Introduction
The first time fingerprint comparison evidence was used in court against a defendant was in 1892 in Argentina [1]
For purposes of forensic identification in cases of law enforcement and other areas where human identification is needed, fingerprints have been widely acclaimed to be of an invaluable importance and has therefore seen a close to unanimous acceptance as the gold standard of forensic evidence where biometric identity is concerned. Recently however, as was rarely done in times past, the scientific foundations of fingerprint expert testimonies in court are beginning to be challenged [2]. There are some commentators who now query the scientific validity of forensic fingerprint identification. Reference has been made to the Daubert’s standard which stipulates the conditions for acceptability of expert testimony [1], where scientific methods and techniques employed must themselves be based on testable and falsifiable theories that have gone through the peer review process. These methods also must have known and/or predictable error rates and must comply with recognized standards relevant to their application.
These Daubert’s principles, as it has come to be known in the US since 1993, has gone beyond the American jurisdiction to influence the admissibility of expert testimony internationally. The UK Law commission recently prescribed similar standards in its expert evidence consultation paper in which it laid emphasis on the scientific method much more than falsifiability [3].
The ACE-V method that has been in use by fingerprint expert examiners (which has been the subject of controversy) has had several objections raised against them, some of which according to [2] are:
- the contextual bias that arises from...
... middle of paper ...
...= {GPy,Ry,Nty}, and the continuous feature vectors xc and yc contain the remaining features in x and y respectively [5].
By this model, a value of 1 is assigned to the numerator of the discrete likelihood, while frequencies of general pattern multiplied region and minutia-type probabilities were used for calculating the denominator.
The between-finger and within-finger LRs were also evaluated in two experiments. 216 fingerprints from 4 different fingers were used to evaluate the within-finger LR while 818 fingerprints dataset was used to evaluate the between-finger LR. Normally, likelihood ratios for within-finger tests are expected to be greater than between-finger LRs[2].
4.1.2 Model of Neumann et al (2012)
Neumann and co. also in 2012 [8], proposed another LR model based on Feature vectors but this time around, they proposed the use of radial triangulation. The
Frye v. United States and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals are both legal decisions that set forth standards as they pertain to the admissibility of scientific or forensic evidence, and the admissibility of expert witness testimony. Both cases deal with the admissibility of evidence in judicial proceedings, and prevent prosecutors from abusing the use of expert witnesses and testimony. Due to a loophole that dismisses recent scientific advances when applying the Frye Rule, the Supreme Court revisited Frye, and “took the occasion to issue guidelines for deciding the admissibility of scientific evidence” (Gaensslen, Harris, & Henry, 2008, p. 53). The decision resulted in a five-prong approach called the Daubert Standard.
The analysis of the samples should be used only to confirm or negate match between the sample taken from the crime scene fgand the sample taken from the suspect. That is, it should sdfremain as an identifgication tool only. There should be no further analysis of the DNA to suggest psychological characteristics that would make the suspect more likely to have cdfommitted the crime. This rule should apply also to samples taken from convicted dfdoffenders for a data vor dagta bank.
From the early days, with little literary reference material, to the current day, with substantially more, but still insufficient formation, the science of fingerprint identification has managed to maintain its credibility and usefulness. Although, academic institutions have yet to recognize the field as an applied science and include it in the curricula, which would provide directed research and literary reference, in libraries. Without this academic recognition, progress in the field of fingerprint is destined to be sluggish. Description of fingerprint identification as a forensic science’ or an ~app1ied science’ in no way implies that is not a reliable science. Fingerprint identification, correctly understood and applied, is just as scientifically valid and reliable as any other science and, indeed, more accurate than many. The fingerprint expert applies knowledge gained through training and experience to reach a conclusion. The many uses of fingerprint identification range from criminal investigation to non-criminal matters such as deceased, missing persons and disaster victim identification. Fingerprint identification has been used in the court systems for many years. Yet there are those who that still try to challenge fingerprint science and the experts in the court of law by a Daubert Hearing. In this paper, Daubert Hearing is define and detail outing background of the cases, the Government preparation, the Testimony from both sides, the judge’s verdict and finally, Mitchell’s second trial on this case.
The acceptance of fingerprint identification in the judicial system as scientific evidence has become like expert testimony. Advances in image processing have impacted how fingerprints can be lifted without being destroyed, which has led to fingerprint evidence becoming the silent testimony leading to more conventions. In the case of the United States v. Byron C. Mitchell Criminal Action No. 96-00407, fingerprints found in the car were the scientific evidence which identified Mitchell as a participant in an armored car robbery (Appellant Counsel for Appellee, 2003).
Therefore, the criminal justice system relies on other nonscientific means that are not accepted or clear. Many of forensic methods have implemented in research when looking for evidence, but the methods that are not scientific and have little or anything to do with science. The result of false evidence by other means leads to false testimony by a forensic analyst. Another issue with forensic errors is that it is a challenge to find a defense expert (Giannelli, 2011). Defense experts are required to help the defense attorneys defend and breakdown all of the doubts in the prosecutors scientific findings in criminal cases. Scientific information is integral in a criminal prosecution, and a defense attorney needs to have an expert to assist he/she in discrediting the prosecution (Giannelli,
In 1893, Francis Galton introduced a remarkable new way to identify people ("Fingerprinting" pg 1 par 3). His observation that each individual has a unique set of fingerprints revolutionized the world of forensics. Soon, all investigators had adapted the idea to use fingerprints as a form of identification. Unfortunately, over the course of the past century, criminals have adapted to this technique and seldom leave their incriminating marks at the crime scene. Forensics specialists were in need of a new way to identify criminals, and DNA provided the answer. When it comes to genetic material, it is virtually impossible for a criminal to leave a crime scene "clean." Whether it is a hair, flakes of skin, or a fragment of fingernail, if it contains genetic material then it has potential to incriminate. However, there are still concerns regarding DNA fingerprinting. What are the implications of using these tests in a courtroom scenario? What happens when DNA tests go awry? It is debatable whether or not DNA fingerprinting has a place in America's court systems.
Having the ability to identify types of prints and surfaces, and the corresponding techniques to develop the prints, has helped crime scene investigators identify criminals and victims of scenes, and aided in the prosecution of defendants in the criminal justice system. Although the history and techniques go far beyond what was discussed in these few pages, it is important as a law enforcement officer or investigator to understand the very basics of how fingerprint identification began, and the simple techniques used to develop them today.
Television crime drama such as CSI, Bones, and Law and Order frequently employ a hollywood glam-ified version of forensic science, and TV host Adam Conover parodies forensic science portrayals in crime drama television in his television show Adam Ruins Everything (2015). In his tv-show-within-a-tv-show, CSF: Crime Scene Forensics, he discredits basic beliefs held by CSI watchers. Conovers cites multiple examples of the failings of pseudo forensic science. He explains the polygraph is nothing more than an indication of biological functions, the analysis of forensic evidence like hair and fingerprints is rife with human error, and eyewitness testimony is subject to unconscious biases and influences. Many, if not all, techniques observed by the casual viewer are erroneous.CONSIDER PARAGRAPH BREAK HERE Falsified evidence can cause wrongful convictions and even death. Welner et. al. elaborate on the consequences of invalid forensic procedures in their article “Peer Reviewed Forensic Consultation: Safeguarding Expert Testimony and Protecting the Uninformed Court” (2012). “If the current state of expert testimony does not improve, ‘ultimately the justice system may give up on us’” (as cited by Welner et al., p. 3). To throw out forensic evidence altogether would detriment the judicial process, and allow for more bias to pervade courtroom proceedings. Perhaps the problem
The National Academy of Sciences (2009) was highly critical of a broad range of forensic disciplines, such as ballistics, hair and fiber analysis, impression evidence, handwriting analysis, and even fingerprint analysis. The academy concluded that there are problems with standardization, reliability, accuracy and error, and the potential for contextual bias.
Holder, Eric H., Jr., Laurie O. Robinson, and John H. Laub. The Fingerprint Sourcebook. D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs & National Institute of Justice, 2011. International Association for Identification. Web.
At least 99 percent of the time, forensic science is reliable and deem accurate. Although four experts that matched Brandon Mayfield’s fingerprint to the fingerprint on a bag at the crime scene, they in fact misidentified the evidence and Spanish police found out that the latent fingerprint actually belong to be an Algerian. This shown that forensic experts and attorneys can definitely be wrong; furthermore, it convey that not all evidence presented in the case is subjected to be infallible and there is a possibility for committed error. Leah Bartos, a UC Berkley graduate student with a Journalism degree, conducted an experiment to understand the process of becoming a certified forensic consultant. She had no prior knowledge in the forensic discipline, but became certified after she passed the open book exam and sent ACFET her bachelor degree, resume, and references. The ACFET exam have a 99 percent pass rate; therefore, it is criticized for creditability of its certified graduate and branded a diploma milling organization for-profit. Attorney can argue the weakness of the forensic evidence presented, hence forensic science call for bad science and can definitely be misuse in our adversarial legal
The collection, custody and preservation of forensic evidence is a vital aspect of evidence integrity, without proper adherence to these procedures, crucial evidence that could potentially have great impact on a court case could be rendered useless. In the case of criminal proceedings, a skilled defence lawyer will look to scrutinise every step taken by forensic practitioners’ involved within the case in regards to the continuity of the evidence, in doing this they attempt to undermine the practitioner’s ability to properly carry out strict evidence collection, protection and preservation procedures and also look to find fault in the techniques they used to carry out these procedures.
Fingerprint usage dates back to the 1800s. Sir William Herschel used the prints as signatures on civil contracts, before they were found useful towards crimes (History of Fingerprints Timeline, 2012). A British surgeon, Dr. Henry Faulds, wrote about using fingerprints for personal identification. He first looked at prints on clay pottery and studied the ridges and patterns that they had made in the clay. In 1891, Juan Vucetich suggested to start fingerprinting criminals to keep the prints on record. The following year, Vucetich identified a print from a woman who killed her two sons. Investigators found her print and were able to correctly match her identity. Charles Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Galton, wrote and published the first book about fingerprints. He wrote about how every individual has a unique print by the certain traits of each fingerprint (History of Fingerprints, 2012). The popularity of fingerprints grew greatly in the United States in the early 1900s. Police departments and the FBI began to use the...
The three different main types of fingerprints are Loops, Arches, and Whorls (Jackson 1). Henry Faulds is known as the Father of Fingerprints and developing fingerprints (Jackson 1). His discovery of fingerprints has made a huge impact not only in his time but, in Modern Crime Scene Investigation (Jackson 1). Without fingerprinting, it would be very difficult to convict criminals of crimes and very hard to try to process information. Crime Scene Investigators make a huge impact in Forensic Science. We need CSI workers, without them people could only imagine what crime would be like not only in our community, but in our
Forensic evidence can provide just outcomes in criminal matters. However, it is not yet an exact science as it can be flawed. It can be misrepresented through the reliability of the evidence, through nonstandard guidelines, and through public perception. Forensic science can be dangerously faulty without focus on the ‘science’ aspect. It can at times be just matching patterns based on an individual’s interpretations. This can lead to a miscarriage of justice and forever alter a person’s life due to a perceived “grey area” (Merritt C, 2010) resulting in a loss of confidence in the reliability of forensic evidence.