print analysis?”
“No.”
“I thought you said you did.” He looked down at the legal pad he was holding. “I believe when Mr. Denton asked, ‘What did you find around the opening on the cans,’ you answered, ‘We found lip prints.’ We, as in yourself and others.” He removed his reading glasses and looked at Saperstein.
“That’s not what I meant.”
“But it is what you said.”
“I meant it as the collective ‘we,’ like those of us in the lab. People, in general.”
“In general? Did you, in fact, have anything to do with the lip print comparisons? I’m speaking about you, personally. Not the collective you, he said with a smile.
“No, I did not.”
Warwick strolled away from Saperstein, and then stopped. “So this was just a generalization.”
“Yes.”
“But generalizations are often wrong, Mr. Saperstein. What else did you tell the jury that was inaccurate?”
“Objection.”
“Sustained,” Calvino said. “Move on, Mr. Warwick.”
The public defender nodded, then paused for a moment. “Is it standard procedure for one criminalist to collect the data and evidence and another to conduct the testing?”
“I guess it depends on the lab. But not at ours, not usually.”
“I’m curious, Mr. Saperstein, why haven’t I heard of lip print analysis before?”
“It’s not widely used.”
“And why is that?”
“We used to think that there aren’t as many occasions where lip prints are left at crime scenes, as opposed to fingerprints, which are quite common due to the handling of material objects. It’s kind of like the pinky finger. Prints of the pinky are not recorded in the national databases because they’re so seldom left behind by a perpetrator. But we’re finding that that’s simply not the case with lip prints-there are many instances where they’re left at crime scenes. A window, or door, for instance, where the criminal looks inside and holds his face right up to the glass. Not to mention cases where the suspect has left prints on a glass he drank from, on photographs, letters, envelopes-”
“Is it widely known, this lip print analysis?”
“It’s still not commonly practiced, but most criminalists I come into contact with know about it.”
“Sort of a trick of the trade?”
Saperstein grinned: “Yes, you might say that.”
Denton winced. He knew what was coming.
“So how many other tricks do you have in your bag, sir?”
“That’s not what I meant.”
“Again? I do wish you’d say what you mean. But allow me to rephrase. How many tricks were used in your analysis of the physical evidence?”
“You’re twisting my words,” Saperstein said calmly, though his face was shading red. “And if you truly want to-”
“I withdraw the question,” Warwick said. “I’ll ask you this instead: is this ‘trick’ one of your so-called scientific methods that we’re supposed to believe without questioning its validity?”
“You know as well as I do-”
“Just answer the question, please.”
“That’s what I’m trying to do, Mr. Warwick, if you’d let me speak-”
“A simple yes or no is all I want-”
“Objection, Your Honor,” shouted Denton. “He’s badgering the witness, and not permitting him the freedom to answer any of his questions.”
“Mr. Warwick. Make your point and move on. And please permit Mr. Saperstein proper time to answer your questions.”
Warwick nodded at the judge, and then turned back to Saperstein. “Yes or no, sir? Is this trick one of the so- called scientific methods that you and your collective colleagues used in evaluating this physical evidence?”
“I can’t answer your question within those narrow parameters.”
Denton smiled. Saperstein was not going to fall into another trap. He may have made a couple of mistakes, but he was one who learned from his errors and adapted.
“Your Honor,” pleaded Warwick with outstretched hands, “please direct the witness to answer.”
“Mr. Saperstein, please answer the question.”
Saperstein turned to Calvino. “I would like to comply, Your Honor, but I can’t answer it in the manner in which Mr. Warwick has phrased it. He’s twisting what I’m saying and attempting to force me into saying something that wouldn’t be accurate. Does the court wish me to answer incorrectly, or can I be given the proper opportunity to provide truthful information?”
“Answer the question to the best of your ability, sir,” Calvino said.
Denton fought back a smile. Saperstein had squelched a favorite tactic of adversarial attorneys who attempted to elicit certain testimony that appeared to be favorable to their case using the narrow parameters inherent in “yes” or “no” answers.
“There are no tricks or sleight of hand here,” Saperstein said. “Everything I do in the lab is based on scientific procedure. The tests I perform are widely accepted in the field of forensics, to the best of my knowledge. The-”
“Your Honor,” Warwick said, “would you please instruct the witness not to narrate but to merely answer the question?”
“I am answering the question,” Saperstein said. “Your Honor, counsel asked me if this was a trick or a scientific method, and I’m explaining what was done.”
“You opened the door, Mr. Warwick. Let’s hear his answer. Continue, Mr. Saperstein.”
“The method of lip print detection is called queiloscopy. It was mentioned in the literature as far back as 1902, and discussed in more detail in 1950 by a medicolegal consultant working on a case here in the Sacramento area. It wasn’t used as a means of personal identification until I believe 1960, when Dr. Santos of Brazil devised a system for classifying the differences in individuals’ lip prints. Around the same time, Japanese Professors Suzuki and Tsuchiahashi developed their own method of identification-”
“I have that paper right here,” Warwick said, tossing a few stapled pages onto the banister of the witness stand. “Is this what you’re basing your analysis on?”
“That is part of what’s accepted as baseline research in the field-”
“Read the highlighted portion, Mr. Saperstein,” Warwick said, pointing at the article.
Saperstein picked up the pages and read the portion Warwick requested. “Lip prints were collected from two hundred eight individuals, consisting of one hundred fifty males and one hundred thirty females, aged six to fifty- seven years.”
“So, Mr. Saperstein, this ‘scientific method’ you are so intent on using against my client is based on a research study of only two hundred eighty people? I would think that would be more scientific — and therefore more reliable-if the study involved thousands of test subjects. Wouldn’t it, sir?”
Saperstein took a breath and let it out slowly. “Is that a question you would like me to respond to, or do you want to answer that one yourself as well?”
Calvino scowled. “Mr. Saperstein, lose the attitude.”
Saperstein nodded apologetically at Calvino and turned back to Warwick, who was enjoying the moment of admonition. “Yes, Mr. Warwick, that study is what I’m basing my opinions on. That study as well as the follow-up study performed by the same researchers eight years later, in which one thousand four hundred people were evaluated. And the research involving one thousand five hundred people in the 1980s, conducted at the Department of Criminalistics of Civic Militia Headquarters in Poland.
“In that study, the patterns of the lines in the red part of lips were categorized, utilizing a ten-millimeter portion of the middle part of the lower lip-a section that’s almost always visible in a print. Several linear
