Scientific validation of fingerprint evidence under Daubert

When a scientific method is used by an expert to reach a conclusion offered in court, the Frye ruling in 1923 and particularly the Daubert ruling in 1993 requires that the method itself has been shown to be valid. When applied to fingerprint methods, valid means accurately distinguishing between pairs of prints made by one and by two donors. Courts have ruled uniformly in more than 40 Daubert hearings since 1999 that fingerprint evidence rests on a valid method, referred to as the Analysis-Comparison-Evaluation-Verification (ACE-V) method. In this article, we discuss the scientific evidence needed to document the validity of ACE-V. We describe examples of experiments that would provide this evidence, and review the available published research. We briefly describe the testimony presented by fingerprint examiners in these hearings, intended to show that ACE-V meets the Daubert criteria for validity. We analyze evidence for the validity of the standards underlying the conclusions made by fingerprint examiners. We conclude that the kinds of experiments that would establish the validity of ACE-V and the standards on which conclusions are based have not been performed. These experiments require a number of prerequisites, which also have yet to be met, so that the ACE-V method currently is both untested and untestable.

[1]  Julie Samuels Letter from National Institute of Justice regarding the Solicitation of Forensic Friction Ridge (Fingerprint) Examination Validation Studies , 2000 .

[2]  Robert B. Stacey Report on the Erroneous Fingerprint Individualization in the Madrid Train Bombing Case , 2005 .

[3]  Simon A. Cole,et al.  Grandfathering Evidence: Fingerprint Admissibility Rulings from Jennings to Llera Plaza and Back Again , 2004 .

[4]  Simon A. Cole,et al.  Suspect Identities , 2001 .

[5]  Robert Weitz,et al.  An expert witness. , 1957 .

[6]  Sharath Pankanti,et al.  Fingerprint Quality Assessment , 2004 .

[7]  David R. Ashbaugh,et al.  Quantitative-Qualitative Friction Ridge Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Ridgeology , 1999 .

[8]  Robert Rosenthal,et al.  Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of fingerprint experts' decision making , 1970 .

[9]  I. Dror,et al.  Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. , 2006, Forensic science international.

[10]  David Charlton,et al.  Why Experts Make Errors , 2006 .

[11]  Michele Triplett,et al.  The Etiology of ACE-V and its Proper Use: An Exploration of the Relationship Between ACE-V and the Scientific Method of Hypothesis Testing , 2006 .

[12]  I. Dror,et al.  When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top‐down processing on matching fingerprints , 2005 .

[13]  D J Boone,et al.  Laboratory evaluation and assistance efforts: mailed, on-site and blind proficiency testing surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control. , 1982, American journal of public health.

[14]  Michael J. Saks The Legal and Scientific Evaluation of Forensic Science (Especially Fingerprint Expert Testimony) , 2003 .

[15]  Ralph Norman Haber,et al.  Error Rates for Human Latent Fingerprint Examiners , 2004 .

[16]  Henry C. Lee,et al.  Identification of Latent Prints , 2001 .