A Resealed Evidence Envelope and an Unlabeled Lift Card
Lift card L-3, taken from a window frame in a residential burglary, arrived at the laboratory in a manila envelope sealed with evidence tape bearing the initials 'JM' and a date. The tape had been cut through and resealed with a different brand of tape, with no additional initials or date. Inside were two lift cards: one labeled with the case number and item L-3 and a date, but no examiner initials; and one blank card with no case number, no date, and no initials. The submitting officer is on leave and unreachable for two weeks. The assigned examiner compares the labeled card and finds an identification to the defendant at ten features. Trial is in three weeks. The prosecutor says the defense will 'make a big deal' of the seal. The laboratory is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 and its SOP requires that packaging discrepancies be documented on receipt.
1. What should the examiner do on receipt and before beginning the comparison?
Read the worked answer
Stop, document, then proceed on a controlled path. Before opening anything, photograph the envelope in the condition received, including close-ups of the two tapes, the initials, the date, and the cut edge; note the date, time, and name of the person who received it. The resealing is already a fact - the goal is an accurate record, not a tidy one.
Route the discrepancy to the supervisor and quality manager as nonconforming work under the laboratory's accreditation requirements: evaluate its significance, decide on action, and record the decision. Contact the submitting officer, and if that person is on leave, contact the officer's supervisor or the agency's evidence custodian to establish the seal history - who opened the envelope, when, why, and what was done with the contents. The explanation goes in a memorandum added to the file; the original envelope, tapes, and markings are never altered, and no one backdates or adds initials on someone else's behalf.
The two lift cards are handled differently. The labeled card is attributable to the case by item number and date, so it can be examined, with the missing examiner initials noted as a documentation gap to be resolved through the submitting officer's agency. The blank card cannot be attributed to anything. It must not be examined as part of this case, must be segregated in its own packaging, and should be returned for identification, because comparing an unattributable lift to the defendant risks an association that has no basis in the case.
2. Does the broken seal affect the identification conclusion? How should the examiner reason about that?
Read the worked answer
Separate two questions that the prosecutor and the defense will blur together: whether the ridges on the card came from the same source as the known prints, and whether the item can be shown to be what the record says it is. The examiner answers the first. The second is a question of weight and admissibility for the court, informed by facts the examiner documents rather than resolves.
The comparison conclusion is not automatically invalidated by a packaging gap. If the lift card is labeled with the case number and the identification rests on ten features, the ridges themselves are unaffected by who cut the tape. But the examiner should think concretely about how the gap could matter: was there an interval in which the card could have been handled, substituted, or contaminated; was the seal opened by someone with a legitimate reason; is there any indication that the labeled card was itself created after the fact. The answers come from the agency's records, not from assumption.
What the examiner must not do is write or imply that the packaging was intact, or omit the discrepancy from the notes because it is inconvenient. The condition of the packaging as received belongs in the file, and the examiner should be prepared to state it plainly. If the seal history cannot be established at all, the examiner still reports the comparison result and lets the record show the gap. Concealment is the ethical failure here; the gap itself is a documentation problem, not proof of tampering.
3. How should the examiner prepare for testimony, and what should be avoided?
Read the worked answer
Prepare from the file, not from memory, and expect the seal to be the first topic rather than the last. Be able to describe exactly what arrived: the envelope, the initials, the date, the cut original tape, the different resealing tape, the absence of new initials, and the date and time of receipt. Be able to describe what was done about it: who was notified, what the submitting agency said, and where the memorandum is filed.
Say what is known and decline to speculate about the rest. If the officer's explanation is that the envelope was opened at the scene to photograph the lift, say that is the explanation received and identify its source; do not present it as something the examiner verified. Do not offer an opinion on who cut the tape, whether evidence was tampered with, or whether the defendant's rights were affected - those are not the examiner's conclusions. Do not use phrases like 'the chain of custody was intact' or 'the evidence was properly sealed.'
The identification testimony itself should proceed on the labeled card only, with the ten features and the basis for them presented as in any other case. Regarding the blank card, be prepared to explain why it was not examined and what was done with it. That answer demonstrates discipline: an unattributable lift is not evidence, and treating it as such would have been the actual error.