Transcript LATENT FINGERPRINTS

LATENT FINGERPRINTS
ASSUMPTIONS
• Uniqueness - 75-175 points per digit
• Permanence – absent injury
• Identification can be reliably intuited from a
very small percentage of a whole print
How much is enough?
• Kathleen Hatfield identified as deceased based on fingerprint taken
from dead body
• 16 points - Commonwealth v. Cowans
• 15 points - Mayfield, In re: Federal Grand Jury Proceedings 03-01
• 14 points - Stoppelli
• 11 points – State v. Caldwell, 322 N.W.2d 574 (Minn. 1982)
• 12 points – Cooper
• At least 16 points (Britain):
- Lee
- Chiory
- McNamee
- McKie and Ross
- unidentified Manchester case
Simon A. Cole, More than Zero: Accounting for Error in Latent
Fingerprint Identification; 95 The Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology 985, 1001-1016 (2005)
NIJ Solicitation (in part)
Comm. v. Patterson: latent
fingerprints 1, 2, 3 and 4
Patterson latent print 2
Patterson: latent print 3
Patterson: latent print 3
Assumption: ACE-V insures
reliability
•
•
•
•
Analysis
Comparison
Evaluation
Verification
Reality: ACE-V is only a description
- Not evidence of reliability of the underlying
assumptions
Latent Print
Subjectivity
• What is a point of significance?
- differences between examiners: state and
FBI in examiners in Patterson
- what is an artifact, as opposed to an
exclusion?
• What validly compares between a damaged
distorted latent print and a rolled print?
- Patterson
• When is the totality sufficient to warrant an
opinion of identification?
- Patterson
• All of the above performed by a supervisor
A
C
E
V
Lack of Scientific Method
• No testing as to “how much is enough”
• No standard as to the number, quality or kind of
matching marks needed to declare a “match”
• No databases
• No reporting as a statistical likelihood
• Purely subjective conclusion
• No repeatability in the sense of scientific method
• No measurements
• No error rate or calculation of standard deviation
Confirmation Bias
• Knowing the identity of the suspect
• Being told there is information as the suspect or
weapon
• Knowing the first examiner’s opinion
• Participating in the investigation
• No blind testing
See Itel Dror, etc. – in the written materials
- examiners given “Mayfield” case
Judicial Rationalizations
• The forensic “sciences” form “relevant
scientific/technical communities”
- Reality: this is a tautology – the reliability is
assumed. Is astrology an acceptable
community?
• Reliable disciplines, such as radiology, rely upon
subjective judgments
- Reality: fingerprint and toolmark analyses rely
upon quantity – absent quantitative analysis or
comparison
Judicial Rationalizations
• There are few cases where the evidence was disproven
- Reality: no one knows what the true answer is and we
overwhelmingly know only of cases where convictions
resulted, not acquittals, dismissals, non-prosecutions
• These disciplines are tested every day during case work
- Reality: one cannot test astrology by having other
astrologers confirm the results
- Reality: casework is never an experiment. Experiments
attempt to predict the future, casework attempts to
explain the past.
Recent Cases
• Com. v. Patterson, 445 Mass. 626 (2005)
- latent fingerprints in general and
simultaneity specifically
-relied on Frye analysis
• U.S. v. Green, 405 F. Supp.2d (D.Mass.
2005)
- firearms toolmark analysis