The Science of Fingerprinting

The Tenth Circuit issued a decision yesterday involving a thorough exploration of the science of fingerprint evidence.  United States v. Baines, No. 08-2098.  The sole issue on appeal was the defendant's contention that the district court erroneously admitted fingerprint evidence tying the defendant to a drug crime. 

Although studies cited by the government show that there is almost no chance that two people will have the same fingerprint, the defendant's challenge involved the question of matching fingerprints. According to the defendant, typically a "latent" fingerprint pulled from a crime scene is only 22% of a "known" print (i.e., a print specifically taken for identification purposes).  As to the matching issue, however, the government's expert testified that the FBI "made, on average, about one erroneous identification every 11 years."  (I find that hard to believe.  How does one go about identifying mis-identifications -- the unknown unknowns, as Donald Rumsfeld would say?)

The government prevailed in convincing the Tenth Circuit that the fingerprint evidence was admissible -- but just barely.  Although the Third Circuit has ruled the same way, it would not be surprising if a circuit split developed on this issue.  Daubert notwithstanding, the real basis for the court's decision is in the last paragraph of the court's analysis:

In closing, we echo the thoughts of Judge Pollak, who said regarding the desirability of research to provide the scrutiny and independent verification of the scientific method to aid in assessing the reliability of fingerprint evidence, that such efforts would be "all to the good.  But to postpone present in-court utilization of this 'bedrock forensic identifier' pending such research would be to make the best the enemy of the good.  United States v. Llera Plaza, 188 F. Supp. 2d 549, 572 (E.D. Pa. 2002).

Comments

[Term papers]

Finger printing is one the great wonder of science really hats off and thanks for sharing..!