We’ll have to keep on eye on this case. The Alaska Daily News article indicates a latent print examiner from the Anchorage Police Department who has their own consulting business has perjured themselves regarding their background, training and experience.
On Aug. 24, Halterman gave sworn testimony by phone on a pending case from Iowa in which he claimed to have completed more than 4,000 hours of training with a qualified document examiner, police said. He also claimed to have a completion certificate from the course, according to police. Police say those statements are not true.
Halterman is a non-sworn employee at the Anchorage Police Department, where he is a latent print examiner. Police said he does not examine documents for the department.
How serious is a forensic examiner over-stating their background? The same or worse than “padding a resume”? Comment below.
No related posts.
Well, this one is a no brainer. I mean 4000 hours. Presuming most training session usually max out at 8 hours per day, we are talking 500 days of training. Hyperbole and obfuscation have no place anywhere in the Courtroom. I say good to prosecute Halterman, but better to go back and make a complete investigation of her cases. A lot of forensic science is truly subjective and in essence are judgment calls especially in pattern recognition (such as latent fingerprint development and analysis and questioned document examination). In that this person’s field of endeavor involves subjectivity and judgment calls, and as has been demonstrated above, this person apparently (if the allegations as reported above are true) did not make a good judgment call by massively over-stating her resume under oath, then it naturally follows that there is at least a question as to veracity of her body of work. Let this be a cry to other forensic scientists, the defense bar is awaking. The days of the free pass are over. The check and balance that is the crucible of cross-examination is coming back.