ifHealthcare and, of course, I have a copy for
you -- it's a federal case, Judge, diStrict court
of the Northern District, Eastern Division.

The Court held in-that case that the
report, the NAS report specifically, was created by
an act of Congress and that in doing so, this
report and its authors had a duty to report on its
investigations and their conclusions directly_to
Congress. I

That case holds that reports authored by
memhers_or committees of NAS and groups that are
similarly_situated must fulfill that legal duty.

THE COSRT: Okay. i

MR. CAVISE: That, of course that, of-

 

course, is it's in line with a case

State v. HarperL which is out of Wisconsin, which
held juSt-the same that where the United_Statesi
CongreSS'has enacted legislation under which a
group must author a report,_they have a duty to dof
so, and it is error for a trial court to preclude
cross examination on-the contents of'the

forensic of the NAS forensic report.

 

And, of course, in Malendez?Diaz, which is

 

the United States Supreme Court'from 2009, the

104- - 

Supreme Court cited extensively to the NAS repOrt
discussing problems of subjectivity, bias, and
unreliability of the most common forensic tests
such as latent print analysis.

THE COURT: Okay. It sounds to me like you're
putting the cart before the horse because you want
me to admit_these documents as authoritatiVe
documents that the Court is required to take
judicial notice of but you haven't established that
premise, that I?m required to take judicial notice
of them.

You Certainly, based on these cases, may
have the right to cross examine the witness based

on those reports, but you still haven't shown me

that I have to admit them and take judicial notice

of them.
MR. CAVISE: Okay. Can I have a moment, Judge?
THE COURT: You may.

(Short pause.)
MR. CAVISE: Okay. Judge, having,_of course,
heard your HonOr that and if on Substantive cross
examination, should your Honor qualify_this'
witness, we can either address this again or_I may

use these documents to cross examine her.

105

 

 

will 

THE COURT: You might. I haven't said that
yet. I said might. But right now you're asking me
to admit them into evidence.

MR. CAVISE: sure.

THE COURT: As -- or for-the Court to take
judicial.that they are authoritative, and I have
not heard what they'are authoritative in, or you
establishing that, indeed, the Court must take
judicial notioe of these items.

MR. CAVISE: -Sure. So having heard from the.
witness, of course, at this stage, Judge, that she
hasn't read any-of these documents, I will, in
fact, stop-questioning at this point, and I'll ask
your Honor I would like to argue about her
qualifications.

THE COURT: We're going to get there, but I
don't know if she wants to rehabilitate or attempt
to rehabilitate before we get to the final question-
of whether or not she's going to be admitted as an
expert.

MS. WATROBA: If I may just have a moment?

THE COURT: Are you done with your questioningl
then?

106

 

 



MR. CAVISE: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. WATROEA: If I may just have a moment to1
confer with my partner?

THE Yes. All right;

(Short pause.)
-THE COURT: Are you tendering the witness?

MR. CAVISE: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

All right. -Go ahead.

MS. WATROBA: Thank you, Judge.

I EXAMINATION
BY MS. WATROBA:

Officer Seavers, you haye both during your
training and the course of your experience as a
latent print examiner with the Chicago Police
Department Lab, would it be fair to say you have
received technical training in that field, latent
print examination?

A lee.

Q: And have you also received specialized
training in that field?

A I have..

And based on your training and your field

107

 

 

 

 

 

experience as'a latent print examiner, do you have
Specialized knowledge of how to compare latent.
print impressions to known impressionsfurther questions.

THE Anything as a result of those
questions? I I

MR. CAVISE: -No, Judge. I would ask your Honor
that-before argument if we Can excuse the Officer.
for argument. 

THE COURT: We would do that, but do you have
any?guestions?
MR. CAVISE: I do not, Judge.

THE COURT: All right. You Can step down
please. Don't go too far. I

(WitneSS excused.)

THE COURT: All right. 30 do you have a motion

at this point?

MS. WATROBA: Oh,_yes, Judge.' At this time now
that voir dire have been Completed, I would again
tender Officer Seavers as an expert in the field of
latent print examination.
THE COURT: All right. And_your objection iS?
MR. Thank you, Judge.

108

 

 

 

THE COURT: GO ahead.
ARGUMENT
BY MR. CAVISE:

Judge, Officer Seavers completely

undermines the integrity of fingerprint examination

testi?Ony in every way.

Time after time, the state's attorney
brings in CPD and, of course, here
weTre talking about Officer Seavers and-hopes

that the courts will ignore the obvious and glaring

deficiencies in education and training and

knowledge of the field and reliability that what
they will give this Court is valid testimony.

Seavers makes it clear that she will
willfully ignore my challenges to her credibility.
And I

I THE COURT: Right. Let's focus on whether or
not she should be qualified as an expert_versus the
value or caliber of her testimony because we're not
there yet.

CAVISE: Okay. Well, my hope is that in
deciding whether the State met its burden in
showing your Honor that Officer Seavers can, in_
fact, be qualified as an expert.

109

 

hope that your Honor will consider the
role that Officer Seavers is supposed to play
generally, but certainly in this caSe in
particular. She has to be able to assist the
Court.

And forensic science experts are proffered
with typically very damning evidence. And the
reason why 

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. CAVISE: -- the reaSon why courts continue
to receive that testimony from those they qualify
as experts is because typically the expert, him or

herself, and the science are shown to be credible

'in voir dire and reliable in voir dire and at

trial.
In this case, Officer Seavers's testimony,
if your Honor qualifies her, will be the scle

evidence upon which the State seeks to secure a

'conviction, and the problem with that is that we

just heard that we can't be cenfident that she can

give us reliable, qualified testimony.

I think_that Should deeply trouble the'
Court. I think the aura of science with Officer

Seavers, the aura of impartial forensic scientific

110

 

.24

testimony is Completely abSenti

.We can't ignore the real danger that her
lack of knowledge would have in this court and in
this case if qualified to testify as an expert.
And even if we assume that, you know, someone
doesn't need to read every study, doesn't need to
read every piece of research that's published in
their field, we need to make-sure that we're
understanding that there is a distinction between
reading every study versus reading really the most
basic foundational reforms and developments from
the most reputable organizations in the 

COURT: How would_that preclude her as an
expert Witness before the Court rather than impact
the quality of her testimeny versus the
admissibility of her testimony as an expert.

MR. CAVISE: Sure. ?So if we accept, of course,
that this person doesn't have to be aware of all
this research to be qualified, the Court has
nothing in the record right now to support the
proposition that Officer Seavers even meets the
most basic minimum standards of objective vetting.

Her fingerprint training.starts and stops

Iwith the Chicago Police Department. She has an

111

 

 



10undergraduate degree with no relation whatsoever to
fingerprint work or any science. .She has somewhere
between two and three weeks total of training or
education after her one year apprenticeship.

And a significant portion of that training
is I went through the actual training from her
resume a significant portion of that had'ndthing
to do with fingerprint examination, and, of courSe,
none of it had to do with the current state of the
field.

Specifically, from 2009 until 2014, she had
zero hours of training and thatis when most of this
reform was-happening.

She just simply hasn't the training is
deficient. I I -

THE COURT: The reforms are not facts in
evidence before this Court 
MR. CAVISEE Sorry, Judge.
THE COURT: at this time. All right.
MR. CAVISE: I'm sorry, Judge.
She did however tell your Honor, and I 

I'm sorry, I can't remember if the objection was

sustained or overruled, but she did however tell

your Honor that she's aware these report existed

112

 

 

frand that in the eight years

that they'Ve been in

existence she hasn't bothered to read any of them.

She's got no qualit assurance system.


She's got-no error management system. There's no

?documentation system for.profeSSional development.

There are no protocols. There are no procedures.

There's no actual guideline

writtenFOut training

program they go to conferences when they want to.

And she?s not certified.

THE COURT: 'All right.

to whether or not the Court

expert? What within the
and the established law for

expert,'is she remiss on or

Again, how do these'go
should admit her as an
criteria that the 
admissibility of an

has the State failed to

present so that She should be excluded as an

expert?

MR. CAVISE: Judge, it's my contention that

what the State presented and what I crossed on

should actually help this Court oonclUde that she's

not qualified as an expert,

period.

And what I just outlined for your Honor,

what really was an reiteration of the words from

her mouth is that everything_that we could possibly

113

point to as a metric of whether someone has the

 

 

 



underpinning to be qualified as an expert, she?s
missing all of it.

Now, I would jump to this idea, which I'm.

Isure the State will.bring up, that somehow 

THE COURT: Is there any evidence that there 
the items for which yOu cross examined her are
required underpinnings such that if she lacks them,
she would not qualify as an expert?

NR. CAVISE: Your Honor, doesn't this is all
within your discretion, of course. There's nothing?
that tells your Honor that because she's not_
certified, because there's no accreditation,
because there's no oversight, because there?s no
education, and because there?s no training, you
can't say that she?s an expert. IThat r? you can,
of course, still qualify her as an expert, but what
I think considering that she's lacking all'ofI
that, what it seems to me the Court would have to
rest on is the idea that she's been doing this for
a while, which I know is exabtly what the State
will present your Honor. That is a big problem.

Saying that she's done this for a while
should not establish -- should not establish
expertise. .What value does the experience have

114

 

..

 

 



'20'

'21

22
23

24

when she doesn't have the requisite training and
knowledge? All we can be sure of in that instance
is that she may have been doing this wrong this
entire time.

Her experience doesn't-have 
THE COURT: Isn't that a fact that I don't have
before me at this time such that I can then
determine that she's not an expert because she's

been doing it wrong? Don't you want me to aSSume'

she's been doing it wrong?

MR. CAVISE: Don't_I want you to assume she's

been it wrong? Sure;

THE COURT: But don't you have to present me
with some evidence to show that she?s been doing it
wrong, such that she no longer qualifies as an
expert?

.MR. CAVISE: Sure. And I would love to be able
to present you with that but, of course, as you've-
heard, they keep no documentation of any
disagreements and no one has ever said that they
disagree with her.

Now, what I think during the_direct on
voir dire, what we heard is that the 

is about looking at prints, and so, of course, it's

115

 

logical for this Court to conclude that this
method, which is well accepted, I'm not challenging
fingerprints, is entirely subjectiue.

And the reason why that's important is
because it's unlike another method, say DNA,_where
you run it through a machine and as long as the
machine is calibrated, you can believe that it's
reliable. I

In this instance, Ms. Seavers is that

machine, and the lack of the training, the lack of

'everything that we've outlined show that she's not

calibrated to do this.

Now, do I have for your Honor a sheet of
paper that says this person has made a mistake?

No. And frankly I don't think the State would ever
bring this person in here if they?ve been found to
have made a mistake,

But what we have here is the State asking
your Honor to qualify someone as an expert who --
if you do, Judge, I think we can probably agree is
really at that minimum threshold. And, of course
my objection for you today 

THE COURT: That's all they need to meet;
right? I

116

 



MR. CAVISE: And my objection here today is to
say her testimony, based on what we've heard in
voir dire, deepite me fumbling over the documents,
it's going to amount to "Trust me." And I just
don't think that yOu should. I don't thint you
should qualify her.

THE State?

ARGUMENT
BY MS. WATROBA:
Judge, Illinois Rule 11 and 702 sets forth
the standard that applies for qualification of an

eXpert to testify. And that is if Scientific

technical or other specialized knowledge-will_

assist the trier of fact understand the evidence,
and determine the fact in issue, a witness
qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify
thereto in the form of an opinion or othernise.

You've heard testimony from Officer
Seavers, herself, regarding her experience, her
education, her training, her field experience.

You also have Minor Respondent Exhibit No.
l, which is her actual CV, which further outlines
that.

117

 

 

_she's acoepted-as an expert.

_residence that burglarized, and that her knowledge

'adjudicated delinquent.

I think that e? I'll briefly respond to
Counsel?s argument -- I think that many of them are
misplaced. They are arguments that poSsibly if
they are appropriately put before your Honor would

be issues of weight later on in her testimony, if

I would also point out that-they are also,
I believe, mixing the issue of general acceptance
which Counsel has conceded that they are not

Contesting fingerprint the validity of

 

fingerprint examination in the method which
she has already said she used here.

All that is before_your Honor is the
question whether Officer Seavers is qualified, and
we believe that she is more than -- she has
established that she is more than qualified by her
training, experience, education, and her I
specialized Skill.' And because there was a -- you
heard from ET McDonough that there was a latent

print lifted from a coin container inside the

is necessary to assist you as the trier fact in

determining whether Minor Respondent should be

118

 

'45 minutes.

Thank you.
THE COURT: All right.-
I have had an opportunity to hear the

testimony of Officer Seavers. And I agree with the

_State that they have met their minimal burden at

this time pursuant to the Rules of Evidence 702 to
qualify her as an expert in latent print
identification.

I think that many of issues that Counsel

raise will go to the weight to be accorded her

I'testimony or the quality of her testimony, but it

does not go to the issue of whether or not she
should be admitted as an expert at this time, and
therefore I am finding that she is an expert in
latent print identification.~

I'think at this time it may be a good time

to break for lunch so that everybody can stretch

Itheir legs and maybe have something to eat and then

we can come back and continue with the rest of the

case .

It?s now almost 1:15. If I could have

-everybody come back at I would like to say 2:00,

but that would mean people are only going to have

If they're in agreement, we can come

119

 

 

 

back at 2:00.
I (Discussion Off the record.)
THE COURT: 2:00 o'clock, please.
(Recess.)
(BACK ON THE RECORD FOR DARIUS BROOKS.)

THE COURT: We're back on the

All right.
record, on the ?the matter of?
all-II?

State, are you ready to recall your witness

for the case-in-chief?

MS. WATROBA: Yes, Judge. We'd recall Officer
I I
THE All right;
Officer Seavers, you're still under oath.
Have a seat.
?(Short pause.)
OFFICER SEAVERS,
recalled as a witness on behalf of the People
herein, having been previously duly sworn, was
examined and_testified further as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
I BY MS: WATROBA:
Now, before I ask you about the work You
did in this case regarding latent print impressions

120

 

 

10

11'

12

13

14

_15_ 

and known standards, I'd like to talk to you a

little about fingerprint identificatiOn in general.

_What are the two basic principles of the science of

fingerprint identification?

A One would_be permanence and the second
would be uniqueness individualization.

Okay. Could you-explain briefly what
uniqueness is, what that principle is?

A The uniqueness individualization is that to
date no two individuals have been found to have the
same friction ridge impressions.

Okay. And what about permanence. could you

briefly explain that scientific principle?

A Permanence is four?months

'.gestation. The friction ridge design remains the

same throughout life until death takes-place and

decomposition sets in.

So is-it fair to say friction ridge skin 
is formed in utero, you said?

A That's correct.

.And from the time of completion of the
formation to the rest of the life a person's
life that pattern does not change; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

121

 

Okay. What is a latent print?
A A latent print is a chance impression. It
is an impression made through the transfer of

materials such as grease, dirt, oil, sweat, or any

other foreign substance that may be on the friction

skin at the time that an object is touched.'

These prints are usually not visible to the
and require some type of processing with
powders. -

- Okay. What is friction_ridge skin?

A Friction ridge skin are is the raised
ridges on the palmar side or plantar side of the
skin. These raised ridges secrete sweat from pores
and when an object is touched, it leaves an
impression sometimes with other materials also

could be on the friction skin at the same time the

sweat is, and it also allows us to have a grip on

things.
Okay. So now you said there're raised
ridges. _Are there e~ is there something that

is not furrows 

A Raised. Yes.

furrows, is that.what that's called?
Okay.

'122

 



-Yes.

Okay. Now, how many 1eVels of detail does
friction ridge shin have?

A There are three levels of detail.

Okay. Let's take them one by one if you
don't mind. I

A Uh?huh.

- The first level of detail, could you
describe what first level of detail is of friCtion
ridge-skin?

A That would be the pattern type. There are
three patterns an arch pattern, a whorl pattern,
and a loop pattern.

Okay. Now, what about second level of
detail? 

A Second level detail would be the ridge 

ethe ridge path, excuse me, the characteristics such

as any ridge, bif?rcation, dot, et cetera.
Okay. And then what about the third'lerel
of friction ridge skin?

A Third level of lerel detail would be
ridge structure, such as pore detail, edge 
edgeoscopy, excuse me, the edges of the ridges.

Okay. Now is it possible, Officer, for av

123

 

 

 

 

herperson to touch an object with their friction ridge

skin and not leave behind a latent impression?

A Yes, it is.
Okay. Is also possible that while a latent

impression could be left behind that it could be

.smeared or something could be done to it or it

would?be in a condition that it would not be
capable of being lifted?

A Yes.

And is it also possible that they could
leave behind an impression that could be lifted but
might not be suitable for comparison?

A Yes.

I Nowr what methodology do you use as a
latent print examiner to examine and compare latent
print impressions?

AI That would be ACE-V methodology.

And what does this stands for?

A The Analysis, the Comparison, the.
Evaluation and the Verification process.

And I'd like to take you through and_I
believe you testified earlier that_this 

THE COURT: I'm sorry,_can you give me those
acronyms a little slower. I?m not eriting as quite

124

 



fast you said them.
WTTNESS: Sure. Sorry, ma'am.
THE COURT: So 
THE WITNESS: Is the Analysis 
THE COURT: Okay.
THE WITNESS: the Comparison,-the
Evaluation, and the verification.'
THE COURT: _Okay. Got it.
BY MS. WATROBA: I
And I believe you testified earlier that
the methodology is generally accepted in the
community of latent print eXamination; is that
correct?
A - Correct.
-Q And that you've been trained in this
particular-methodology?
I A Yes.
And, in fact, that you've used it for the
entirety of your-career as a latent print examiner?
A Correct.

Okay. So now, I'd like to take you jast

Ibriefly through the different steps. Would you

please explain what is involved in the analysis

-step of 

125

 



The analysis is an assessment of the
friction ridge impression to determine suitability
for comparison regarding excuse me, the clarity
and quantity of detail in looking at the three
levels of detail which we've just discussed.

And do you use any tools to conduct that
step of the analysis?

A I do.

What tools do you use?

A I use two five?time magnifying glasses,
pointers, to point to each detail as I'm going.
through, and proper lighting.

Okay. Now, at that point after you have

analyzed?the characteristics and details of a

.print. do you make a determination about whether it

is in such a condition that it could be compared to
other prints?

A I do.

.Q .And what are the two conclusions you_could
reach or what conclusions could you reach at the
end of the analysis stage?

A If it's suitable for comparison, if it's
suitable or not suitable.

Okay. So I would assume that then you

126

 

10would only proceed to step two if you had a
suitable impression. Is that fair to say?-

A That is fair. I

Okay. So that would be the comparison
state or step; is that correct?

A I Correct.

Could you describe for the Judge, what you

-do during_the comparison step.

A Sure. The comparison step is a direct
side?by~side comparison.of the friction ridge
detail to determine whether_the detail in the two
impressions is in agreement based on similarity,
sequence, and spacial relationship.

Okay.? And when you?re talking about two
prints, is it generally an unknown print and a
known print?

A. Correct.

Okay. And when you after the comparison
stage where you're looking at the_two prints
side?by-side, you next move on to evaluation; is
that correct?

A That is correct.

What's involved in the evaluation step?

A The evaluation would be a determination

127

 

whether or not the print from the analysis and the
comparison is an identification or inconclusive 0r
exclusion.

Are those the three conclusions you can
reach at that-point?

A Yes.

Okay. Now, if you have I would assume
you'd only move on to the-next if you had an-
identification; is that correct?

A That is correct.

.And that would be the fourth step,
verification?

A Verification.

I And what happens during the verification
step?
I I .The verification step is an independent
examination by another examiner resulting in the

same conclusion.

Now} I believe you mentioned that you use

magnifiers and a pOinter as tools; correct?

A Correct.

Do you use those during every step of your
analysis? I

A Yes.

128

 

Okay. And at any time do those tools
change or alter the prints in any way that you're
examining?.

IA They do not.
Okay. Now, we spoke.a little briefly about

the three levels of detail with a latent impression

_and the tools that you've used. Could you describe

for the Judge basically when you have those two
prints in front of you and you?re examining them

under a?microscope, how you go about doing that

?side?by?side comparison.

A ?Sure. I look at the unknown print and the

known print and I look for a.focal point and I find

that focal point and'I go from there to determine

Ithat the unit relationship and the relative

positioning between the detail is similar without-
any unexplainable dissimilarities.'

So once you find a focal point do would

lit be fair to say that you kind of work out and go

back and forth between the-prints to compare them?
.A Correct.
Okay. Now, are you able_to make an
identification between an.unknown print and a known
print based solely on the first level detail?

'129

 

 

 

No.

Okay.' If you have sufficient points of
comparison and quality, are you able to make an
identification with second level detail?

A Yes. I

Qkay. So it's not necessary to have third
level detail_in order to make an identification, is
that fair to say?

A That?s fair to say.

INow, when you make an identification 
between an unknown print and a known print, is
there.a magic number of points and similarities or
quantity of points of agreement that are necessary
to reach that conclusion to make an identification?

A .There is not.li 

Okay. So there?d be no minimum; is that
fair to say?

A Yes.

hAnd no maximum that's required to make an

'identification?

A Correct.
-And is your identification of a print to a

known print based on both the quality of the ridge

.detail and the quantity of the points in agreement?

130

 



Yes.

.And that's based on your experience,'your
training, and your knowledge in the field of latent
print examination; correct? I

A Correct.

Okay. Now, I'd like to ask you
specifically about the work-that you did on this
case. vWere you assigned to do to do fingerprint
examinations and cemparisons in police RD Number


A Yes.

I Okay. And did you bring anything here'
today that would assist you with your testimony?

A I did.

?What did you bring?

A My case file.

Okay.

MS. WATROBA: Your Honor, at this time if

there's no objection from Counsel Ifd ask that the

,witness be allowed to refer to her reports and case

notes as needed.
MR. No objection.

THE COURT: All right. She may.

(Short pause.)

131

 

 

 



MS. WATROBA:

All right. Now, I'd like to direct your
attention -- you said you did do examinations in
the case number with the RD that I just stated;
correct?

I A.. Yes, I did.

I Okay. Did'you do I'd like to direct

your attention to- of  Did you receive 

approximately in- did you receive latent print 
lifts under Inventory Number 

A I did.

MS. May I approach the witness, your
Honor?

THE COURT: _You may.

BY MS. WATROBA:

I?m showing yOu what's in evidence as
People's Exhibit No. 13. Do you recognize that?

I do.

What is that?

A This is the envelope with the inventory of
five lifts that the evidence technician brought to
our unit-

Okay. And when you received that, is that,
in fact, the item that you received? .1

-132

 

[Yes, it is.
And fact, five lifts inside
of that? -
A _Yes, there were.

Okay. And did you examine those fived

A I did.

Are those lifts in there?

A Yes.

Okay. You've had an opportunity to look at
those prior to court today? I

Yes. I

Okay. And this *4 other than the_

.additional markings it appears to be in same or-

Isubstantially the same Condition as it was when you

had it?
A It is.
Now, I'd like to direct your attention to.
one lift in particular that was oontained in

People's Exhibit No. 13, specifically, lift

Did you conduct an examination of that
impression?

HA I did.

Did you make a ?4 did you use the

133

 

 







methodology that-you previously described?
A Yes, 1 did. 
And did you make a determination if that-
impression was suitable for comparison purposes?
A Yes, I did.
And what was that conclusion?
A Conclusion that it.was suitable for
comparison. I
.Okay. Nowr at that-time when you made that.

determination; did you have any suspeot prints to

compare to that impression?

A _No suspect prints, no.
Okay. Did you hate elimination prints?

A I had an elimination print, yes.

And what are elimination prints?

A .An elimination print is a known print
standard from the yietim.

Q. Okay. And did you examine the elimination
prints also in the matter that you just described?

A I I did.

lAnd did you compare the elimination prints
to the latent print impression which I'll refer to
as Impression I

A -Yes, I did.

134'

 

And what were did you reach any

conclusions regarding that comparison?

A



Idid.

It was an exclusion.

An exclusion. Okay. Now, after you did

that comparison, what, if anything, did you do next

A .
System.

A
Q.
A



-with Latent Impression 

I placed Latent Impression into the AFIS

And what is the AFIS System?

It's a database.

A database containing what?

Containing fingerprints and palm prints.

Okay. 'And could you briefly describe how 

you put that impression into the AFIS System?_

A

I place it under a camera that the AFIS

System has and it takes a picture of the impression

and puts it through the AFIS System.



Okay. And then what, if anything, did the

AFIS System generate with respect to Latent

Impression 

A It came back with a Candidate list of ten
candidates.

Okay. IAnd what did you do at that point?

A At that point I went to the first candidate.

135

 

 





comparison.

Okay. Now, let me just back up for a
second. When you say ?candidate,? are the
candidates to a particular, like, person's multiple
fingerprints, or is it a particular print on a
particular standard?

A It comes back with one standard 5- one
finger.

One finger. Okay. So I'm sorry to
interrupt you. So please explain what you did
after you got the list of candidates.

A I pulled the first candidate from the
archive. It's fingerprint standards.

Okay.

A I print it.from the archive, and I_went

vback to my desk and did a manual comparison with

the latent print to the number three finger of the'

candidate'??
Okay.
A lift Candidate Number 1.

MS. WATROBA: For the record, I'm showing
Opposing Counsel what I'ye marked as People's
Exhibit No. 15.for identification. May I approach
the witness, your Honor?

136

 

 

 

 

ifcompleted it?

A Yes.

Okay. .50 you used the method,
correct, to do the compariSon? I I

A Correct.

And did you were you able to reach a

'conclusion regarding your comparison of Latent

Print D-to People's Exhibit No. 15?

A Yes.

And what was the conclusion?

A An identification.

IQ. Okay. And what do you mean by "an
identifiCation"?

A That the unknown source and the known-
source were made by the same finger.

The unknown print and the known print?

A Yes.

It made that same finger. Okay. Did you
also create, when you did that comparison did
you create a document with images showing acme of
the points and comparisons that you noted during
that comparison?

A Yes, I did.

.MS. WATROBA: I'm showing-Counsel what I've'

138

 

 

{THE COURT: You may.

BY MS. WATROBA:

I'm showing yOu what is marked as People's

Exhibit No. 15. Do you recognize this?
(People?s Exhibit No. 15 marked
for identification.)

A I do.

What do you recognize it to be?

A The fingerprint standard of 

Okay. And is this the standard that you

juSt discussed that you compared the-unknown

impression to following the AFIS 

A It is.
Association?
A Yes. My initials are on there.

Okay. And you Said'you compared the
Lift to a particular number'finger?
A fee, I did. The number three finger,
right middle.
Okay. And did you make any notations
this document that indicate that?

A I did.

the

on.

'And does this appear to be in the same or_

substantially the same condition as it was when you'

137

 

f?hnmarked People's Exhibitho. 16 for identification;
All right.
MS. WATROBA: May I approach the witness?.
THE COURT: You may.
BY MS. WATROBA:

I _I'm Showing you what is marked as People's
Exhibit No. 16 for identification. Do you
recognize that?

'(People's Exhibit No}.l6 marked
for identification;) - I
A I do.
What do you recognire it to be?

It's foundation. The unknown print and the

latent print the latent print pictures with the

_characteristics pointed out.

Okay.? And did you put this document
together f? I
A. Yes, I did.
-- as part of y0ur work in this case?

YES.

10 5510

Does it appear to be in the same or
substantially the same condition as it was when yOu
created it? I

A It is.

139

 

MS. WATROBA: Your Honor, at this time I'd ebb
to admit People's Exhibits No. 15 and 16.

THE COURT: Any objections?

No objection, Judge.

THE All right. There being me
objectiOn, I will move into evidence what's been
previously marked as People's Exhibits No. 15 and
16 for identification. I

(People's Exhibits-No. 15 and 16
admitted into eVidence.)

MS. WATROBA: And I will tender 15 to your
Honor, but 16 I'm going to use briefly with the
witness. I

THE COURT: All right.

MS. WATROBA: I'll stand this way. Perhaps you
can see. -

BY MS. WATROBA:

So directing your attention to People's
Exhibit No. 16. -What is the image on the left?

A That is the latent print.

Okay. And is that a for lack of a
better word. like a blowup?

A Yes. It is a blowup of the latent print
image. - 

140

 





does it in any way alter the latent
print image itself?

A No, it does not.

Okay. And what's on the right? What image
is on_the right?

A It is a blowup of the known print.

And again does that not in any way -- does
that in any way distort or change the known latent
print impression? I

A It does not.

Okay. And now I noticed that there's a
series of red dots on both of these pictures.

Could you explain to the Judge what those are?

A The red dots are unique characteristics
which I marked, similarities between the latent
print and the known print.

IQ I Okay. And now there's a number of red dots
on both of these impressions. .Are those the only
points of similarity that you noted between the two
impressions?

A No, it is not.

Would it be fair to say that this is an
illustrative example of the points of comparison?

A Yes, it is.

141'

 



MS. WATROBA: I'll tender your Honor Exhibit
16. -

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MS. WATROBA:

Now, after you made that identification, in
May of 2016, did you move onto the fifth step of
the methodology?- I

A .Yes.

:And so did does that-mean that another,
fingerprint examiner_did an independent evaluation,
the-verification'step?

A Yes.

Q. And who was that examiner?

A Latent print examiner Meckee (phonetic).

Now, I'd like to direct your attention to
October of 2016? Were you asked to do another
comparison of the latent print Latent Print in
this case to a confirmatory known standard?

A Yes, I was.

MS. WATROBA: I?m showing you what's Counsel
People's Exhibit 14.

BY MS. WATROBA:
I'm showing you what's marked as 
MS. WATROBA: May I approach?

142

 

-?24

THE COURT: You may.

MS. WATROBA: Thank you.
BY MS. WATRQBA:

I'm showing you People's Exhibit No. 14
which is already in evidence. Do you recognize
that?

A _Yes. I as.

What do you recognize that to be?

A - The fingerprint standard of?
with my initials on the number three finger, right
middle.l

Okay. And does this -- is this in the same
or substantially the same Condition as it was when
you conducted your examination?

A Yes, it is.

I So, did you compare again, using the
methodology 

A Yes.

Q. ??-latent lift or Latent Impression to
the number three finger in Peeple's Exhibit No.
14?

A Yes, I did.

.And did you reach a conclusion regarding
that comparison?

143

 

did.
What was your conclusion?
A Individualization ?5 identification.

And again an identification means what?

A. That the the known print and the unknown
print were made by they were made by the same
scurce.

Okay.' Now, did you prepare. Officer, a

visual aid for court today that will help you.

explain to the Judge how you reached the conclusion

with respect to the second comparison??
A I did. I
May I approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may. I
MS. I've showed Counsel what's marked
as_People's Exhibit No. 17 for identification.
BY MS. I
I And I'm now showing it to the witness. Do
Exhibit_l7?
(People's Exhibit No._17 marked
for identification.)
A I do.
What do you recognize it to be?
A The chart that I had made.

144

 

.Okay. And what is on the left side of the
chart? I

It is a blowup of the latent print image.

Is that latent print lift or Lift --

A Lift D, yes._

Okay.? And what is on the right?

A It is blowup of the known print.

IFrom which finger?

From the number three finger.

A
Okay.
A Right middle.

?And would this demonstrative exhibit help
you with your testimony here todag?
I A Yes.
_And do these blowups of these images. do

they in any way-alter the latent print impressions

Ithat you examined?

A They do not.
M81-WATROBA: Your Honorr at this time we'd ask
to admit and publish People's Exhibit 17.
THE COURT: Any objection?
(Short pause.)
MR. CAVISE: Judge;r I objeot to it being
admitted. This was tendered and shown to me as a

145

 

demonstrative exhibit.? The original document has
already been admitted into evidence.

MS. WATRQBA: Actually, the original document
was from the first comparison. This is from the
second comparison, I believe.

MR. CAVISE: Can I see that? That's not

-what 

(Short pause.)

MR. CAVISE: No, Objection, Judge.

THE COURT: _All right. There being no
objections, I will move into evidence what's been
previously marked as People's Exhibit No. 17 for
identification.

(People's Exhibit No. 17 admitted-
into evidence.)

MS. WATROBA: I don?t know if your Honor will
be able to see it from there well enough or if 

THE COURT: You might move in a little bit.
Sorry. I

THE WITNESS: You want me come up?
MS. WATROBA: I think you need to be by the
microphone. II

THE Okay.

MS. WATROBA:

Do you guys want to see? Joe,

146

 

 

 

 

you want to reposition?

MR. CAVISE: Sure.
BY MS. WATROBA:

Okay. Using this exhibit, People's Exhibit
17, could you describe to the Judge what you noted
with the dots and lines and numbers?

A Your Honor, I looked at the unique
characteristics, and I found a focal point as an
enclosure at the bottom of the impression here. It
is two ridges that enclose, and I marked those.

I counted up, one, two, three ridges and
found an ending -e an ending ridge, excuse me, thenl
I counted up one ridge, went down and found a
bifurcation. If I go to the known print here, asII
just explained to you, the enclOsure at the bottom
here was a focal point for me, and I went to the
known print and noted enclosure. I went up three
ridges and find an ending ridge and the known
print, and here it is in the latent print, I go up
one ridge over one ridge over and find.a

bifurcation in bOth the latent print and known

'print.

Iigo up one ridge, over to the left, same
over to the left and find a bifurcation and

147

 



continued my'Way through.

I The numbers here are just numbered for
points, not as the actual -- I didn't start up here
when 1 did the original. I

THE COURT: Okay.
BY MS. WATROBA:

.And so did you the way that you just
described moving'from one print to the other and

noting different points, did_you continue to do

_that for the 

A I did throughout_the entire impreSsion em

Okay.

A and found enough similarities to
conclude that this was made_by the same finger.-

Okay. And again you've noted I think it

looks like 14. You pointed out 14 points of

comparison, but were there only 14 points of

'comparison ?s

A No. There is more than 14.

Thank you.

MS. WATROBA: I'll tender this to the Court.
your Honor.

COURT: Okay.

148

 

reMS. WATROBA:


comparis
reached
you move

process?

Now, again, with respect to the second
on that you just described, after you;
your conclusion of an identification, did

on to the verification step of the-

A Yes.
.And what happened in that 4? or strike
that. As part of the verification, did another

examiner conduct an independent examination of the

-unknown

A



A



impression and the known impression?

Yes.

.And who was that examiner?

Latent print examiner Meckee.

Did you maintain, Officer Seavers, a proper

chain of custody over inventory items in this case

at all timeS?

A.



?Yes.

And did you use generally accepted methods

in conducting your examination in the comparisons_

of this
A



ease?
I did.

And are your opinions here today based on

your knowledge, experience, training, and

149

 

.methodology that is generally aCcepted in the field
of fingerprint examinations? I

A. Yes.

MS. WATROBA: If I may just have a moment, your
Honor? -

THE COURT: You may._

(Short pause.)
MS. WATROBA: I have no further questions, your
Honor.- I will tender back to the Court People's
Exhibit 15._ I
THE COURT: Okay.
(Short pause.)

CEOSS EXAMINATION

MR. CAVISE:

Officer Seavers, it's safe to say the meat
and potatoes of fingerprint examination is the
level two features;_right?

A Yes.

Okay. 'Thank you. You can't claim to have
made identification_with level one_features?

That's correct.

Okay. And leyel three features, is when
they're clear, are, so to speak, the icing on the

cake; is that fair to say?

150

 

They're an advantage, yes.

Okay. What you need though are those level

-two features; right?

A Yes.

And they come in varieties that we're
talking bifurcatiOns and ridge endings like you
just discusSed; right? I

A Yeah. -

Okay.? Officer Seavers, sometimes certainly
it's difficult to distinguish hetween a bifurcation
and a ridge ending when you're looking at a latent

crime scene print; right?

A Yes.
Okay. Sometimes it's easy; right?
A Yes.

You can have a very clear print; right?
A Yes.
Okayr Things that might affect that
distinction would be, for example, degrees of
pressure when the finger ?e when the print was made
that could influence the difficulty of making those
distinctions; right?
AI Correct.
And So can the'surface that a print

Okay.

151

 

was laid on; right?

A Correct.

Sometimes when you look at a latent, you're
going to notice things like smudging; right?

A Yes.

Okay. And you also noticed distortion;

.A Yes.

Okay. And there's a_term in your field to
describe the diffiCulty of determining a
distinction between bifurcation and ridge ending
Called "connected ambiguity"; isn't that right?

IA I've heard of it.

Okay. You've heard of it. And when you
look at a print, I believe, you said it's in the 
Phase. The first thing you have to do in the 
or the analysis phase is decide if you get a print
that.you can actually say is suitable to move
ahead; right?

A Correct.

Q-I Okay. And it's in that phrase that you
decide if you got a print of value; is that right?

A Correct.

Okay. Now, sometimes prints that come from

152

 



10
11
12

13

_14crime scene can be perfectly processed Correctly
but could just be of such poor quality that you
won't have anything to compare it to; is that
right?

A res.

.Q Okay. And.sometimes although_it happens
rarely, you'll get a print that's such a high
quality that you could look at an inked card and it
looks like it?s close to the Same: right?

A Correct.

Okay. Now, of courser obviously the worse
the quality, the harder it is to determine the
possible source of a print;_right?

AI, Yes.

There are ranges of difficulty in yOur
field; right?

A Okay.

Okay. New? smudging specifically can have
the effect of blurring ridges together such that
it's hard to see the details in the areas of
smudging; right?

A Yes.

Okay. And sometimes, in addition to
smudging. prints crime scene prints can have

153

 





areas that are.fainter than other areas, which
would also make ridges hard to see; right?

A Correct. I

Okay. And we, of course, did talk about
how there could be distortion that runs through a
print; right?

A Correct.

And that distortion doesn't have rhyme or

reason. It could be top, bottom, in the middle, it

Icould be-all over the place; right?

.A That's correct.

Okay. And distortion is usually
charaCterized by patterns-of darkness cr_lightness
that obscures the definition of those ridges;
right?

A . Yes.

Okay. And then finally. Officer Seavers,
prints can also be partial, meaning that you don't
have the entire surface of a finger or a palm or
whatever it is.that was lifted from a crime scene;
right?

Yes.

Okay. Officer Seavers, the more smudging
that there is, the harder a print is to compare it

154

 



10
ll
12

13

'1421'

2'2-

23

24

to something else; right?_

A Yes.

And the fainter that it is increases the
difficulty; right?. And if I'm sorry,.right?

A Yes.

And if you've got a lot of distortion, it
could be difficult to compare it to a known; right?

A Correct.

Okay. And if you got a partial print, the
smaller area that you have, the harder it could be
to compare to a known print, you may not have
enough information; right?

A I would.have to see the actual print to
answer that. I mean, depends on how much. 

Sure. Just generally if you got a small

area, clearly thatls the only area you had to work

with; right?

A Right-?

Okay. And_any of those things alone could

- make a comparison difficult or even impossible;

right?
A Sure.

And if you are able to identify in your

'experience that-you have all of those things on a

155

 

riprint, you know that's a risky print, right, a
difficult-print?
A Possibly more diffiCult than a Mona Lisa.

Now, of course, when a print is difficult

I guess the reason why I say risky -- when a

print is difficult, you are going to have to make
sure that you are reading through all of those
difficulties to come to a conclusion you can be
confident; right? -

A Yesr

Okay. Now, your method also includes
something called the "one dissimilarity rule;"
isn't this right?

I'm not familiar with that.

You're not familiar with that rule?

A No.

Okay. Let me put it this way. If you'

found in a known print an area where you excepted

to see e? or where you saw a bifurcation and you

looked in'a similar area in the latent and you

didn't see one, is that something that you would

use to say that this is an exclusion?
-A ,If it's explainable, no; if.it's
unexplainable, yes.

156

 

 

Okayprint where you
see the things that we just talked about 
smudging, distortion, faintness, partial prints --
and you got that dissimilarity, you're going to
need more information that makes you feel Confident
in your conclusion; right?

Yes.

MR. CAVISE: Oh, I'm sorry, Judge. What was it
People's EXhibit No. 16?

Ms. WATROBA: ~This one, Judge, 16.

MR. Yes. Okay.

,All right. Judge, this.copy isn?t marked
of cOurse 

THE COURT: It is on the back.

MS. WATROBA: The Judge has a copy. Is that
the same one? I

MR. CAVISE: Yes, it is the same one.- I
just want to show it.
You want me to use that one, Judge?
THE COURT: It doesn't matter.
MR. CAVISE: Okay.
BY MR. CAVISE:

Officer Seavers, I'm showing you what was

marked as People's Exhibit 16. Okay.. And this has

157

 

 

already been admitted into evidence.

-A Yes.

Okay.

MR. CAVISE: Judge, may I publish this?

MS. No objection.

THE COURT: All right.

I (Short pause.)

BY MR. CAVISE: I

Can you see that, Officer Beavers?

A- Pretty good[

Q- 'Officer Seavers, at the bottom of the.
screen, you see the word "known"; is that right?

A Correct. I

And that, as far as you can teil, that?s
your that's the exact same image as you're
holding in front of you; right? I

A Yes.

Okay. And that's your handwriting?

A Yes, it is.

And so what you're seeing here is just that

_one print. Okay?

A Uh?huh.
Right. Okay. In this print, you can See
clearly black-inked ridges; right?

158.

 

Yes.

And you see that the ridges in this known
print really almost all the way through it are
uninterrupted; right?

A Yes.

- And in this knowny'you can make out pretty
easily the directional ?low of these ridgeS; right?

Correct.

And you can even see we talked about

Ilevel three features, you can even see some these

white pores so like the left of the center of
print, you can see some white pores; right?

A That's correct.

Okay. Thereds really no distortion on this
print: right? 

A Very little.-

Perhaps maybe at the bottom a? and the
bottom that's explainable by the'knuckle; is that
right? I I I

A. The crease.

.The crease. Okay. There's no smudging in
this print; right?

A At the top, but 

In that top that let's see. Looking

159

 





the top, sort of left and right of the center,
there is some smudging; right?
- A Correct.'

Okay. And that blurs those ridges there;
doesn't it? I

A Yes, it does.

'Okay. This print is a full fingerprint,
though; right?l -

A No. There's no *4

I'm sorry. Go ahead.

A Every time that a fingerprint is laid_andi
an impression is left. it's never left the same
twice, so there's always going to be a little
something missing or something added.

Sure. But this same fingerprint was taken
by the Chicago Police Department; right?

A Yes.

Qkay. And in so far as_the space allows

this is a full fingerprint that you, of_course,

- could use in your examination?

A Yes, it is.

Okay. Now, this has a lot of information
in it; right?

A Yes.

160

 

This is the standard that you need to hate
to do your job? I

A. Yes.

Okay. That's the latent print; right?

A Yes. I

The bottom left corner of this print I
mean, we're looking at a black and white image;.
right, Officer Seavers?

A That's correct.
Okay. The bottom left portion of this
print there's white lines going through the bottom
left portion. That's distortion; isn't it,
Officer?

A That would be correct.

Okay.

A Striation marks as we would refer to it.

Sure. And the top right of this print,

- you'Ve got there?s actually black lines and

white lines that are striations; right?
IA Correct. see the white, yes.
Which is distortion; right?
A Yes.
Okay. And in the center of this print I
know you got a couple red dots there and then

161

 

 

there's like a I don't know the term but there?s
like a black island kind of in between those two
red dots; right? I

'You would have to_point, I don't know where
you're referring.

Q. So I?m really looking at best I can say the

lmiddle of the print, and I am pointing to these two

red dots one above the other separated by probably

by two inches on the screen. There's.these clear
black marks right here. II don't know what they
are. But you see these this black mark in the
middle of those two dots?

A Yes, I do.

?And around that area is much fainter than
the rest of that latent; isn't it Officer Seavers?

Yes, it's lighter.l

Okay. And the information or here
rather, this-image that you've marked with the red
dots, you?re not seeing really uninterrupted ridge
line that we clearly saw on the known print; right?

A It's not as clear as the known print, no.

Okay.' There's a significant_difference,
Officer Seavers, between the quantity of

uninterrupted ridge lines in this print than from

162

 

the known. That's right, isn't it?

A, Yes.

Okay. And this is_clearly, Officer
Seavers, this is a partial portion of the finger;
right?

A Correct.-

Okay. Officer Seavers, this image of the

latent you scanned into your computer; right?

A That was a lift.

Right. Excuse me. So this --I

A 'Yes.'

-- is the actual, physical lift?

A Right. I -

Okay. And you.scanned that lift at your
desk into your computer 

A Yes.

Right. And you do that at a high enough
quality such that AFIS can use its algorithms to
give you a suspect list; right?

A Well, I put the actual physical lift in
AFIS, I didn't use the digital image.

Yes, I know. Perhaps I'm not being clear.

A Right.

- You edited this image; right, the lift?

163

 

The image that you put into so there?s I'm

sorry. Let me try to back up, okay? There's a

physical lift.

A Yes.

The information that we're looking at on
the screen is not the entirety of the physical
lift; right?

I A - Entirety, meaning?

Meaning in your judgment you took what you
believed to be relevant to your comparison and you
cropped out the other 

A Correct.

Okay. And then you ran you scanned that
into your computer in order to run it_through 
right?,_ I

A .No. I scan it for yes, I'm sorry. I'm
back up. 'Strike that._ I did put that through
AFIS, yes. - 

You decided what information on that lift
could potentially be useful and scanned it in?

A Yes. -

And you gave me a printout of that screen.

'This's what you?re holding_in your hand 

A Correct.

164

 

 

and that's what me're seeing on the
screen?

A Correct.

.All right. When you did your comparison,
Officer Seavers, ybu didn't put any red dots on the-
evidence; right?

Correct.

Okay. And you don't put any red dots on
the latent in the computer program; right?

A That's correct.

yWhen you're doing your comparison, you're
not marking any of the things that you're seeing?

A I No.. Just mentally. I

Mentally marking. And I think it's been
admitted into evidence but that larger blowup of
the latent print next to the known, I think it's an
identical image; right?_ You will recall it, having
seen that on direct? I

A Which exhibit are you referring to?

_People's_17. Is that correct? I just-want'
to get the number right. This is the same image
blown up; right?

A This of the latent print, yes.

Right. And you created that for trial

165

 

arm

shortly before our last court date in February;
right?

A That?s oorrect.

-That also was not used during your
examination?

I IA No, that was_not.

Officer Seavers, the first time that you
ever saw my client's fingerprint was after you ran
this print through right?

Correct. I

I'm terribly sorry. Officer Seavers, in
response to my subpoena,_you did Send me a copy of
the AFIS screening; correct?-

A I did. 

IQ .All right. And that-AFIS soreen printout
has just like the one you're holding a copy1
of an image of the latent nest to the knoWn and
the.difference is that it's got a candidate list;
right?

I A Correct.

MR. CAVISE: Judge, can I have one mement to

'find this candidate list?

THE COURT: Uh?huh.
(Short pause.)

166

 

MR. CAVISE: Judge, I'm may I approach and
mark this as Miner's Exhibit No. 5.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

IMR. CAVISE: -- 6

(Minor's Exhibit No. 6 marked for
identification.)

THE II think it's 6.

MR. CAVISE: Okay. I
BY MR. CAVISE:

O?ficer Beavers, is this the document that
I just aSked you about, is this the AFIS screen?

A Yes, it is.

And you do compile the response to
subpoenas yourself; right?

A Yes.-

'And you sent me this document?

A Yes.

This is a reflection of the screen on that
day when you ran the search?

Yes.-

Okay.-

MR. CAVISE: Judge, I would seek to admit this
and publish from it.

THE COURT: Any objection?

167

 

(Discussion off the record.)

MS. WATROBA: No objection.

THE COURT: All right. 'There being no
objections, I will move into evidence what's been
previously marked as Minor Respondent's Exhibit No.
6.

(Minor's Respondent's Exhibit No. 6
admitted?into evidence.)

MR. CAVISE: Okay. 'So then I'll publish if
that's all right with you.

THE Go ahead.

BY MR. CAVISE: I

This is the same document that I just
showed you; right?-

A Yes; it is.

And what weTre looking at underneath the
known and the latent is a list of possible
candidates this AFIS-gives you; right?

A Correct.

Okay. And in this instance this is just
zooming in on the AFIS's_candidate list in this
instance and it?s actually kind of the

computer printout is sort of blurred on our screen
here; is that fair to say, Officer Seavers?

168

 

Yes.

Q. That first position is the one that you
conducted your comparison against; right?

A Correct.

Okay. And you learned that that print
belonged to my client: is that right?

A. That's correct.

After that point, you didn't print out any

print cards for any of the other members on this

IAFIS candidate list?

AI I did not.

And AFIS in this instance, gave you nine;
right?

Correct.

You'ye had instances where it gives you
more? I

A You can put how many candidate you would
like for it to send.

Choose how many people you want to see?

A How many candidate, yes.

?And then very briefly, Officer SeaVers, I
think that you said that the verification process
is quote independent; right?

A .An independent examiner, yes.

169

 

 

Examination of another examiner, excuse me.

_When you engage in that part of the of
your method, in your unit, the next analyst knows.
your conclusion; right?

A They do.

Okay.

1 MR. CAVISE: Judge, can I have just a moment?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Short pause.)
BY MR. CAVISE:

Sorry, Officer Beavers, one thing that you
can't tell us about the print is any specific day
that it may have been left at the scene; right?l

Av That's true.

And you couldn't tell us what time it-was
left at the scene?

A That's true.

And you can't really tell us anything about

the conditions under which it may have been left at-

- the Scene; right?

A That?s true.

And right. So your examination and'your:

.depth of knowledge is confined to your examination

170

 

latent to a known and that's it; right?

A Correct. I

Okay.

MR. CAVISE: All right. I have nothing.
further. Judge. I will tender the witness.

THE All right.

Anything on redirect?
MS. WATROBA: Briefly, your Honor.
ITHE COURT: All right.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
I BY Ms. WATROBA:

Officer Seavers, is it generally accepted

in your field to compare partial latent impressions

to known standards?

A Yes.

'And to reach conclusions based on those
comparisons?

A Yes, it is.

And when you did your comparisons in this
case both to the first inked standard and thev
second standard from 5?4?3, did you take
into consideration factors such as the faintness of
Impression D, any potential smudging, any
distortion in your evaluation of_that print?

171

 

 

Yes, I did.

And did You and you determined that it

was suitable for comparison?

A



Yes.

And did anything that Defense Counsel asked

you about utilizing the TV and the images depicted

up there about the prints in any way impact the

conclusions that you've already testified to in

court today?

A

MS.
ITHE
MR.

THE

MS.

THE

MS.



No.

WATROBA: No further questions.

COURT: Any recross?

Nothing based on that, Judge.
COURT: All right. You can step down.'

Is she free to go?
Yes, Judge.
COURT: All right.

(Discussion off the record.)

RAILSBACK: Your Honor. with that the

People rest.

THE COURT: .All right.

(DiScussion off the record.)'

So I have Exhibits 1

through 17 for the State and Exhibit No._6 for the

Minor Respondent as those items that were admitted.

172

 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 
. SS.
COUNTY OF 

.. Rf} 
  
31/? 16:.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND CHILD PROTECTION
JUVENILE JUSTICE DIVISION

IN RE:



Minor.

No. 



REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had at the hearing

of the above?entitled cause,_before the Honorable JUDGE

RAMIREZ, Judge of said Court, on the let day of


.11; '1 

March, 2017, in Courtroom 2.

PRESENT:

HON. KIMBERLY M.B FOXX,
State's Attorney of_Cook County, byi
MS. TAYLOR RAILSBACK, and
Ns. AMY WATROBA, 
Assistant State's Attorneys,
on behalf of the People;

HON. AMY P. CAMPANELLI,
Public Defender County, by:

MR. JOSEPH CAVISE,
Assietant Public Defenders,
on behalf of the Minor Respondent.

aw -w
 9"




Cg: Claretta Ross 1 
.i Official Court Reporter 1 .

 

 



THE COURT: All right. I'ye had an opportunity
to review all of the.exhibits that were presented
to the COurt as well as my notes.

After having reviewed all of the exhibits
as well as my notes, I find at this time that the.
State has failed to meet its burden beyond a
reasonable doubt as to the allegations in the
petition. I

I will note that I was bothered by the fact
that the sole piece of evidence that was presented
to the Court was'one fingerprint: in particular
given that the testimony of the_teohnician who went-
out to the home was that he had made five lifts
that he deemed to be suitable lifts. And the
testimony of Officer SeaverS,-the latent print
examiner, was that she examined only one lift.

She did not testify or tell me or give me
an explanation as to why the other four lifts were
not examined. I can't assume that-they were not
Suitable given that she did not testify to the fact
that they were not suitable.

_So the_testimony being basically that she
examined one lift out of the five lifts, the item
that was lifted was an item that the father

187

 



testified he_knew to be in a drawer, but I had no

-evidence to say that, in-fact, that item was in

drawer on the date in question of 

going into the _when the family left for their
pilgrimage to 

I I'm simply not comfortable saying that in
one fingerprint is sufficient beyond a_reasonable.
doubt. I'm also questioning the value of the
testimony of Ms. Seavers when she testifies that

her training entailed a bachelors degree in

architecture and design with no background in

biology, science, or mathematics. That she became

a latent print examiner by virtue of 240 hours of

'classroom training and a one year apprenticeship or

shadowing process, that she obtained her status as
a latent print examiner sometime in 2008, there is
no Certification process certifying her as a latent

print examiner, and that during the period between

'2008 and 2015 when the incident -- or the

'comparison that she made occurred, she had little,

if any, follow?up training.

She indicated that in 2009 she had none.
In 2010, she had a tWo?day program that she
attended. In 2911, 12, 13, and 14, she did not

188

 

 



obtain any form of follow?up training.? In 2015,
she obtained a follow-up training but that training
was with regard to error rates and not with regards

to-any comparison or analysis or eValuation process



I'm also concerned about the fact that the_
CPD Lab has no accreditation, no auditing system,
no quality review, no error check process, no
written professional development bench marks, that
there's no standard operating procedures or
guideline.

I don't know if what print e- how many

comparisons are considered to be geod, bad, not

.bad. simply don't know. And based on the fact

_that that information was not presented to the

Court and it appears to be void, the fact that

Ms._Seavers lacks in follow-up training, leading up

'to this incident or to her evaluation, and the fact

that she compared one print, one lift when she had
five at her disposal and gave no explanation or
understanding to this Court as to why she chose to
stop after one fingerprint.

The Court is not satisfied that one print
comparison is sufficient for a finding beyond a

189

 

reasonable doubt.
That's my rulidg.
MS. SIRKIN: Th?nk you, JudgeL-
(Which were all the proceedings
held in the above?entitled

cause.)

190

 

 STATE OF ILLINOIS 

. 1 ss.
COUNTY OF 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND CHILD PROTECTION
JUVENILE JUSTICE DIVISION

I, Claretta Ross, certify the foregoing to
be a true and accurate transcript of the electronic
recording of the prOceeding of the above?entitled

cause which recording contained a certification in

accordance with rule Or administrative order.

Court Specialist

 

 

DATE: March 9, 2017

191