Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 127 views

    LANA CANEN vs. DENNIS CHAPMAN, ET - AL.

    Uploaded by

    DZAI DIARIES
    Lana Canen was convicted of murdering 94-year-old Helen Sailor based primarily on a fingerprint found at the crime scene that was identified as belonging to Canen by Detective Dennis Chapman. However, an independent expert later excluded Canen as the source of the print. At an evidentiary hearing, Chapman admitted he misidentified the print and overstated his experience and qualifications. The prosecutor asked that Canen's conviction be overturned based on Chapman's admission, and Chapman was disciplined by the sheriff's department.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    LANA CANEN vs. DENNIS CHAPMAN, ET - AL.

    Uploaded by

    DZAI DIARIES
    127 views2 pages
    Lana Canen was convicted of murdering 94-year-old Helen Sailor based primarily on a fingerprint found at the crime scene that was identified as belonging to Canen by Detective Dennis Chapman. However, an independent expert later excluded Canen as the source of the print. At an evidentiary hearing, Chapman admitted he misidentified the print and overstated his experience and qualifications. The prosecutor asked that Canen's conviction be overturned based on Chapman's admission, and Chapman was disciplined by the sheriff's department.

    Original Description:

    FYI.

    Original Title

    1. LANA CANEN vs. DENNIS CHAPMAN, ET.AL.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Lana Canen was convicted of murdering 94-year-old Helen Sailor based primarily on a fingerprint found at the crime scene that was identified as belonging to Canen by Detective Dennis Chapman. However, an independent expert later excluded Canen as the source of the print. At an evidentiary hearing, Chapman admitted he misidentified the print and overstated his experience and qualifications. The prosecutor asked that Canen's conviction be overturned based on Chapman's admission, and Chapman was disciplined by the sheriff's department.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    127 views2 pages

    LANA CANEN vs. DENNIS CHAPMAN, ET - AL.

    Uploaded by

    DZAI DIARIES
    Lana Canen was convicted of murdering 94-year-old Helen Sailor based primarily on a fingerprint found at the crime scene that was identified as belonging to Canen by Detective Dennis Chapman. However, an independent expert later excluded Canen as the source of the print. At an evidentiary hearing, Chapman admitted he misidentified the print and overstated his experience and qualifications. The prosecutor asked that Canen's conviction be overturned based on Chapman's admission, and Chapman was disciplined by the sheriff's department.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Lana Canen v.

    Dennis Chapman and Mark Daggy


    Case Number: 3:2014cv00315
    Filed: February 17, 2014
    Court: Indiana Northern District Court
    Presiding Judge: Rudy Lozano

    Facts:

    On November 28, 2002, 94-year-old Helen Sailor spent Thanksgiving


    with relatives and then got a ride back to her home at an apartment complex
    for the elderly, disabled and handicapped in Elkhart, Indiana. The following
    day, a health care provider and two relatives found Sailor strangled to death
    in her apartment, the premises ransacked. Because there was no forced entry,
    Elkhart police believed the victim knew her assailant. They began
    interviewing residents, but they were stymied and the investigation went
    cold.
     
    In August 2003, police revived the investigation and the following
    month, 28-year-old Andrew Royer, a mentally-handicapped resident of the
    building, was brought in for questioning. Police said that during
    interrogation, Royer at first made statements that indicated he was familiar
    with the crime and that upon further questioning, he admitted that he
    strangled Sailor with a rope. Police said Royer said he took jewelries and
    money. Royer was charged with murder on September 4, 2003.
     
    While some residents of the building expressed relief, others were
    skeptical that Royer was the killer because of his usually placid demeanor.
    In 2004, while Royer’s case was pending—his trial was delayed for three
    separate mental competency examinations—police said they received a tip
    that 44-year-old Lana Canen, who also lived in the complex and knew
    Royer, may have been involved in the crime. One of the investigating
    officers believed that Canen had previously burglarized apartments in the
    building, although there was no proof. Canen was questioned and denied any
    involvement in the crime. Police then interviewed a neighbor of Canen. The
    neighbor, who was a heavy drug user, told police that Canen had made
    incriminating statements, such as “no one was supposed to get hurt.” Canen
    was arrested on September 3, 2004—almost a year to the day after Royer
    was charged—and her fingerprints were compared to fingerprints found in
    the victim’s apartment.
     
    Elkhart police asked Dennis Chapman, a detective with the Elkhart
    County Sheriff’s Department, to conduct a comparison of a latent print
    found on a plastic pill container in Sailor’s apartment with Canen’s
    fingerprints. Although Chapman had some training in fingerprint
    classification and the examination of rolled fingerprints, he had no training
    in conducting latent fingerprint comparisons. After conducting his
    examination, he concluded the latent print matched Canen’s left little finger.
    Canen was then charged with murder.
     
    Royer and Canen went on trial together in Elkhart County Circuit
    Court. The primary evidence against Royer was his confession. The
    principal evidence against Canen was the fingerprint and the neighbor who
    testified that Canen had made incriminating statements. Chapman testified
    that he had matched Canen’s fingerprint to the print on the plastic container.

    ISSUE:
    Whether Chapman is qualified to conduct, analyze and testify on the
    results of the fingerprint analysis despite lack of training and qualifications.

    HELD:
    On August 10, 2005, the jury convicted Royer and Canen. They were
    each sentenced to 55 years in prison. Their convictions were upheld by the
    Court of Appeals of Indiana.
    After Canen’s conviction, attorney Cara Wieneke, took on the
    case and believed that Canen was innocent.  Wieneke hired an independent
    expert to conduct an analysis of the fingerprint.  The expert told Wieneke
    that, based on her analysis, Canen was excluded.  According to Wieneke, the
    prosecutor refused a request to have the state crime lab re-analyze the print.
    Canen was then granted an evidentiary hearing and her expert prepared a
    report on her findings.  That report was turned over to the prosecutor and
    reviewed by Detective Chapman.

    Here is where things get interesting.   According to Elkhart County


    Sheriff Brad Rogers, Detective Chapman saw that evidence depicted a
    higher level of analysis of the print, the sheriff said, and Chapman was
    convinced he made an error.  Chapman reported his error to his supervisor,
    and Rogers ordered an internal investigation. “It was discovered Chapman
    conducted a basic comparison of the print based on his experience and
    training at that time, but the comparison did not go far enough,” Rogers said.
    “Detective Chapman’s analysis was in error.”  Rogers said the sheriff’s
    department has core values of integrity and fairness. He added that Chapman
    admitted his error openly in court and to Rogers’ office on his own initiative.
    At the evidentiary hearing, Detective Chapman admitted that he made a
    misidentification.  He testified that his current opinion is based on additional
    training that he received since Canen’s trial.  Detective Chapman also
    admitted that he overstated his experience to jurors at the trial.

    As a result of the hearing, the prosecutor asked that the murder


    conviction be overturned.  In addition, Detective Chapman was disciplined
    but sheriff gave no details.  

    You might also like