The Question of Fingerprints
A few weeks ago Crim Prof Blog wrote about two LAPD fingerprint examiners who falsely implicated at least two people of crimes. These two examiners are allegedly linked to at least 1000 cases, 12 of which are currently pending in court.
The discovery came about after a Times newspaper article last fall revealed that six of LAPD’s print analysts had made critical errors in their work. Now the powers that be have decided that three month’s worth of cases should be reviewed. They would also like to start with the D.A.’s priority cases, which of course, may not be the same cases considered to be priority by the defense. They haven’t gotten very far in that review process due to lack of funding or due to lack of desire to make themselves look bad.
In the end it would be pure hubris to pretend that this issue is limited to these six analysts out of eighty or even to the LAPD lab. I purport that this problem reaches every crime lab in the nation.
The public operates under a misconception that the FBI’s Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) system works as a one fingerprint in – one fingerprint out match system. It is a not very publicized fact that one fingerprint goes in and many possible matches come out. Also, many analysts or technicians use computer programs to “clean up” print images via computer programs like Adobe Photo Shop. (So, how authentic is the image really?) Then the so-called fingerprint analyst places all those prints side by side on a dual microscope against the alleged perpetrator’s prints and does an eyeball match-up. Two analysts can, and often do, differ in their opinion about what makes a match. There are no universal minimum requirements for a positive match in the U.S.. No double blind studies have been done. England, France, Argentina and Brazil have universal standards for fingerprint analysis, why shouldn’t the U.S.?
Questioning the infallibility of fingerprint evidence to most people is tantamount to committing heresy. But, why? If it really was an infallible science then wouldn’t it withstand intense scrutiny as all true science should? Such evidence should be disallowed in Court under the Daubert case until such standards are in place. There is no science here.
