A Matter of Life and Death

like that.”
“Mr. Appleton, I’m going to show you State’s Exhibit 13, and I’ll put an enlarged photo of this on an easel for the jurors, so they can see what you’re looking at. What is this?”
“That is a print that was taken from the defendant’s right index finger when he was arrested.”
“Do you have a full set of prints that were taken from the defendant when Exhibit 13 was lifted?”
“Yes.”
Vanessa had the set marked and entered in evidence.
“I’m going to show you Exhibit 14. What is that?”
“It’s the defendant’s right palm print. It was also taken at the jail.”
Vanessa introduced Exhibit 14 into evidence and placed a blowup of the palm print on another easel.
“What is a latent fingerprint, Mr. Appleton?”
“A latent fingerprint is created by the sweat and oil on the skin’s surface.”
“Can you see it with the naked eye?”
“No. Latents are invisible, and you have to use additional processing with chemicals or powder to make them visible.”
“Were you called to the home of Judge Anthony Carasco and his wife, Elizabeth Carasco, on the evening Mrs. Carasco was murdered?”
“Yes.”
“Where was Mrs. Carasco’s body when you arrived?”
“She was lying on the floor in the living room of their home in proximity to the wall of the living room closest to the entryway of the home.”
“Did you search the area surrounding the body for latent and observable prints?”
“I did.”
“Did you discover any latent prints that were made by the defendant?”
Robin stood. “Objection, Your Honor. Whether any of the latent prints from the crime scene match Mr. Lattimore’s prints is a decision the jury will have to make.”
“Sustained,” the judge ruled. “Ask another question, Mrs. Cole.”
“Did you discover any latent prints in the living room?”
“I did.”
“Were there many latents?”
“Yes. Most belonged to the victim and her husband.”
“Did you find any latents in proximity to Mrs. Carasco’s body that did not belong to her or her husband?”
“I did.”
“Did you compare any particular prints to the set of prints that were taken from the defendant after his arrest?”
“Yes. Of special interest were a fingerprint I discovered on the living room light switch and a palm print on the wall near the light switch.”
Vanessa handed Appleton two exhibits.
“Can you identify these exhibits for the jury?” she asked.
“Exhibit 29 is the fingerprint I lifted from the light switch, and Exhibit 30 is the palm print I found on the living room wall.”
“I’d like to introduce State’s Exhibit 29 and 30, Your Honor.”
“Any objection, Ms. Lockwood?”
“No.”
Vanessa put blowups of the two new exhibits on other easels.
“Can you explain how you went about comparing Exhibit 29 to Exhibit 13?”
“I placed them side by side and used a magnifying glass to find points that looked identical or any points that were not identical.”
“If you found a point that was not identical, what would you have concluded?”
“I would have concluded that the two prints did not match.”
“Did you find any points that did not match?”
“No.”
“How many points did you find that did match?”
“Thirteen.”
“What did you conclude?”
“That the known print and the print from the light switch were made by the same person.”
“Are thirteen matching points enough to reach that conclusion?”
“Yes.”
Vanessa repeated her questions with regard to the palm print, and the witness stated that he had found thirteen points of comparison on the palm print and concluded that it matched the print of Joe’s palm taken at the time of his arrest.
“No further questions,” Vanessa said.
“Ms. Lockwood,” Judge Wright said.
“Mr. Appleton, I noticed that Mrs. Cole did not ask you about your formal education. Do you have a college degree in biology or any other branch of science?”
“No.”
Robin knew Appleton would answer in the negative because she had done an in-depth internet search to determine his education, his personal life, and anything else that might help her client.
“Any graduate degrees in biology or any other branch of science?”
“No.”
“I see. Now fingerprint identification is not a science, is it?”
“What do you mean?”
“You get some basic training about what fingerprints look like, then you use a magnifying glass or a microscope and you look at the prints. Anyone on the jury could do it with a little training, right?”
“They would need a lot more than a little training.”
“But this isn’t an exact science. It’s not like math. It’s subjective, like the judging in Olympic figure skating or boxing, where different observers can see the same thing and reach different conclusions?”
“Well, no. I have to be certain about the similarities.”
“But you could be mistaken.”
“No, I never make a mistake.”
“That’s amazing. You’re saying that in fifteen years of analyzing prints, you have never been wrong?”
“I have never been wrong.”
“You must make a killing at the racetrack.”
“Objection!” Vanessa shouted out.
“Sustained,” the judge ruled.
“Would you agree that other fingerprint examiners have made mistakes when comparing fingerprints?”
“I … Well, yes. I’ve heard of that.”
“Are you aware of a study conducted by the United States Department of Justice in 2016 titled Error Rates for Latent Fingerprinting as a Function of Visual Complexity and Cognitive Difficulty that showed an error rate among experienced examiners as high as 9 percent?”
“I’ve read that study.”
“What about the 2016 report of the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology titled Forensic Science in Criminal Courts—Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature Comparison Methods that quoted error rates as low as one in three hundred and six and as high as one in eighteen, or 5.55 percent? Are you aware of that report?”
“Yes.”
“But you still want this jury to believe that you’re perfect?”
“I have never made an error in any of my comparisons.”
“Are you aware that fingerprint examiners in the Los Angeles Police Department erroneously matched two individuals in two separate cases to prints that did not belong to them and covered up the errors?”
“I did hear of that.”
“Are you also aware that one of the worst examples of misidentification involving fingerprints was made right here in Oregon, when three FBI examiners hired by the court erroneously identified Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon attorney, as having left a print on the bag that held the detonators in