Breaking NEWz you can UzE...
compiled by Jon Stimac
Suspect's Fingerprints to Victim -
NEWS 14, NC - Mar 12,
2004 ...expert testified that the suspect
left behind at least three dozen fingerprints and palm prints in two
stolen cars linked with the murder...
County's Fingerprint System "Almost"
WREG-TV, TN - Mar 11, 2004 ...Shelby
County has taken criminal offenders' fingerprints electronically,
archiving and updating them daily in the AFIS system...
Fingerprinting for School Bus Riders
- WASHINGTON TIMES, DC
- Mar 10, 2004 ...a Florida school board
has approved a system to use children's fingerprints to ensure
students get on the right bus...
Senators Shot Down
Fingerprint Database - TEAM 4 NEWS,
US - Mar 9, 2004
...some lawmakers claim that Washington is moving
too slow to make FBI fingerprints available to immigration control
Last week, we heard from Kathy Saviers regarding Deferred
Examinations. This week we examine an article in the spirit of "The Art Of
War"... "The general who knows himself [or herself] and who knows his [or her]
enemy will never lose a battle".
I am curious to know your thoughts on Cole's arguments. Remember, the
message board is open for all to visit.
Fingerprints Not Infallible
Special to "The National Law Journal"
Over the last 12 years, post-conviction DNA testing has exonerated 140 people
who had been wrongly convicted. We have learned a lot about the fallibility of
the criminal justice system, and specifically eyewitness identification, police
and prosecutorial misconduct, incompetent lawyering, false testimony by snitches
and informants, and false confessions. But science has revealed another cause of
wrongful convictions: forensic science itself.
In February, Stephan Cowans became the 141st person exonerated by DNA evidence
after spending six years in prison for a shooting he did not commit. His
conviction had been based on fingerprint evidence. While he is the first of the
141 who was convicted with fingerprints, he was by no means the first person
ever wrongly convicted with fingerprints.
For the past century, fingerprint evidence has been presented to the public, and
to jurors, as infallible-as absolute or positive identification. Even when the
occasional misidentification has been exposed, the error has been attributed to
the incompetence of the examiner. The methodology itself remained infallible in
the minds of the judiciary and the bar. As recently as January 2003, a Federal
Bureau of Investigations examiner claimed that fingerprint matches had 100%
certainty. This assertion was made during a discussion on 60 Minutes of
Richard Jackson, a Pennsylvania man wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to
life in prison on the basis of an erroneous fingerprint match.
Even those who admit that fingerprint evidence is not infallible have noted that
the number of documented misidentifications is low. This does not necessarily
mean that the error rate for fingerprint identification is insignificant,
because of the enormous power of fingerprint evidence. In most cases,
extraordinary circumstances were necessary to expose fingerprint
Until DNA, there was no evidence that could trump fingerprints. Eyewitness
identification could be seen as unreliable; confession by someone else could be
How fortunate for Cowans that the true perpetrator obligingly left DNA evidence
at the crime scene, that the evidence technicians recovered it, that it was
preserved for six years and that the court ordered it tested. If any link in
this chain of lucky breaks had been severed, Cowans would have served 35 years.
We have no way of knowing how many others there have been over the past century
who were less fortunate than Cowans. But it would be naive to assume that they
do not exist.
Are fingerprints bad science?
We are left with the question of whether fingerprint evidence is totally shoddy.
The answer is: of course not. DNA exonerations have exposed a lot more bad
serology and bad microscopic hair comparison than bad fingerprint evidence. In
fact, post-conviction DNA testing has exposed more bad DNA evidence than bad
fingerprint evidence. (There are practical reasons for this; unlike
fingerprints, blood and hair are biological materials that can be DNA tested.)
But it does mean that fingerprint evidence has an error rate.
We are commonly told that even when errors do occur, they will be caught by a
second examiner who verifies the match. But, in Cowans' case, two fingerprint
examiners testified that the print belonged to him. Defendants are permitted to
hire their own fingerprint examiners to check the government's work, and Cowans'
defense attorney hired two retired fingerprint examiners. These consultants,
paid by the defendant, incorrectly con- firmed the prints as his. Sometimes the
system just makes errors.
Error is a part of any scientific endeavor. Most areas of science seek to
manage, control and, above all, understand the sources of error. But, in
forensic science, there is a tendency to deny that error exists, and, when it is
exposed, to dismiss it as irrelevant.
The wrongful conviction of Cowans will likely be blamed on incompetent
examiners, as fingerprint misidentifications always are. Proponents of
fingerprint evidence will claim, yet again, that the method is infallible-as
long as it is practiced by competent examiners.
But how do we know what a competent examiner is? If there hadn't been DNA at the
crime scene, Cowans would be still in prison, and his fingerprint examiners
would still be presumed competent, with license to present evidence as an
absolute certainty in court.
Fingerprint examiners should not be permitted to tell fact-finders that the
method itself is infallible even if the practitioners are not. The practitioners
are, themselves, the method. And, if fact-finders already have the preconception
that fingerprinting is infallible, they should be disabused of it. Fingerprint
matches should be presented as what they are: They are not scientific
determinations but opinions based on experience one has developed by looking at
fingerprints-opinions, whose overall reliability has never been measured.
Simon A. Cole, the author of Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and
Criminal Identification (Harvard University Press 2001), is an assistant
professor of criminology, law and society at the University of California,
©2004 National Law Journal Online
Page origin: http://www.nlj.com
11-10-04: updated to
To discuss this Weekly Detail, log on to the CLPEX.com
message board: (http://www.clpex.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=2)
More formal latent print discussions are available at
This week's MC is one that I find particularly
useful, as much for myself as anyone. I hope you get as much out of it as
Networking like a pro
We all admire people who can walk into a crowded room and start up a
conversation with just about anyone. These same people also seem to be
more successful than most. You too can become a networking pro if you
follow these tips:
1. Practice a 15 second introduction. People at a networking
event are likely to ask "So, what do you do?" or "What brings you here tonight?"
Have a brief response ready that invites - not ends - conversations..
2. Remember people's names. A person's name is music to his
or her own ears. Be sure to pronounce and spell names correctly. If
you're not sure of the correct spelling or pronunciation, ask for it. A
disregard for names can be the fastest way to make a bad impression.
Make an effort to use people's names whenever you talk to them.
3. Be a resource yourself. Don't consult your network only
when you need something; call or e-mail contacts regularly to offer your
assistance, share a news article or update them on a recent development in their
industry or profession.
-From the Editors of Communication Briefings,
December 2003, 800.722.9221, briefings.com.
UPDATES ON CLPEX.com
Added a new smiley to the SmileyFiles
Updated the Newzroom
Updated the guestbook (deleted a bunch more spam-type posts)
Feel free to pass The Detail along to other
examiners. This is a free newsletter FOR latent print examiners, BY latent
print examiners. There are no copyrights on The Detail, and the website is open
for all to visit.
If you have not yet signed up to receive the Weekly Detail in YOUR e-mail inbox,
go ahead and join the list now
so you don't miss out! (To join this free e-mail newsletter, send a blank
email@example.com ) Members may
unsubscribe at any time. If you have difficulties with the sign-up process
or have been inadvertently removed from the list, e-mail me personally at
firstname.lastname@example.org and I will try
to work things out.
Until next Monday morning, don't work too hard or too little.
Have a GREAT week!