Clarification of Expert Witnesses WARNING!! snippy

[Jolynna]

http://www.k9fleck.org/sar/cadaver_dog.html


The Federal and State case law states that when one of these types of dogs alerts to or locates human odor, that alert is only one reasonable suspicion indicator.

Reasonable suspicion is defined as a "particularized and objective basis for suspected legal wrongdoing". In this case, the wrongdoing may be a suspect, a track or trail of a suspect or scent line up.

The dog alert is simply one indicator of wrongdoing. Now, the peace officer in charge of the case must develop other reasonable suspicion indicators to develop probable cause. "Probable cause exists when under the totality of circumstances known to the arresting officer; a prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair probability that the defendant had committed a crime."
These other reasonable suspicion indicators may be direct or circumstantial evidence.

The bottom line to a human scent K-9 handler is this; the dog alert must be corroborated by other evidence.



Kerr v Lyford (171 F.3d 330 U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit, 1999)

The court found probable cause in this case, based upon these reasonable suspicion elements:

Statements of the child witnesses implicating the Kerrs in their own sexual abuse and in Wilson's abduction, rape and murder;
Medical examinations of the children that revealed scarring consistent with their tales of sexual molestation;
Confessions and statements supplied by adult witnesses Geer, Martin, and Wanda Kerr, verified by polygraph, consistent with those of the children in implicating the Kerrs in the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Wilson;
Corroborative physical evidence such as masks, knives, and other instrumentalities of restraint and torture that were referred to by the children;
An infrared scanning device and a cadaver-sensing dog suggested the presence of human remains on the Kerr's property, and bones (albeit not conclusively human) were unearthed;
The shed in the Kerrs' backyard--which had been identified by some of the children and the adults as the place where Wilson's body had been kept--was also alerted to by the dog and, suspiciously, showed signs of recent washing and repainting.


IMO....the disturbed soil in the Anthony's back yard, and cleaning of the car creates probable cause. Now, wait for the defense to attempt to get the car thrown out entirely.

As YM is an experienced homicide detective, the smell itself would have been a big UH OH that needed following up on.

 

[JSR]

The visual of Baez arguing before a Federal Court judge is too much for me! :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: whew! He should never, ever...I mean not EVER.

I know of one in particular Judge out here in Central District. She would chew him up and spit him back out again. I'd pay money to see her do it. Federal Courts are VERY strict JB would never cut it in Federal Practice. I'd also pay money to see him attempt to handle a Federal Circuit appeal. Heee hee.

 

[beach]

Just thought I would point out that for someone who had NOTHING - no notes, no opinions, no info, as he indicated in his snippy email to Ashton - 329 pages were filed today.

Three-hundred and twenty-nine pages. :innocent:

 

[strach304]

am I reading JB wrong? In 4 (b) of Fairgrieve, is he suggesting that since the dogs alerted on the trunk, yard, etc and NO BODY was found in any of those places, that they're obviously not reliable? He uses casey's right to confront her accuser (the dog) and "the fact that the alerts resulted in negative results for human remains".

Is he for real?

There was a Frye hearing for the dogs in the Scott Peterson case, same arguments. There's a testing and rating system done for the dogs once a year for accuracy. It was allowed in the SP case based on that specific dogs rating.

 

[JSR]

http://www.k9fleck.org/sar/cadaver_dog.html


The Federal and State case law states that when one of these types of dogs alerts to or locates human odor, that alert is only one reasonable suspicion indicator.

Reasonable suspicion is defined as a "particularized and objective basis for suspected legal wrongdoing". In this case, the wrongdoing may be a suspect, a track or trail of a suspect or scent line up.

The dog alert is simply one indicator of wrongdoing. Now, the peace officer in charge of the case must develop other reasonable suspicion indicators to develop probable cause. "Probable cause exists when under the totality of circumstances known to the arresting officer; a prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair probability that the defendant had committed a crime."
These other reasonable suspicion indicators may be direct or circumstantial evidence.

The bottom line to a human scent K-9 handler is this; the dog alert must be corroborated by other evidence.



Kerr v Lyford (171 F.3d 330 U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit, 1999)

The court found probable cause in this case, based upon these reasonable suspicion elements:

Statements of the child witnesses implicating the Kerrs in their own sexual abuse and in Wilson's abduction, rape and murder;
Medical examinations of the children that revealed scarring consistent with their tales of sexual molestation;
Confessions and statements supplied by adult witnesses Geer, Martin, and Wanda Kerr, verified by polygraph, consistent with those of the children in implicating the Kerrs in the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Wilson;
Corroborative physical evidence such as masks, knives, and other instrumentalities of restraint and torture that were referred to by the children;
An infrared scanning device and a cadaver-sensing dog suggested the presence of human remains on the Kerr's property, and bones (albeit not conclusively human) were unearthed;
The shed in the Kerrs' backyard--which had been identified by some of the children and the adults as the place where Wilson's body had been kept--was also alerted to by the dog and, suspiciously, showed signs of recent washing and repainting.


IMO....the disturbed soil in the Anthony's back yard, and cleaning of the car creates probable cause. Now, wait for the defense to attempt to get the car thrown out entirely.

I just ran a shepards on the above case. Unfortunately in 2003 this case (at least in PART) was overruled.

Check out the shepard's report.

Added: Although I'd have to look at the overruled case it's possible the relevant issues in our case may not be affected.

 

[LancelotLink]

Can someone more learned help me? I've gone thru Dr. Fairgrieve's lengthy credentials and see nothing to indicate he is an expert on cadaver dogs.

 

[JSR]

Can someone more learned help me? I've gone thru Dr. Fairgrieve's lengthy credentials and see nothing to indicate he is an expert on cadaver dogs.

I haven't found anything either. And I can find loads of stuff with my Lexis account.

 

[LancelotLink]

Baez has a neck???

Who knew?

Yes, it is hard to see but it there, under that noose and the giant chip on his shoulder...oh wait, that's his head.

 

[beach]

I just ran a shepards on the above case. Unfortunately in 2003 this case (at least in PART) was overruled.

Check out the shepard's report.

Added: Although I'd have to look at the overruled case it's possible the relevant issues in our case may not be affected.

I can't get into Westlaw to KeyCite right now. Can you please shepard this one and see if it is still good law. :angel:

People v King (04 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8280 Court of Appeal California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, 2004)



The dog scent evidence was admissible, due to the fact that the dog was trained, certified and reliable:

• The dog's handler was qualified by training and experience to use the dog;
• The dog was adequately trained in distinguishing the odor of human cadaver scent;
• The dog has been found to be reliable in alerting on an area where a human cadaver scent has existed;
• The vehicle line-up wherein defendant's vehicle was placed and wherein the canine, Scout, and his handler participated was properly and fairly conducted;
• The defendant's vehicle and the scent within had not become stale or contaminated at the time of the line-up.

Summary:
As the majority of the United States cadaver dog industry is civilian based, it is important to understand the impact of case law. The actions of civilian cadaver dogs affect the law enforcement cadaver dog industry and vice-versa.
An alert from a cadaver dog is only reasonable suspicion. The dog alert must be corroborated by other evidence

 

[LancelotLink]

I haven't found anything either. And I can find loads of stuff with my Lexis account.

Found an interesting article concerning his expert testimony on cadaver dogs for a trial in Sept/ 2010, about the same time he began his doggie workshop, whatever that is...
http://www.wave3.com/story/13223549/search-dogs-hit-on-locations-in-and-around-news-apartment

 

[logicalgirl]

I get a blank page when I try to open. Can you give us an idea of what he said?

Bwwwaahhhaaa! That IS the report!!

 

[Lera213]

JB use of the witness my bet is to say something like the body wouldn't have decomposed enough to have a smell at the time the dogs hit on it. Also JB is using the OJ defense. He is attacking experts with another expert witness.

My guess is JB is going after all the evidence to give the probable cause in order to throw out the States more damning evidence.

 

[JSR]

I can't get into Westlaw to KeyCite right now. Can you please shepard this one and see if it is still good law. :angel:

People v King (04 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8280 Court of Appeal California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, 2004)



The dog scent evidence was admissible, due to the fact that the dog was trained, certified and reliable:

• The dog's handler was qualified by training and experience to use the dog;
• The dog was adequately trained in distinguishing the odor of human cadaver scent;
• The dog has been found to be reliable in alerting on an area where a human cadaver scent has existed;
• The vehicle line-up wherein defendant's vehicle was placed and wherein the canine, Scout, and his handler participated was properly and fairly conducted;
• The defendant's vehicle and the scent within had not become stale or contaminated at the time of the line-up.

Summary:
As the majority of the United States cadaver dog industry is civilian based, it is important to understand the impact of case law. The actions of civilian cadaver dogs affect the law enforcement cadaver dog industry and vice-versa.
An alert from a cadaver dog is only reasonable suspicion. The dog alert must be corroborated by other evidence

I'm working on it. The darn citation isn't right.

 

[beach]

Found an interesting article concerning his expert testimony on cadaver dogs for a trial in Sept/ 2010, about the same time he began his doggie workshop, whatever that is...
http://www.wave3.com/story/13223549/search-dogs-hit-on-locations-in-and-around-news-apartment

ZsaZsa commented about this case a few days ago. She said she knew that the cadaver dog alerts were excluded in the Cecil New case. She wasn't sure why. So not sure if it was denied through a Frye hearing or for some other reason.

 

[beach]

I'm working on it. The darn citation isn't right.

Thank you! That explains why I couldn't find it when I did a quick search the other day. LOL!

I only had a few minutes to search a few cases...I think on Monday. I want to go back and dig through the 11th Circuit cases. That will give us a better idea.

 

[Amil]

your honor, this is legally insufficient for the court to even entertain, wrong on the facts and wrong on the law, the motion itself is internally inconsistent. Indeed the entire motion is replete with errors from top to bottom. We ask that the court strike it. If the defense wants to go back and prepare a proper motion by the legal requirements, they are free to do so at a later date. Right now, it doesn't even come close....it is.....a farce! -LKB

<credit to TWA for this quote>

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Defense Taphonomy Expert

I think you mean LDB not LKB (she was a defense atty who left).

 

[JSR]

I can't get into Westlaw to KeyCite right now. Can you please shepard this one and see if it is still good law. :angel:

People v King (04 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8280 Court of Appeal California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, 2004)



The dog scent evidence was admissible, due to the fact that the dog was trained, certified and reliable:

• The dog's handler was qualified by training and experience to use the dog;
• The dog was adequately trained in distinguishing the odor of human cadaver scent;
• The dog has been found to be reliable in alerting on an area where a human cadaver scent has existed;
• The vehicle line-up wherein defendant's vehicle was placed and wherein the canine, Scout, and his handler participated was properly and fairly conducted;
• The defendant's vehicle and the scent within had not become stale or contaminated at the time of the line-up.

Summary:
As the majority of the United States cadaver dog industry is civilian based, it is important to understand the impact of case law. The actions of civilian cadaver dogs affect the law enforcement cadaver dog industry and vice-versa.
An alert from a cadaver dog is only reasonable suspicion. The dog alert must be corroborated by other evidence

NOT good law since it's unpublished.

But one hell of a good read.

Everyone needs to read this case.

 

[sleutherontheside]

NOT good law since it's unpublished.

But one hell of a good read.

Everyone needs to read this case.

the trail had not become stale or contaminated." (Ibid.) pg 6

Is this what stikes interest????

 

[JSR]

the trail had not become stale or contaminated." (Ibid.) pg 6

Is this what stikes interest????

Well it would be interesting if the Anthony case was in CA, unfortunately it's not. But I want to know how FL handles these issues.

 

[Aedrys]

So does JB think the cadaver dogs heard GA and CA when they said the trunk smelled like it had a dead body in it? When you find a body you usually don't need the dogs to identify it as a body. I agree they are a tool pretty much what the experts use in their line of work to come to conclusions. I'm confused. Why would the experts argue about the dogs?

They will probably argue about the validity of the dogs and the training of the dogs. What befuddles me is the disgraceful attitude he had towards the dogs. Of course dogs won't testify, he says. WTF? Does he fear the prosecution bringing in a wizard to cast a spell so the dogs can talk? Are these dogs ruining this case for him that much? I mean, seriously, Baez, don't be hatin' on the dogs. That is the least of your worries right now. I'd take a dog any day over your defendant. It's things like that you should be worried about, not the dang dogs. Sheesh. He must not own any dogs, or if he does, I bet he kicks them a lot.

Wow, the attitude. And I am confused. If he doesn't know or can't say what the major of his experts are going to testify to, isn't that a HUGE problem? How can he say he can't comment on that yet? Hasn't the prosecution shared all of it's experts with them? I swear, his attitude is SO PARANOID. He acts like, seriously, that the state has something up their sleeves with every single expert they have that the defense doesn't know about. Is this supposed to play into his saying the prosecution hasn't shared everything?

He either thinks this attitude is some sort of scheme to benefit the defense, or he's going to need a rubber room by the time the trial gets here if his paranoia keeps growing by leaps and bounds like this. And I highly doubt this attitude is going to go over well with HHJP.