Charles R. Kingston, Paul L. Kirk - School of Criminology. University of California, Berkeley, United States
An Analysis Of Standards In Fingerprint Identification Reprinted from the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, June, 1972
"Long Experience in the FBI Identification Division has shown that 12 ridge characteristics which correspond in shape and relationship are ample in any case to establish and identification"
Reliability Standards? The 1973 IAI and 1995 Ne'urim resolution:
By Dusty Clark (email@example.com)
Scientific Conclusions- The scientific analysis applied to latent fingerprints and other forensic impression evidence:
By Dusty Clark 1/14/00 (firstname.lastname@example.org)
By Prof. Andre Moenssens (www.forensic-evidence.com)
THE DISTURBING IRONY OF THE DAUBERT HEARING IN THE CASE OF
U.S. V. BYRON C. MITCHELL
Dr. James L. Wayman, Director,U.S. National Biometric Test Center, College of Engineering, San Jose State University
Standards In The Comparison and Identification"
"A MATTER OF STANDARDS" A discussion by Arie Zeelenberg - Netherlands Senior Advisor Fingerprints National Police Service, February 16, 2011
By: Mike Weiss, A Section of the Sunday San Francisco Examiner & Chronicle
Sunday, May 28, 2000 *
* From the Robert NAWI case cited in the above article:
REPLY TO PEOPLE'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING PURSUANT TO PEOPLE V. KELLY (1976) 17 CAL. 3D 24, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR FUNDS TO RETAIN FINGERPRINT EXPERTS AND TO PERMIT THEIR TESTIMONY BEFORE THE JURY- March 3, 2000
By Dr. Christophe Champod
TECHNOLOGY GOES TO COURT (Science/Daubert): From Spring 2001 issue of TechBeat, published by the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center; a program of the National Institute of Justice, 800-248-2742
DO FINGERPRINTS LIE? The New Yorker Magazine
The gold standard of forensic evidence is now being challenged.
Issue of 2002-05-27
*Detail 60 - The
third of a three part series "Defending Against the Critic's Curse."
A proposed objective friction ridge Qualitative and Quantitative Individualization Standard weighted on the clarity of ridge features. Based upon Locard's tripartite rule.
By Dusty Clark-2/18/03, updated 3/10/12(email@example.com)
California Division IAI (CSDIAI) 2001 STATISTICAL REPORT: The past limited statistical models have been validated by the California DOJ latent database, supporting quantifiable thresholds.
By Dusty Clark 11/27/02 (firstname.lastname@example.org)
CONCLUSIONS THAT CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE DETAIL PRESENT
By Dusty Clark 5/16/03 (email@example.com)
A brief analysis of the case of United States v. Crisp (2003) and some musings about its dissenting opinion. From Forensic-Evidence .com 5/5/03
View the full court decision
It deserves special mention at the outset – as was recognized by the court's majority – that no appellate court has ever held that fingerprint identification evidence and handwriting comparison evidence is inadmissible!
Interpol European Expert Group on Fingerprint Identification - IEEGF2
See other information at http://www.interpol.int
Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach-- The Report of the Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis February 2012
THE MYTH OF FINGERPRINT "SCIENCE" IS REVEALED
ROBERT EPSTEIN March 4, 2002
An insight to the fingerprint legal challenge-- added 2/27/04
By Dusty Clark - Added 3/6/04 Published in JFI Vol 52 No.4,July/Aug 2002
of Maryland vs Bryan Rose May 2007 Frye Hearing
Quantitative Assessment Of Individuality Of Friction Ridge Patterns
A federally funded study by
A federally funded study bySargur N. Srihari - 3/20/09
The Need for a Research Culture in the Forensic Sciences-
Mnookin et al.* 58
UCLA L. Rev. 725
States of America v. LLERA PLAZA US District Court Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. January 7, 2002
"I concluded in the January 7 opinion that Daubert's testing factor was not met, and I have found no reason to depart from that conclusion."
3. Completing the Daubert/Kumho
Having re-reviewed the applicability of
the Daubert factors through the prism of Kumho Tire, I conclude
that the one Daubert factor which is both pertinent and unsatisfied is
the first factor-“testing.”…… Scientific
tests of ACE-V- i.e. tests in the Daubert sense- would clearly aid in
measuring ACE-V’s reliability. But
as of today no tests are at hand. The question, then, is whether, in the
absence of such tests, a court should conclude that the ACE-V fingerprint
identification system, as practiced…has too great a likelihood of producing
erroneous results to be admissible as evidence in a courtroom setting.
4. Maintenance of Standards. Closely related to the question of error rate is the maintenance of standards to guide the application of the method. This is lacking here in some measure. The FBI maintains that its flexibility to consider a mixture of Level 2 and Level 3 detail in making identifications renders its method superior to and more flexible than the minimum-points standards used in some states and various foreign jurisdictions. The tradeoff, though, is that the FBI’s method lacks a significant yardstick of standard-based objectivity.
In contrast, with a minimum-point standard there is at least some agreement about what constitutes a Galton point and what does not. Some standards do remain: There are procedural standards (such as ACE-V) and terminological standards (such as the naming conventions for Galton points). But these are insubstantial in comparison to the elaborate and exhaustively refined standards found in many scientific and Technical disciplines. As such, we find that this factor does not favor admitting the evidence.
E. Conclusion on the Admissibility of the Government’s Evidence. We conclude, on the record before us read in light of the basic Daubert principles, that most factors support (or at least do not disfavor) admitting the government’s latent fingerprint identification evidence. There are good grounds for its admission. We therefore conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in holding the government’s evidence admissible.
THE MADRID BOMBING FINGERPRINT ERROR
U.S. Releases Man Questioned for Madrid Bombings - by: Chris Stetkiewicz (Reuters) May 21, 2004
Tomas Alex Tizon and Sebastian Rotella, Los Angeles Times - Sacramento Bee 5/21/04
"Clearing Mayfield would also likely renew a debate about the scientific validity of fingerprint evidence, which has come under growing scrutiny in court in recent years."
" 'It will be very interesting,' said a former top FBI official. ' Some (fingerprint) examiner's career may be on the line for making an ID that did not hold up' ."
The FBI admits error.....
FBI case against Oregon lawyer built on blurry fingerprint, logic ".....showing how the FBI had looked more closely at the print's tiny details, a level of scrutiny the Spanish officials had not yet applied." The Spanish numerical standard was correct in not concluding individualization. The Ridgeology analysis conclusion of individualization was flawed.
Faulty Forensics- Discussion program on the Madrid error, "The connection" NPR Show Originally Aired: 6/10/2004
Calif. Assoc. of Criminalists review of information regarding the erroneous Madrid print (4.77MB).
"Forensics- Lessons Learned from the Brandon Mayfield case" By William C. Thompson; Simon A. Cole, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Champion Magazine, April 2005
Special report by the FBI on the erroneous fingerprint individualization in the Madrid train bombing case
In response to the misidentification of a latent print: FBI - "Review of the Scientific Basis for Friction Ridge Comparisons as a Means of Identification: Committee Findings and Recommendations
Sloppy FBI work blamed for linking Oregon lawyer to
terror bombing- By MARK SHERMAN
Office Of Inspector General - A Review of the FBI's Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case (Unclassified Executive Summary), Special Report, January 2006 (9mb pdf) Web Viewable (900kb) FBI response - Full OIG Report (82.3mb)
View Mayfield, Daoud, and the latent images contained in the Final OIG Report
State of Utah,v.Raymond Michael Quintana 11/12/04 Appellate decision-William A. Thorne Jr., Judge, concurring opinion
12 .....trial courts should be directed to instruct juries about the existing weaknesses of fingerprint examiner training and identification protocol.
13 ..... absence of any nationally recognized standard to ensure that examiners are equipped to perform the tasks expected of them...... fingerprint evidence has been afforded a near magical quality in our culture. In essence, we have adopted a cultural assumption that a defendant's fingerprint was found at a crime scene is an infallible fact, and not merely the examiner's opinion.
14 Unfortunately, our societal acceptance of the infallibility of examiners' opinions appears to be misplaced.
15 Until there is a nationally adopted certification system--ensuring examiner proficiency--and a nationally adopted minimum standard for matching latent fingerprints to known samples-- minimizing the risk of misidentification--courts should ensure that juries are instructed that examiner testimony is informed opinion, but not fact.
Fingerprint and forensic experts are vulnerable to psychological and cognitive influences.
Contextual information in the fingerprint individualization process-- Publications by Dr. I.E. DROR
National Academy of Sciences November 2005 Sackler Colloquia on forensic sciences
Fingerprint discipline specific presentations- - - Requires sound and Macromedia Flash Player
Computation of Likelihood Ratios in Fingerprint Identification for Configurations of Any Number of Minutiæ - Journal of Forensic Science, Vol. 52 No. 1-Cédric Neumann, M.Sc.; Christophe Champod, Ph.D., etal
The Opinionization of Fingerprint Evidence, Simon A Cole -BioSocieties (2008), 3, 105–113 ª London School of Economics and Political Science ,doi:10.1017/S1745855208006030
Out of the Daubert Fire and into the Fryeing Pan? Self-Acceptance versus Meta-Expertise and the admissibility of Latent Print Evidence in Frye Jurisdictions, Simon A Cole -Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2008
LAPD blames faulty fingerprint analysis for erroneous accusations - LA Times Oct. 17, 2008 An audit finds shoddy work by specialists and cites two cases in which charges had to be dropped. The total number of such instances is unknown and officials say they lack the money to determine it.
Appellate Court of
Conviction reversed as there was no evidentiary foundation and lack of detail of the facts supporting the opinion of the fingerprint examiner of individualization.
US v. Hamza Keita Criminal Case No. 2008 CF 2 26777
October 30, 2009 - Motion to Exclude Latent Fingerprint Testimony - Challenge Based primarily on the findings of the NAS and the U.S. OIG Mayfield reports
Stochastics - The real science behind forensic pattern identification -
November 24, 2009 by John M. Collins, Chief Managing Editor of Crime Lab Report
Science in court: The fine print - Nature 464, 344-346 (2010)
A single incriminating fingerprint can land someone in jail. But, Laura Spinney finds, there is little empirical basis for such decisions.
Daubert and Forensic Science: The Pitfalls of Law Enforcement Control of Scientific Research-Paul C. Giannelli - Page 32-36 on Fingerprinting
Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach -The Report of the Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis-Feb 2012
A consolidated list of annotated bibliographic references of published research related to latent print analysis - SWGFAST response to questions posed by Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation Inter-Agency Working Group under the NSTC Forensic Science subcommittee
November 30, 2009
a standard for "standard for "sufficiency" of information available in friction ridge (fingerprint) patterns.
With issuance of the 1973 IAI resolution which stated, "That no valid basis exists at this time for requiring that a pre-determined number......", the standardization committee strongly recommended a federally funded study of fingerprints.
Twenty-seven years later a solicitation for such a study was issued.
The grant funding for this solicitation was recalled and the solicitation was rewritten to include all pattern evidence sciences. This does not infer that friction ridge individualization validation is not needed.
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has identified the need for
the basis for friction ridge individualization and
standardization of comparison criteria:
the basis for friction ridge individualization and
standardization of comparison criteria:
standardization of comparison criteria:
View the N I J solicitation clarification letter dated June 20, 2000
"Quantitative Research on Friction Ridge Patterns"
Solicitation Deadline February 25, 2005