Fingerprints

The Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Evidence (OSAC) develops documentary standards for forensics through a standards developing organization or other consensus-based process that allows for participation and comment from relevant stakeholders. Standards under consideration as well as approved standards are available in the OSAC Registry. Standards are being developed for each forensic discipline.

The American Academy of Forensic Sciences Standards Board develops documentary standards for forensics through a consensus process, involving participation by all directly and materially affected persons. The standards that have been published are available on the ASB website. Standards are being developed for each forensic discipline.

Effective Aug. 15, 2020

In the fingerprint Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports (ULTR), the new guidance for Department of Justice fingerprint examiners includes:

[A]n examiner shall not:

• assert that a ‘source identification’ or a ‘source exclusion’ conclusion is based on the ‘uniqueness’ of an item of evidence.
• use the terms ‘individualize’ or ‘individualization’ when describing a source conclusion.
• assert that two friction ridge skin impressions originated from the same source to the exclusion of all other sources.

These new requirements are in addition to prior ULTR guidance that an examiner shall not claim infallibility or absolute certainty.

The Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science’s Friction Ridge Subcommittee has developed a friction ridge examination process map that describes the conventional process for latent print examination.

The process map identifies key decision points in the fingerprint examination process, enables laboratory managers to better understand how their protocols compare with those of other laboratories, and provides a framework for developing future standards and best practice documents.

The 2017 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Forensic Science Assessments: A Quality and Gap Analysis – Latent Fingerprint Examination found that while latent fingerprint examiners can successfully rule out most of the population from being the source of a latent fingerprint based on observed features, insufficient data exist to determine how unique fingerprint features really are, thus making it scientifically baseless to claim that an analysis has enabled examiners to narrow the pool of sources to a single person.

The 2016 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Report found that latent fingerprint analysis is a foundationally valid subjective methodology, but with a false positive rate that is substantial and is likely to be higher than expected by many jurors based on longstanding claims about the infallibility of fingerprint analysis. Conclusions of a proposed identification should include accurate information about the limitations on the reliability of the conclusion. See p. 101-2. Validity as applied requires that an expert: (1) has undergone appropriate proficiency testing; (2) discloses whether he or she documented the features in the latent print in writing before comparing it to the known print; (3) provides a written analysis explaining the selection and comparison of the features; (4) discloses whether, when performing the examination, he or she was aware of any other facts of the case that might influence the conclusion; and (5) verifies that the latent print in the case at hand is similar in quality to the range of latent prints considered in the foundational studies. See p. 102.

This National Institute of Justice publication was prepared by SWGFAST in 2011. All 15 chapters are available for free online. This publication sets standards for fingerprint identification and addresses issues such as bias and reliability of the technique

Five years after issuing recommendations regarding the fingerprint misidentification in the Mayfield case (March 2006), this report by the Office of the Inspector General examines the FBI’s progress implementing the recommendations.

…the FBI Laboratory has adopted other measures intended to reduce the risk that an examiner’s ‘gut’ reaction might lead to an incorrect conclusion, including linear application of the ACE-V methodology; a disciplined, ridge-by-ridge approach to the analysis phase; separate documentation of the analysis and comparison phases; and blind verification in certain cases, including cases involving single identifications (like Mayfield) with the highest risk of error. p. 25

See pp. 136-150 for the National Research Council’s assessment of the discipline of fingerprint analysis. The 2009 NAS Report cited “a thorough analysis of the ACE-V method” that concluded: “‘We have reviewed available scientific evidence of the validity of the ACE-V method and found none.'” pp. 142-143 (citation omitted).

A review of the FBI’s handling of the Brandon Mayfield case (March 2006). The Office of the Inspector General focuses on the causes of the fingerprint misidentification in the Mayfield case and proposes possible solutions to prevent future fingerprint analysis errors.

The enormous size of the IAFIS database and the power of the IAFIS program can find a confusingly similar candidate print. The Mayfield case demonstrates the need for particular care in conducting latent fingerprint examinations involving IAFIS candidates because of the elevated danger of encountering a close non-match. p. 7

Research by Jonathan J. Koehler and Siquan Liu on the accuracy of distinguishing between two close non-matches was published in Sept. 2020. Attorneys should be aware of the error rates presented in this paper, particularly when working on cases involving a match to a suspect developed by searching a fingerprint database. As fingerprint databases grow, …

Defenders should take note of State v. Koiyan, COA19-951, an April 7, 2020 decision where the NC Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred by admitting fingerprint testimony where the examiner “failed to demonstrate that he ‘applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case,’ as required by Rule 702(a)(3).” …

At the February 2018 American Academy of Forensic Science meeting, DOJ Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced the Uniform Language for Testimony and Reporting (ULTR) document for fingerprints. The purpose of the document is to standardize language used by Department of Justice fingerprint examiners in their reports and testimony. While the document does not apply …

The Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST) has a sufficiency graph for fingerprint comparison that may be useful for attorneys to use when discussing fingerprint comparisons with experts. The sufficiency graph reflects the interplay between quality and quantity of minutiae. Minutiae are small details that are used in comparing one …

Fingerprint evidence left behind by a suspect or victim may identify who was at a crime scene and what he or she touched. However, it is important for defense attorneys to know, and to inform the jury, that the techniques used to locate and identify fingerprints are far from a perfect science. An understanding of …

A 3-judge panel found Willie Grimes innocent after thirty-minutes of deliberation on Friday.  Grimes had been sentenced to life in prison in 1987 after being convicted of two counts of first degree rape and one count of second degree kidnapping.  He was paroled in May of this year after serving twenty-four years in prison. Grimes’s …

The National Institute of Justice has published several reports on novel techniques that are being investigated in order to improve forensic analysis. Take a look at the reports below to learn about some of the latest techniques that are being developed and to get a forecast of what techniques you may see coming soon to …

BBC News has posted a series of videos explaining how forensic tests are performed in crime labs on their Crime scene forensics: How does it work website. These short videos demonstrate various techniques including fingerprint comparisons, use of ninhydrin and superglue fuming (cyanoacrylate) to locate latent print evidence, firearm and projectile comparisons, and examination of …

Three NIJ-funded research articles on the reliability of footwear comparisons were published in 2020.

Part I—Participant Demographics and Examiner Agreement
Part II—Range of Conclusions, Accuracy, and Consensus
Part III—Positive Predictive Value, Error Rates, and Inter-Rater Reliability

Sept. 2020 research by Jonathan J. Koehler and Siquan Liu on the accuracy of distinguishing between two close non-matches. False positive error rates were 15.9% and 28.1% on the two close non-matches on mandatory proficiency tests that were studied. As the size of fingerprint databases grow, the risk of a close non-match being present in the database increases.

This July 2018 article by Simon Cole and Barry Scheck provides a systematic and comprehensive examination of “other” types of error in friction ridge analysis beyond erroneous identifications, including 40 publicly-exposed cases containing these errors. The article also calls for access to post-conviction database searching of fingerprint and other forensic databases.

Jury study evaluating how potential jurors react to different language used by fingerprint examiners to express their conclusions. Available for free download.

Radio program that covers challenges to the reliability of fingerprint evidence, including bias. Includes coverage of the Brandon Mayfield case (from Mar. 10, 2011).

by Jacqueline McMurtrie, , Utah Law Review, Vol 2010, No. 2. – addresses uniqueness, individualization and infallibility claims of fingerprint examination, the history of latent print individualization, recent legal challenges to latent print individualization, and the NAS report and its use in post-conviction claims based upon new developments in forensic science.

by Simon Cole, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 95, No. 3, 2005 – Comprehensive review of what is known about the potential error rate of latent print identification. Includes all known cases of fingerprint misattributions. Examines proficiency test data as well as the profession’s and courts’ efforts to minimize or dismiss fingerprint error. Available for free download.

Presenter: Brett Gardner. Offered by CSAFE, on June 14, 2021. Recording and materials are available.

Presenter: Simon Cole. Offered by CSAFE, on June 14, 2021. Recording and materials are available.

Sponsored by Duke Law

This presentation, now available to view for free, was given as a part of the Center for Statistics and Applications in Forensic Evidence’s (CSAFE) 2020 All Hands Meeting. The meeting brings together researchers, forensic partners, and interested community members to discover potential areas for collaboration, highlight the organization’s achievements, and discuss goals for the future.

The presentation, given by Dr. Karen Kafadar, a statistics professor from the University of Virginia, discusses recent accomplishments in the world of latent fingerprint analysis. Dr. Kafadar also describes the goals of future projects taking place within this discipline.

Materials:

• Video of the presentation is available here
• The slides from the presentation are available here

The latest installment of the Stetson Law Crime Scene to Courtroom webinar series, Emerging Issues in Forensic Fingerprint Examination, is presented by Certified Latent Print Examiner and owner of Black and White Forensics, LLC, John P. Black. Over the course of the webinar, Mr. Black discusses reporting from the last decade regarding the strengths and weaknesses of latent fingerprint analysis as a discipline and the limitations of the ACE-V framework. Additionally Mr. Black describes the best practices for verification and documentation of evidence and for vetting potential expert witnesses on fingerprinting procedure. Links to course materials below:

• Outline
• Learning Objectives
• PowerPoint Presentation
• Further Reading List
• Webinar Recording

This complimentary webinar, which is part of the Stetson Law – Crime Scene to Courtroom Forensics Training Series, will be presented at 2 pm on April 30, 2020 by John Black. John Black is co-author of the recent AAAS Latent Fingerprint Examination Report and is a forensic consultant and the owner of Black & White Forensics, LLC in South Carolina. He will help attendees learn how fingerprint evidence is examined, documented and reported. Attendees will also gain an understanding of best practices as discussed in several key reports, documents and case studies. Numerous questions will be provided to assist with the examination of an expert fingerprint witness. Register Here

RTI International will present this one hour webinar with speakers Heidi Eldridge and Christophe Champod.

Duke University School of Law is excited to offer a short course on forensic evidence litigation, with CLE credit pending approval, at Duke Law in Durham, North Carolina. 

The course is free and open to a small number of practicing criminal lawyers.  Both prosecutors and defense attorneys are encouraged to attend.  The course will be open to fifteen Duke Law students.  The course will be most valuable for lawyers with some criminal experience, but without much experience litigating forensic science issues.

Forensic evidence, from DNA to fingerprints to ballistics, has never been more important in criminal cases.  Actually litigating scientific evidence in the courtroom can be challenging and requires some specialized skills. 

Duke University School of Law is excited to offer a short course on forensic evidence litigation, with CLE credit pending approval, at Duke Law in Durham, North Carolina. 

The course is free and open to a small number of practicing criminal lawyers.  Both prosecutors and defense attorneys are encouraged to attend.  The course will be open to fifteen Duke Law students.  The course will be most valuable for lawyers with some criminal experience, but without much experience litigating forensic science issues.

Enrollment is limited to a small number of participants.  To apply please email the instructors at bgarrett@law.duke.edu and katephilpott@gmail.com.  Please include a CV and note any background interest and experience in litigating forensics issues. 

Stetson University College of Law National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law will present a complimentary forensic science webinar on Monday, September 16, 2019 12:00-2:00 p.m. EST. The recording of the webinar will be available here, two weeks after the program.

Dr. William C. Thompson will present Latent Fingerprints Essentials, focusing on:

• An overview of the forensic science discipline
• Legal concerns and what attorneys should know about latent fingerprint experts
• Current temperature of the field right now
• The AAAS Report on Latent Fingerprint Examination

The webinar is part of the complimentary webinar series, Crime Scene to Courtroom Forensics Training. This project was supported by Grant No. 2015-CP-BX-K006 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Questions? Email ope@law.stetson.edu

A fingerprint examiner’s site that collects information about AFIS, certification, Daubert challenges, trainings, and other topics, from the law enforcement perspective.

Explains and demonstrates the ACE-V technique.

This website has videos demonstrating several techniques that are frequently used to develop and collect fingerprint evidence, including use of black powder, magnetic powder, Mikrosil and super glue fuming. The videos may contain some inaccurate information, but it is worthwhile to view the techniques that are used.

Professional association for forensic identification disciplines including fingerprint analysis.

This Scientific Area Committee (part of the OSAC) has taken over the work previously done by the Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST). It is a collaboration of practitioners working to improve discipline practices and build consensus standards for the field of friction ridge analysis.

A collaboration between the Orlando Public Defender and the National Center for Forensic Science at UC Florida. The site has links to many helpful training videos that help attorneys understand forensic science evidence.

Sample direct and cross-examinations of various forensic witnesses, including a firearm/toolmark expert, fingerprint expert, pathologist, DNA expert, and other forensic experts.

The National Forensic Science Technology Center created this website to explain in simplified terms the principles of each type of forensic analysis and how the analysis is performed. Topics include DNA, digital evidence, fingerprints, firearms, trace evidence, blood stains, and more.

The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in admitting testimony of the state’s fingerprint examiner where the expert failed to show he applied reliably applied the relevant methods and principles to the case, in violation of N.C. Evid. Rule 702(a)(3). Because the defendant failed to object at trial, the issue was reviewed for plain error only. The defendant could not show prejudice, so the court found no plain error and the conviction was affirmed. The testimony in Koiyan was similar to that of the fingerprint analyst in State v. McPhaul, 256 N.C. App. 303 (2017).

In cases where fingerprint evidence is the only evidence connecting the defendant to the crime, attorneys should consider the Irick rule. State v. Irick, 291 N.C. 480, 491-492 (1977) holds that “[f]ingerprint evidence, standing alone, is sufficient to withstand a motion for nonsuit only if there is ‘substantial evidence of circumstances from which the jury can find that the fingerprints could only have been impressed at the time the crime was committed.'” Where the fingerprint was impressed upon an easily movable object, like a roll of duct tape, attorneys should consider both Irick and the Fourth Circuit opinion U.S. v. Strayhorn, 743 F.3d 917 (2014) which held that “a fingerprint on an easily moveable object with no evidence of when it was imprinted is sufficient to support a conviction only when it is accompanied by additional incriminating evidence…”

The Court of Appeals applied the new Daubert test for expert testimony and held that trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State’s expert witness’s testimony about fingerprint evidence. A petition for discretionary review was granted by the NC Supreme Court which subsequently found that discretionary review was improvidently granted, leaving intact the Court of Appeals opinion. The court held that the witness’s testimony failed to satisfy Rule 702(a)(3) which requires that an expert witness be able to explain the abstract methodology underlying the opinion and reliably apply that methodology to the facts of the case. Here, the witness provided no detail in explaining how she arrived at her conclusions in the case at hand. The court held that the expert implicitly asked the jury to accept her expert opinion that the prints matched when she failed to provide an explanation of how she applied the general principles and methods to the specific case at hand.

For further discussion, see Brandon Garrett, The Reliable Application of Fingerprint Evidence 66 UCLA L. Rev. Disc. 64 (2018).

Ms. Canen’s 2005 murder conviction in IN was overturned in Nov. 2012 after she spent eight years in prison. A fingerprint that was a crucial piece of evidence in the prosecution’s case against her was found not to be hers. An Arizona fingerprint expert discovered that a sheriff’s detective misidentified a fingerprint found on a pill bottle in the victim’s home.

Mr. Allen’s 1983 rape and murder conviction in MO was reversed in Nov. 2012, though the state is appealing the reversal. In this case, it was discovered that there are seven usable fingerprints from the crime scene that do not match anyone involved, though police testified at trial that the fingerprints matched the victim, the victim’s boyfriend, or the police office who responded to the scene.

A three-judge panel in NC decided Mr. Grimes was innocent of a 1987 rape conviction for which he had served more than 24 years. Fingerprints from the crime scene did not match Grimes, but the State withheld that evidence until the trial. In 2011, the prints were uploaded into the Automated Fingerprint Identification System and there was a hit to the original suspect in the case.

In May 2004, the FBI arrested Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield based on an erroneous fingerprint identification. FBI analysts incorrectly identified a fingerprint left inside a plastic bag related to the Madrid train bombing as matching Mr. Mayfield.

In 1997, Scottish police constable Shirley McKie’s fingerprints were found at a crime scene that her department was investigating. After denying that she had ever been to the crime scene, she was found guilty of perjury and her reputation was ruined. It was determined in 1999 that the fingerprints were not hers and she was cleared of all charges.

Sample petition for writ of certiorari regarding fingerprint evidence

2018 Motion to Exclude testimony about fingerprint “identification” because it is scientifically indefensible, will overstate the probative value of fingerprint evidence and unduly prejudice the Defense, and mislead the trier of fact.

Northern District of Alabama (Daubert jurisdiction)

• Motion to Exclude Testimony of Forensic Fingerprint Examiner – includes a comprehensive history of what scientific validation has and has not been completed for this field. Critiques the lack of uniform standards. Critiques analysis of small or distorted latent prints.
• Affidavit of Simon Cole – This expert in the field of fingerprint analysis describes the problems with the reliability of fingerprint evidence and the lack of uniform standards in the field.
• Rebuttal Affidavit of Simon Cole
• Reply to Opposition – Reply to Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude in Rudolph case

District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division

• Zajac Order – granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s motion to exclude fingerprint evidence. Important example of how the language used by the fingerprint examiner can be limited.
• Memo in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Fingerprint Evidence