Hall and Player- Forensic evidence

Background-Charlton 2010 identified the main motives of fingerprint analysts; Expression of satisfaction with their job, skills, successful, and crime solving.
Aims- 1.To see if trained fingerprint experts are affected by the emotional context of a case. 2. To see if the written report supplied with fingerprint would affect an expert’s interpretation
Method:Field experiment with an Independent measures design, random allocation: 1.Low emotional context – allegation of forgery (victimless crime) 2. High emotional context – allegation of murder.
Sample- Self-selecting sample of 70 fingerprint experts all working for Met Police Fingerprint Bureau
Procedure-Fingerprint (right forefinger) from a volunteer inked onto paper and scanned onto a £50 note,Background of note obscured the ridge detail - fingerprint=poor quality,Participants provided with an envelope with one of the test marks, a 10-print fingerprint form, and a sheet of paper telling them that the print was of the right forefinger, Ps asked to consider if the print was a match / not a match / insufficient detail to decide, Ps asked if they had referred to the crime scene report and if it had affected their analysis.

1 of 2

Results- 57/70 read the crime scene examination report prior to examining the prints. Thirty of these were from the high-context scenario group
52% of the 30 Ps from the ‘high emotional context’ scenario who read the crime scene report said they were affected by it. Significantly different from the 6% in the other group
No significant difference between the decisions made by the 2 groups
No significant difference between the 2 groups as to whether the experts would feel confident in presenting the evidence in court.

Conclusions- Emotional context has no effect on the experts’ final opinions about a fingerprint match
Fingerprint experts are able to deal with the fingerprint analysis in a non-emotional manner
Further research needed e.g. length of service and type of crime.

2 of 2

Get Revising