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
Martin, K. A. (1994). A brief history of the "feature detector". Cerebral Cortex, 4, 1-7.
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.
Nowadays, DNA is a crucial component of a crime scene investigation, used to both to identify perpetrators from crime scenes and to determine a suspect’s guilt or innocence (Butler, 2005). The method of constructing a distinctive “fingerprint” from an individual’s DNA was first described by Alec Jeffreys in 1985. He discovered regions of repetitions of nucleotides inherent in DNA strands that differed from person to person (now known as variable number of tandem repeats, or VNTRs), and developed a technique to adjust the length variation into a definitive identity marker (Butler, 2005). Since then, DNA fingerprinting has been refined to be an indispensible source of evidence, expanded into multiple methods befitting different types of DNA samples. One of the more controversial practices of DNA forensics is familial DNA searching, which takes partial, rather than exact, matches between crime scene DNA and DNA stored in a public database as possible leads for further examination and information about the suspect. Using familial DNA searching for investigative purposes is a reliable and advantageous method to convict criminals.
Accuracy: This paper demonstrates much accuracy, this is proven through the subtitles, statistics and in text citations for
Expert testimony, when it is offered within a trial, is a crucial element in trials. When there is expert testimony offered there are steps that need to be taken to ensure that the person giving the testimony is an expert, as we saw in the case of the United States v. Paul (1999). However, there is a procedure to enter this testimony and to determine its admissibility. This matter will be discussed as we review the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). First there needs to be a little background on the case itself.
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
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,
Palermo explains the “…means of impeding the presentation of sloppy scientific evidence is found Federal Rule of Evidence 403 that gives judges the discretion to admit or to exclude from trial evidence, including scientific, deemed to prejudicial, confusing, or misleading to jurors” (2006). The article then explains that the technical terms used in the trial court while presenting the DNA analyses, is many times too complex for the individuals sitting on the jury. Ultimately, these same jurors are still inclined to reject or accept the facts presented even if they don’t understand the information presented. Palermo also commented on the necessity for better training on the individuals that come in close contact with the collection of DNA evidence, because it’s imperative, as is the training of DNA analysts and others involved with the handling of evidence. The collection of evidence plays a viable role in the process of DNA examination because if evidence isn’t collected properly the evidence could easily be contaminated with other elements from the crime scene.
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
Whereas the real picture of forensic evidence is unlike what is represented in movies and television shows where a fingerprint or a trace of hair is found, then it’s game over for the criminal. Reality is not as straightforward. As more people are exposed to the unreal forensic world through television and media the likeliness for a wrong conviction increases with juries assuming the evidence involves more science than what it really does, this is known as the CSI Effect. Further education and training is needed for the people of the court, the forensic specialists, and so called experts. The people in courts do not question any of the ‘professionals’ and just trust in their expertise. The court could overcome this perception by requiring explanation of error rates in a forensic field. To do this, testing examiner error rates will be necessary which means further research. Forensic science has such a large effect on the prosecution of suspects, experts have been known to provide questionable and at times incorrect evidence. When a false conviction occurs the true perpetrator is set free. Once realized, the public doubts the justice system and the reliability of the forensic evidence even more. At this point in time, forensic is an inexact
one may assume that a detailed investigation of William’s bedroom began before a search warrant was obtained or consent to search was given. Therefore, when crime scene investigators began to process William’s bedroom, any evidence found, including the bloody fingerprint that was not in plain sight but developed using an amino acid stain and an argon laser, would not be admissible in court.
Forensic science plays a vital role in the criminal justice system by aiding an investigator’s case with scientific information based on the analysis of the evidence. Each crime scene is unique in its own way and using the evidence collected, forensic experts try to piece it together. An expert is someone who has had enough education, training, and experience to testify to the matter at hand (Harmon 2010). Unlike other witnesses in a case who testify based on first hand knowledge, the expert witness is not required to have firsthand knowledge of a particular case, and in fact, often does not. Rather, the expert witness testifies to the meaning of the facts (Whitcomb et al. 2005). Each forensic expert typically has a background in another scientific discipline, such as biology, physics, chemistry, etc. An expert with a biology background may work with DNA; chemistry may work in toxicology; and physics in blood spatter trajectories. Working separately on their own respected evidence, an investigator is able to collect all their data and set up a case (National Institute of Justice 2013). Usually, these experts will be hired by either the prosecution or defense in a criminal trial, or by a plaintiff or defendant in a civil litigation. The role of the expert witness exists in variants: between criminal and civil courts as well as the prosecution and defense.
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.
In Anatomy of a Murder, there were four expert witnesses, Dr. Smith, Dr. Harcourt, Dr. Raschid, and Dr. Dompierre, who testified during the trial and gave their respected opinions based on their expertise about the evidence and stipulations raised. An expert witness is defined as a witness who has special knowledge or training in a specialized area (Gardner & Anderson, 2013, pg.123). The opinion of an expert witness may be admissible if the opinion is being given about a subject that can clear issues in the court. To determine whether or not the expert witness testimony is admissible, it must meet the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence 702-704. In addition to reviewing each of the three Federal Rules of Evidence, I reviewed each of the four expert witness testimonies and analyzed whether or not each testimony complied each Federal Rule of evidence.
...Mrs. Hiller found her husband dead. Investigators found some particles of sand and gravel by the daughters bed. They also found the fingerprints of the convicted killer Thomas Jennings, on the Hiller homes railings. Mr.Hiller had painted the railings hours before his death. Into the paint was four fingerprints of someone’s left hand. American Law enforcement had already adopted the principle of fingerprinting so the evidence was allowed to be presented in court. Fingerprinting expert William M. Evans had agreed that Jennings hand, his alone, was the prints left on the railing of the Miller’s home. The courts jury appealed Miller as guilty and he was later hanged. Fingerprinting is fairly new and they’ve helped find the culprit in many investigations carried out in America, therefore proving that our methods in solving crimes are better than the methods used before.