60
CRIMINAL JUSTICE | FALL 2021
scientific evidence
Published in Criminal Justice, Volume 36, Number 3, Fall 2021. © 2021 by the American Bar Association.
Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.This information or any portion thereof may not be
copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database orretrieval
system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
JULES EPSTEIN is Professor of Law and Direc-
tor of Advocacy at Temple Beasley School of Law. He
serves as a member of the Third Circuit Taskforce.
The head-
line was
simple—
another person
exonerated in
a case where
police claim he
had confessed
and where two
eyewitnesses
positively identi-
fied him. But
absent from the
story was any
mention of DNA
as the exculpating tool. Instead, it was reported
as follows:
The experts reviewed surveillance
footage of the botched heist of Northeast
Philadelphia’s William Glatz Jewelers—
which ended in a shootout that killed
both Glatz and robber Kevin Turner—and
concluded the perpetrator was at least
four inches shorter than Onyiah. That
aligned with the height estimates given by
all four eyewitnesses on the scene in 2010.
Samantha Melamed, Lawyers Say Philly Cops
Coerced a Man to Confess to Murder. He’s
Cleared After 10 Years, Phila. Inquirer (May 4,
2021), https://bit.ly/374Fze4. The tool used was
photogrammetry.
This was the second instance known to this
author in which measurement showed that a
person named as being the individual in a crime
scene photo was shown, using technology, to
be wrongly identified. In 2013, Tahmir Craig
was released after 10 months in jail, where he
sat charged with a murder he did not commit.
When a photo from a surveillance camera was
broadcast to the public, a store owner acquaint-
ed with Craig identified him as the individual
leaving the murder scene. After the photo was
analyzed by the FBI, “it was determined the
shooter’s height was 5’11”; Tahmir Craig is 5’5”.”
Man Wrongfully Arrested in Chester Murder
Freed After 10 Months, 6ABC (Mar. 20, 2013),
https://6abc.com/archive/9035084/.
The process is not new, and in one of the first
reported instances of its use, it was prosecu-
tion evidence:
By analyzing two photographs, FBI
Agent Douglas Goodin concluded and
testified that the Berkeley robber was
between 5’3” tall and 5’6” tall. Quinn is
5’5”″ tall. To determine the Berkeley
robber’s height, Agent Goodin used a
process in which a formula is derived
by measuring the change in the
dimensions of objects in a photograph
as they move away from the camera.
After testing the formula against
objects of known dimensions in the
photograph, Goodin was able to make
an estimate of the robber’s height.
United States v. Quinn, 18 F.3d 1461, 1464 (9th
Cir. 1994). Indeed, one author traces its origins
to Leonardo DaVinci and the study of perspec-
tive. And like DNA evidence, what was first
used as a means to support a conviction is now
utilized to show actual innocence.
The general reliability of photogramme-
try evidence is seemingly well established.
“Federal and state courts have recognized
photogrammetry as being a reliable science
and have allowed expert testimony on the
subject....” Kittle v. St. Jude’s Co., 2010 Colo.
Dist. LEXIS 2037, at *3 (January 13, 2010). At
the same time, photogrammetry evidence is
not always proper. A recent decision reversed
a trial court’s admission of prosecution pho-
togrammetry testimony because the original
photograph, shot at night and less than “pris-
tine,” left too many variables unknown. The
expert admitted that
there was “incalculable uncertainty”
based on factors such as the quality of
the image (it was taken at night), the
unevenness of the terrain, the body
position of the individual, the inability to
see his feet, and the head covering the
individual was wearing. She expressed
concern about this particular examina-
tion because the subject was standing
a “considerable distance” from the cam-
era, felt obligated to “qualify” her results
because the uneven terrain would make
by JULES EPSTEIN
Photogram-
metry—
Sharper than
the Eye
