FORENSIC IMAGING NEWSLETTER

ISSUE:No. 4-4 ______________________________________________________________________May 1, 1996

While many labs and individuals are using imaging on a daily basis to process difficult cases, many more sites are unable to obtain even rudimentary equipment. Funding can be hard to obtain and even when the decision is made to go forward, it might take several years for the required funding to materialize. The justifications, and even the acceptability as evidenced by the number of labs, for using imaging in case work are easier to writeup than they were a number of years ago when Imaging was "new". A question which we sometimes hear, almost as an objection, is the legality of using imaging. While the Forensic Science community is relatively small, sometimes relevant information such as cases involving imaging is not always disseminated. The following is a summary of a case from San Diego,Ca, namely CA vs Philip Jackson. Thanks to Clint Fullen of the San Diego P.D. for sharing this information with all of us. (see news article) ..."the case has been adjudicated with Jackson being found guilty of two counts of first degree murder and one count of robbery and aggravated assault with great bodily harm. Two of the elderly (in their 80's) died as a result of his rape and robbery. The third lady (in her 90's) didn't die, however, she became mentally unstable and non-functional as a rational being. Jackson was sentenced to two like terms without parole, plus 30 years for aggravated assault and robbery. Three latent prints were located, one at each scene that we were able to identify to Jackson, using the digital imaging protocol. One piece of palm print was located on the kitchen table (as well as her cane )at one location. One print was located on a credit card at one of the other locations, and the last was located on a knife handle at the last location.( 187 pl. prints were located and developed and used from her credit card and a hair pick found in the possession of Jackson) There was an attempt to apply the Kelly Frye hearing to all of the evidence developed and worked with the Digital Imaging System. I (Clint) wrote a paper for the District Attorney's office laying out the history of digital imaging and most of the forensic scientists engaged in the practice of digital imaging at this time. What I did was to lay out the thesis that the practice of digital imaging was not something new in the profession, but that it is an accepted practice and repeatable protocol by the scientists in the profession. The District Attorney wrote a brief to the Court stating the above thesis, and as a result the court accepted the evidence into trial without the need for the Kelly-Frye ( or admissibility of the print evidence) before trial. One of our young female examiners assigned to the case, testified in court to her identifications as a result of her using the digital imaging product. Another examiner using and familiar with imaging procedures testified as to how these results were reached, and finally we were able to obtain the expertise of Mr Bill Watling of the IRS lab in Chicago to come to San Diego and confirm/testify of the protocols used were accepted in the profession, and lend his eight plus years experience in imaging and court testimony of imaging results. For this we and CA are most grateful since our testimony and Bill's have created case law for the state for future imaging cases.