HAGERSTOWN, Md. (AP) — Bank employees weren't trying to give police bad
information by misidentifying a robbery suspect; they just had faulty
memories. But a Maryland forensics investigator's work prevented a
wrongful arrest.
All three bank employees identified the same blond man with a
goatee in a photo lineup, but Hagerstown Police Department forensic
scientist Jeffrey Kercheval knew something wasn't right.
Surveillance footage showed the robber was not much taller than
the window at the teller's booth he approached to carry out the
robbery, but witnesses identified the suspect as a man well over 6 feet
tall.
So Mr. Kercheval and other investigators performed some extra
work to have the suspect stand at the bank counter where the robbery
occurred. The man stood nearly a head taller than the robber. They used
the same surveillance camera to compare the robber's height to the man
they had standing at the window.
"In this case, we got someone unarrested based on the evidence," Mr. Kercheval said.
He spoke at the Washington County Free Library in Hagerstown
last month to help people better understand how forensics is used in
police investigations, compared with what is often seen on TV shows
such as "CSI."
He discussed the bank robbery from 2006 and other cases to
illustrate how physical evidence should be used to corroborate
eyewitness testimony.
"People don't intend to mislead us," Mr. Kercheval said. "They just make observations that aren't correct."
He and two other forensics investigators work at the Western Maryland Regional Crime Lab.
A discussion of someone trying to break into four military
tanks, a fatal beating at a Hagerstown McDonald's and the investigation
into the discovery of a body near Funkstown were also part of Mr.
Kercheval's presentation.
Nathaniel Laye, 12, of Smithsburg said he attended the
presentation because he wants to be a forensic investigator when he
grows up. He said he was inspired by "CSI."
"I thought it was going to be like the show," Nathaniel said.
Mr. Kercheval knows his job is nothing like what is shown on television.
"They drive around in Hummers," he said. "I drive around in a 1997 Chevy Astro van."
He said he spends a tremendous amount of time processing drug
evidence for about 1,000 cases a year, but his lab also works on
robberies, homicides and other violent crimes.
It's not as quick or exciting as TV shows can make it seem, he
said, because he spends 90 percent of his time on paperwork and reports
used as evidence. When the case goes to trial, the paperwork and
reports will be essential to faithfully represent the memories and the
facts surrounding the case.
Still, Mr. Kercheval said, the work never gets boring.
"Every day's exciting," said Mr. Kercheval, who is on call 24
hours a day. "You kind of feel like a pinball bouncing in a pinball
machine."
HAGERSTOWN
A quick flip through television channels many nights offers a
grim but glamorous glance at Hollywood crime scene investigations,
where murders are solved in an hour thanks to solid forensic evidence
that links a suspect to a crime.
The popularity of forensic television shows as "CSI" worries
some prosecutors, who fear jurors will expect that DNA and fingerprint
evidence will be collected with the same precision as it is on TV, said
Washington County Assistant State's Attorney Robert Veil.
"The fear is that some of them (jurors) will not be able to distinguish between television and reality," Veil said.
Called the "CSI Effect," the concern is being discussed at state's attorney conferences across the country.
In response, Veil said, prosecutors here have asked judges to
ask potential jurors: "Does any member of the panel believe that it is
necessary for the state to present fingerprint, DNA or other scientific
evidence in order to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the
defendant's guilt?"
Part of the concern in Maryland, Veil said, is that the jury
selection process has changed in recent years, pulling from not just
registered voters, which had been the standard practice, but also from
those who hold Maryland licenses and identification cards.
"It used to be that you had to have some involvement in the community" to be called for jury duty, he said.
District Public Defender Michael Morrissette said he doesn't think the change in jury duty selection matters.
"I think that the jury system works very well and juries in the
United States are overwhelmingly correct in their decisions - and
that's coming from a defense attorney," Morrissette said.
From an historical standpoint, Morrissette said, mystery novels
have been in existence for a long time. He called the "CSI Effect" a
recurring theme of debate among prosecutors and defense attorneys.
"To say that the current existence of a certain type of show is
influencing them (jurors) is underestimating the quality of our
citizenry," he said.
Had Morrissette been a defense attorney in the 1950s, he said,
he might argue that the popularity of the police show "Dragnet" was
influencing jurors to believe "police are always right, they always get
their man."
Veil, however, said that "the scientific emphasis of these newer
shows is far greater than television shows of the past and is more
professionally presented as though it is possible" to get the same
results in a real investigation.
Morrissette said he'd be interested to see a study that concludes "CSI" and similar shows affect jury decisions.
"I think it's all conjecture," he said.
But, Veil said, "Evidence of what influences jurors is by
definition anecdotal because jury deliberations are closed and
private."
And yet, he said, "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that people are influenced by television shows."
Morrissette proposed a question to be asked of jurors in a
rebuttal to the jury question that is already being asked here: "Do you
think that the fact that the state has failed to obtain DNA or
fingerprint evidence should be considered when determining the
defendant's guilt?"
Jeffrey Kercheval, the Western Maryland Regional Crime Lab's
supervisory forensic scientist, said that whether certain forensic
evidence is collected does not hinge on effort but on availability.
"On TV, it seems they find the right type of evidence right
away," said Kercheval, who, along with forensic scientist Susan
Blankenship, processes many Washington County crime scenes.
The two-person team collects fingerprint evidence "between 20 and 30 percent of the time," Kercheval said.
Humidity, surfaces, perspiration and pressure, among other
factors, have a lot to do with whether a solid print can be lifted, he
said.
If DNA evidence is collected, Kercheval might send the samples
to a Maryland State Police crime lab, but those results don't usually
come back for about six months. In a pinch, he said the local lab can
pay to send samples to a private lab, but even then, the return - at
its fastest - takes about two weeks.
Despite how TV shows depict Kercheval's job, they have drawn
interest to the field from students, lawmakers and even jurors, he
said.
During the last homicide trial in which Kercheval testified
about forensic evidence, he said, "When I was looking at the jurors, I
could see they were just mesmerized, they were into it. To me, that's
satisfying."