On Friday April 27, 2001, a Philadelphia Radio Station hosted a debate between Stephen Meagher, Chief Latent Print Examiner with the FBI and Robert Epstein, Federal Public Defender about the scientific validity of friction ridge identification. (If your computer doesn't already know what to do when you click on the link, you can download free software from Real Player and listen (provided, of course, you have speakers connected to your computer). The Background In 1993, as a result of the proceedings of a civil case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S.579, 113 S.Ct.2786,125 L.Ed. 2d. 469 (1993), a Supreme Court ruled that admissibility of scientific evidence would be based on an independent judicial assessment of reliability rather than "general acceptance" by the scientific community. In order to determine the reliability of scientific evidence, the court came up with the following list of inquiries to be used by judges (the process now referred to as a 'Daubert' hearing): 1) Has the scientific theory or technique been empirically tested? 2) Has the scientific theory or technique been subjected to peer review and publication? 3) What is the known or potential rate of error? 4) Do standards for controlling the use of the scientific technique exist and are they maintained? 5) Is there general acceptance of the technique by the scientific community? United States of America vs Byron Mitchell The Challenge The first challenge to fingerprint evidence under the Daubert guidelines occurred in Philadelphia. The case was United States vs Byron Mitchell and involved fingerprints found on the gearshift and door of a getaway car used in a robbery. The defense petitioned the courts for a 'Daubert' hearing to determine the admissibility of the fingerprint identification as 'scientific' evidence on the grounds that... 1) It has not been properly tested; 2) There is no known error rate for latent fingerprint examiners; 3) Fingerprint examiners do not possess uniform objective standards to guide them in their comparisons; 4) There is not a general consensus that fingerprint examiners can reliably make identifications on the basis of only nine matching characteristics; 5) The professional literature of the fingerprint community confirms the scientific bankruptcy of the field; 6) Latent fingerprint identifications are analogous to other techniques, such as handwriting analysis and hair fiber comparisons, that federal courts, in the wake of Daubert, have found to be scientifically unreliable; 7) Latent fingerprint identifications do not have any non-judicial applications. The defense asked the question, "Is there a scientific basis for a fingerprint examiner to make an identification, of absolute certainty, from a small distorted latent fingerprint fragment, revealing only a small number of basic ridge charcteristics such as the nine characteristics identified by the FBI examiner at Mr. Mitchell's first trial?"... The Results - News Release, September 22, 1999 The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania announced today that the Honorable J. Curtis Joyner of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, today upheld the admissibility of fingerprint evidence and rejected a challenge by the defense attorney to exclude that evidence in the case of United States v. Byron C. Mitchell, Criminal No. 96-00407. Judge Joyner ruled that the government can present expert testimony as to the fingerprint identification made of latent thumb prints found on the outside door handle and on the gear shift knob of the getaway car used in an armored truck robbery. In particular, the Court found that fingerprint evidence is admissible under Rule 702 of the Rules of Evidence and the Supreme Court's decisions in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Patrick Carmichael, 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999). The Court also agreed to take judicial notice in the case that : 1) Human Friction Ridges are Unique and Permanent throughout the area of the friction ridge skin including small friction ridge areas, and 2) Human Friction Ridge Skin Arrangements are Unique and Permanent. The Court granted the government's request to exclude the testimony of the defendant's experts James E. Starrs, a Professor at George Washington University Law School, David A. Stoney, Ph.D. of the McCrone Research Institute, Chicago, and Simon A. Cole, Ph.D. Those witnesses testified that fingerprint evidence and comparisons are not scientific evidence under Daubert. |
On Friday April 27, 2001, a Philadelphia Radio Station hosted a debate between Stephen Meagher, Chief Latent Print Examiner with the FBI and Robert Epstein, Federal Public Defender about the scientific validity of friction ridge identification. (If your computer doesn't already know what to do when you click on the link, you can download free software from Real Player and listen (provided, of course, you have speakers connected to your computer). The Background In 1993, as a result of the proceedings of a civil case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S.579, 113 S.Ct.2786,125 L.Ed. 2d. 469 (1993), a Supreme Court ruled that admissibility of scientific evidence would be based on an independent judicial assessment of reliability rather than "general acceptance" by the scientific community. In order to determine the reliability of scientific evidence, the court came up with the following list of inquiries to be used by judges (the process now referred to as a 'Daubert' hearing): 1) Has the scientific theory or technique been empirically tested? 2) Has the scientific theory or technique been subjected to peer review and publication? 3) What is the known or potential rate of error? 4) Do standards for controlling the use of the scientific technique exist and are they maintained? 5) Is there general acceptance of the technique by the scientific community? United States of America vs Byron Mitchell The Challenge The first challenge to fingerprint evidence under the Daubert guidelines occurred in Philadelphia. The case was United States vs Byron Mitchell and involved fingerprints found on the gearshift and door of a getaway car used in a robbery. The defense petitioned the courts for a 'Daubert' hearing to determine the admissibility of the fingerprint identification as 'scientific' evidence on the grounds that... 1) It has not been properly tested; 2) There is no known error rate for latent fingerprint examiners; 3) Fingerprint examiners do not possess uniform objective standards to guide them in their comparisons; 4) There is not a general consensus that fingerprint examiners can reliably make identifications on the basis of only nine matching characteristics; 5) The professional literature of the fingerprint community confirms the scientific bankruptcy of the field; 6) Latent fingerprint identifications are analogous to other techniques, such as handwriting analysis and hair fiber comparisons, that federal courts, in the wake of Daubert, have found to be scientifically unreliable; 7) Latent fingerprint identifications do not have any non-judicial applications. The defense asked the question, "Is there a scientific basis for a fingerprint examiner to make an identification, of absolute certainty, from a small distorted latent fingerprint fragment, revealing only a small number of basic ridge charcteristics such as the nine characteristics identified by the FBI examiner at Mr. Mitchell's first trial?"... The Results - News Release, September 22, 1999 The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania announced today that the Honorable J. Curtis Joyner of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, today upheld the admissibility of fingerprint evidence and rejected a challenge by the defense attorney to exclude that evidence in the case of United States v. Byron C. Mitchell, Criminal No. 96-00407. Judge Joyner ruled that the government can present expert testimony as to the fingerprint identification made of latent thumb prints found on the outside door handle and on the gear shift knob of the getaway car used in an armored truck robbery. In particular, the Court found that fingerprint evidence is admissible under Rule 702 of the Rules of Evidence and the Supreme Court's decisions in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Patrick Carmichael, 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999). The Court also agreed to take judicial notice in the case that : 1) Human Friction Ridges are Unique and Permanent throughout the area of the friction ridge skin including small friction ridge areas, and 2) Human Friction Ridge Skin Arrangements are Unique and Permanent. The Court granted the government's request to exclude the testimony of the defendant's experts James E. Starrs, a Professor at George Washington University Law School, David A. Stoney, Ph.D. of the McCrone Research Institute, Chicago, and Simon A. Cole, Ph.D. Those witnesses testified that fingerprint evidence and comparisons are not scientific evidence under Daubert. |
'Daubert' Hearings |
The Science of Friction Ridge Identification Prevails |
