Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons Theses and Dissertations Student Scholarship Fall 2007 The seU of Offender Profiling Evidence in Criminal Cases Norbert Ebisike Golden Gate University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/theses Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Ebisike, Norbert, "The sU e of Offender Profiling Evidence in Criminal Cases" (2007). Theses and Dissertations. Paper 23. This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 11/02-/0 7 THE USE OF OFFENDER PROFILING EVIDENCE IN L-cw~ CoJ2-f, CRIMINAL CASES . I ./-M,. ,. ~7; BY NORBERT EBISIKE A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF JURIDICAL SCIENCE AT GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Dean Emeritus and Professor Peter Keane Professor Dr. Christian Okeke Distinguished Professor Emeritus Dr. Sompong Sucharitkul 2007 Table of Contents Acknow iedgements .................................................................. 3 Research Methodology ............................................................. 5 Abstract ................................................................................6 Introduction ...........................................................................8 CHAPTER ONE: What is Offender Profiling? ....................................... 13 1.1 Definition of Offender Profiling ... ........................... '" ................... 13 1.2 Rationale for Offender Profiling ... ................................................. 16 1.3 Purpose/Goals of Offender Profiling ... ............................................ 17 1.4 Crime Scene Staging ............................................................ ....... 21 1.5 Modus Operandi ......................................................................... 22 1.6 Offender's Signature ................................................................... 23 1.7 Motives of a Crime ...................................................................... 25 1.8 Linkage Analysis ... ...................................................................... 26 1.9 Types of Crime Suitable for Profiling ....................................... .... 27 1.10 History and Development of Offender Profiling ... ............................ 29 CHAPTER TWO: Approaches to Offender Profiling ..................... 56 2.1 Diagnostic Evaluation Approach ... ................................................ 56 2.2 Criminal Investigative Analysis/FBI Approach ......... .................. ...... 60 2.3 Investigative Psychology Approach ... ............................................. 77 2.4 Geographic Profiling ................................................................... 90 2.5 Behavioral Evidence Analysis Approach ........................................ 93 2.6 Crime Action Profiling ................................................................. 97 CHAPTER THREE: Expert Testimony: The Conflicting Rules and Standards ........................................................................... 100 3.1 The general rules and principles governing the admissibility ofscientific evidence in general ... ................. , ....................... , ..................... ...... 100 1 1 3.2 The Frye Test Standard ... ..................................................... .... 102 3.3 Federal Rules ofEvidence ... ..................................................... 124 3.4 The Daubert Decision .............................................................. 138 3.5 General Electric Co ................................................................. 151 3.6 Kumho Tire Co ....................................................................... 156 CHAPTER FOUR: Offender Profiling in the Courtroom ............... 163 4.1 Is Offender Profiling Impermissible Character Evidence? ................ 164 4.2 Who is Qualified to give Expert Offender Profiling Testimony? ....... 185 4.3 Is Offender Profiling too Prejudicial than Probative? ....................... 194 4.4 Is Offender Profiling an Opinion on the Ultimate Issue? ................... 213 4.5 Is Offender Profiling Sufficiently Reliable as to be Admissible? ....... 221 CHAPTER FIVE: Offender Profiling in Comparative Perspective ... 268 5.1 Offender Profiling in England ... ................................................. 268 5.2 Offender Profiling in Canada ... ................................................... 283 5.3 Offender Profiling in Other Countries ... ....................................... 298 CONCLUSION ................................................................... 303 TABLE OF CASES ............................................................... 312 BIBLIOGRAPHy ............................................................... 315 l 2 Acknowledgements The members of my dissertation committee have been a source of inspiration and it is a great honor and pleasure of having them as my advisers. I would like to thank them for believing in me. I am greatly indebted to my dissertation supervisor, Dean Emeritus and Professor Peter Keane, for the first class level of supervision that I have received. His prompt responses to my work and detailed suggestions and advice made it possible for me to produce this comprehensive, and interesting work, as well as being able to finish the program on schedule. Distinguished Professor Emeritus Sompong Sucharitkul provided me with a wide range of international and comparative perspectives to this dissertation. I will forever be grateful to him for his excellent suggestions, advice and encouragement. Professor Christian Okeke's insights, suggestions, advice and encouragement also ensured that I never gave up my constant curiosity to learn. Furthermore, I would like to thank the committee members for their open door policy, for sharing their knowledge and for showing me the 'light'. They always made out the time to advise me even without prior notice. I would also like to thank my parents for their continued belief that education is a good investment that opens many doors. May I also use this opportunity to express my appreciation to my brothers and sisters for their encouragement and understanding throughout this program. 3 My sincere gratitude goes to all the staff of Golden Gate University Center for Advanced International Legal Studies for their excellent support and encouragement. I would like to thank Jonathan Chu, Administrative Director and John Pluebell, the Assistant Director of the graduate programs, for their encouragement and for helping me with the administrative side of things. My special thanks also go to Melissa Beuoy, at the Golden Gate University Law Library, for her excellent and speedy assistance. She made sure that I received all materials without any delay. Finally, I would like to thank many people who assisted me in one way or the other throughout this research. Many thanks to the offender profiling experts who assisted me by sharing their knowledge and information with me. I 4 Research Methodology This dissertation is a qualitative research with two methods of study. It involved interviews with Crime Scene Analysts and Offender Profilers. This method provided first hand and up to date information on the different approaches to offender profiling. The standard legal research method of case analysis has also been used. This involved extensive case analysis. Cases that involved offender profiling have been analyzed. This method provided adequate background information on the admissibility problems of offender profiling evidence. The limitation to this dissertation is the unwillingness of some profilers to grant interviews and share their knowledge. 5 ~...................... --------- Abstract This dissertation examined the use of offender profiling evidence in criminal cases. The meaning, history, approaches and legal admissibility of offender profiling have been discussed. The introduction of offender profiling into the courtroom has been controversial, problematic and full of inconsistencies. This dissertation therefore, examined the central problems with offender profiling evidence, and answered such questions as - Is offender profiling impermissible character evidence? Who is qualified to give expert profiling evidence? Is offender profiling too prejudicial than probative? Is offender profiling an opinion on the ultimate issue? Is offender profiling sufficiently reliable as to be admissible? This dissertation has noted that in United States, there are inconsistencies in the court decisions on offender profiling evidence as a result of the three conflicting rules governing the admissibility of expert evidence. After a critical examination of the three rules, the adoption of one rule has been suggested. The Frye test standard combined with the Federal Rules of Evidence 702 provides the best admissibility standard. Many people are confused as to the appropriate discipline of offender profiling. This dissertation has therefore, presented a step by step analysis of the history and development of offender profiling. Offender profiling is a multi-disciplinary practice that cuts across many disciplines. At the moment, it is best described as an art with the potential of becoming a science. This dissertation concludes that offender