendants contended that the ACE-V is not a method which has been scientifically tested, thus the error rate is unknown. Without an error rate it is impossible to know the reliability of this methodology. A fingerprint is in essence a reproduction of friction ridge formations of the surface of a finger, left by the transfer of oil or other matter between the finger and the object. These ridges form before birth. These ridges are described in three levels of detail. Level one refers to ridge flow; loops, whirls and arches. Level two concerns the detail of each ridge path; turns the ridge takes, size and shape, and the location where the ridge terminates. Deviations will include bifurcations, ending ridges, and dots and it is common for a fingerprint to contain 75-175 ridge oath deviations. These deviations are a major focus of latent print examinations. Level three includes the tiny features of the friction ridges such as shape, width, and location of pores. Latent fingerprint detection methods utilized as the primary evidentiary material in a court case have been shown to have the potential for contextual bias and confirmation bias, both of which were identified in the high profile FBI case Brandon Mayfield Madrid train bombing. In the case of Brian Rose fingerprints were actually excluded based on the mere potential of error caused by observational bias. Though no error was shown to be true in the case the Judge was concerned that the failure to verify the work by other scientists using blind procedures could possibly lead to another Mayfield case (Langenburg, Champod, & Wertheim, 2009). Confirmation bias is related to the observer’s expectations. The observer may have a tendency to see what they want rather than to use analytical skills. The fingerprint process known as ACE-V was used in the Rose case and this process compares an unknown fingerprint against a known example. The ACE-V acronym represents four stages of fingerprint identification; analysis, comparison, evaluation and verification. A blind testing procedure must be used .during the verification process, an examination of the evidence may be done by a second specialist when the second examiner is aware of the conclusions of the initial examiner. In the Rose case the verification was described as ‘independent’ this was not a credible point. Those who verify consult with first examiners and are advised of the first examiners conclusions. In the case that the first verifier declines to confirm the identification then a second verifier can be used and there is no policy requiring the first verifier’s disagreement to be documented. There is also no policy stating or mandating that the stages of the ACE-V identification method be described or explained in any way. Based on information including erroneous identifications questioning whether the ACE-V process leads to reliable evidence the County court agreed with the defendant in this case and the State was unable to demonstrate that the ACE-V identification method was able to establish the reliability of general latent fingerprint identification processes. Though history favors the acceptance of latent fingerprint identifications the State opposed the defendant’s request for a Frye-Reed hearing; the ACE-V fingerprinting methodology is the type of procedure Frye was intended to banish; one that is subjective, untested, unverifiable, and one that purports to be fallible. In this particular case the State was unable to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a print examiner can reliably identify a print to the exclusion of all others using the ACE-V methodology (Souder, 2008). Legal scholar Jennifer Mnooking says, ‘the system as it’s designed produces false negatives,’ with this protocol making it possible to have only one difference excluding a match with many similarities and still be unsure and is preferential for missing the identification of a criminal rather than the conviction of an innocent person (Spinney, 2010). One problem lies with sloppy execution of the process, for example the analysis and comparison steps are often not separated. This was a highlighted factor that contributed the FBI errors in the Mayfield case. Though the final verification step is to be independent of the initial analysis there are no strict guidelines that define exactly what this means. The verifier may often work in the same office and department and know in advance whose work he or she is verifying. ACE-V is also not strict about what those examining the prints can and cannot know about the case. In a 2009 NAS report it was stated that ‘ACE-V does not guard against bias, is too broad to ensure repeatability and transparency and does not guarantee that two analysts following it will obtain the same results, (Spinney, 2010)’. There are many marks that have exclusion power but are often branded inconclusive when they could wield much power in exonerating an individual (Champod, 2004, p 198). United States of America v Brian Keith Rose In September 2009, Judge Catherine Blake found the fingerprint evidence to be reliable and allowed its admission in the Rose case. Blake issued a memorandum explaining the basis for her decision. Relying on motion exhibits and relevant case law the government sought to have the court take notice of the general acceptance by experts that fingerprints are unique and permanent, that latent prints can and are identified by the correct application of the ACE-V method, and that the ACE-V process has a very low incidence of error (United States….2009). The Court noted that the technique can be tested and has been tested, that the error rate is known to be very low, and that fingerprint analysis has overwhelming acceptance in all relevant expert communities. Despite the NAS report being reviewed in this case the report itself did not conclude that the method was unreliable as to deem it inadmissible. Conclusion In January of 2010 Rose was sentenced to 40 years in prison without the possibility of parole after which time he must complete five years of supervised release. The compelling evidence was the latent prints left at the scene of the crime, on the victim’s car. Rose pled guilty once the prints were found admissible in exchange for a plea bargain avoiding the death penalty. Though Rose pulled up along the victims Mercedes with the intention of carjacking him the victim was shot once in the head whereby he died almost instantly. Rose and his nephew fled the scene after the shooting, leaving the victim to die slumped over in his car. Not only were Rose’s fingerprints used to convict him but the victims DNA was found on the outside passenger door of the stolen car that Rose was driving at the time (Rosenstein,2010). References Brendan, K. (2010). Guilty plea in Md. mall carjack killing after fingerprint evidence admitted. Daily Record, the (Baltimore, MD), Retrieved September 18, 2012 from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/detail?vid=3&hid=23&sid=9af18038-b520-42c6-a32a-31db59340ec8%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=bwh&AN=L54556969DRMD Brian Rose indicted in murder of attempted carjacking victim. (2008). Lanham, United States, Lanham: Retrieved September 18, 2012 from http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/189938276?accountid=3783 Champod, C. (2004). Fingerprints and Other Ridge Skin Impressions. CRC Press. Retrieved September 18, 2012 from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/ebookviewer/ebook/nlebk_106295_AN?sid=e9a905db-61b9-4f37-bbc2-c20745434143@sessionmgr4&vid=3 Langenburg, G., Champod, C., & Wertheim, P. (2009). Testing for Potential Contextual Bias Effects During the Verification Stage of the ACE-V Methodology when Conducting Fingerprint Comparisons. Journal Of Forensic Sciences (Blackwell Publishing Limited), 54(3), 571-582. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01025.x Retrieved September 18, 2012 from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&hid=6&sid=9af18038-b520-42c6-a32a-31db59340ec8%40sessionmgr4 Rosenstein, R. (2010, January 19). U.S. Department of Justice. USAO Press Release. Retrieved September 18, 2012, from http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2010/01/011910-balt-rose-sentenced-on-carjacking-murder.html Souder, S., Judge. (2008, February). State of Maryland v Bryan Rose. THE IAI.ORG. Retrieved September 18, 2012, from http://www.theiai.org/current_affairs/bryand_rose_20080221.pdf Spinney, L. (2010). Science in court: The fine print. Nature, 464(7287), 344. doi:10.1038/464344a Retrieved September 18, 2012 from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&hid=116&sid=9af18038-b520-42c6-a32a-31db59340ec8%40sessionmgr4 State of Maryland v. Bryan Rose, Baltimore Sun 1-32 (Circuit Court for Baltimore County 2007). Retrieved September 18, 2012 from http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/acrobat/2007-10/33446162.pdf United States of America v Brian Keith Rose, US COURTS.GOV 1-6 (United States District Court for the District of Maryland December 8, 2009). Retrieved September 18, 2012 from http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/Brian%20Rose%20Mem-FINAL.pdf Read More