ÿWPCº  òÂÕ׬ñXyB ÞBè+§¤q™Š—>ŘËoãOpMé/w¿©;S¢A– ßG^È7Õ@çLÑÒ2C#…ǃY ™,ˆ¾,Ú]uU\¢/¿ù7¸ kÏ1’EzAÜþ¾öO.åôn®ýÐq6“V¤è;@?UpVë <ûqeñ¨ªkâ%Ô}º·ÈŒ‚yÖ.òûæ í9;XpØ´ƒ]l–ÐKÔ DŠ¼x.•¯4žÞ’!’ÖåCŠÎ»ÁÙ¸ú¹yOf2”ëŒeÒ–ÄMD8…Ô!é5ïܳÅú]º Qj£¥ÛæsÚ]"l|ä<"ïXÓ y×íDÚõ4³Uøú²ª6ÛWÆŒ8°Ò빤úuÂßÅÍ”Ï1ñï|VØaÏt é8M,?QüZ9¿’ƒù3ƒù©·4ã8sôWÂìÔW_‹»9Ó>%uÀ5|%`¡­±Bä+7Αh¨Ÿw°évòÂÎ\åJäÕ8 ÿê¾vj3ÔÙ§šDˆxCÊcdÊñ±à$y¶øÈÛ¾Ü;_uW䱋.g1 ½ép™ÌÓóÁUÚ ÊpIË4MpcsLrgj‚:Ä^÷¾i f8mg‰u•ó¢l©9is|€\’ô!êu#ÁfU N' %u 0({ w£ 4§ » U:Ê 0l 0Dp p N´ ´ N¶ ^ ¸ Ä mÆ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ NÝ Bß ü ü       U, U:J E„ N† † † † ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ B* ˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0(@øÐ Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡eH+xþÿþÿþÿþÿþÿP3|x¾"Arial Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó"*+s *ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ d Ô_Ô ,c½¬AZ‹Arial ,–ûyAZ‹"Arial Regular&ÿÿ0 d dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òÓ  ÓÔ‡%X¤pXXXÔÑ8€¤pXXdædÈ8ÑÑ  ÑIN€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTÐ ° Ðà@@Ò Ò ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€PUERTO€RICOÐ œì ÐÓ.ÓÌó óÌßA€t&)öÉ ìdEöÉ ìAßÌUNITED€STATES€OF€AMERICAà0 h àà À àà  àÐ@ h(#h(# Ѐ€Plaintiffà0 ` àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà h àà À àÐ& v(#(# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#à€vs.à0¸ ` (#` (#àà@ìì*ì¸ (#¸ (#àˆà0  àCriminal€No.€00„000Ô#†X!% Ðidentification?ðð€€It€is€important€to€realize€that€an€òòabsoluteÐ Ô&$"& Ðidentificationóó€is€an€opinion,€rather€than€a€conclusion€basedÐ º' #' Ðon€scientific€research.€€The€òòfunctionally€equivalentóó€scientificÐ  (ð#( Ðconclusion€(as€seen€in€some€DNA€evidence)€would€be€basedÐ †)Ö$) Ðon€calculations€showing€that€the€probability€of€two€differentÐ l*¼%* Ðpatterns€being€indistinguishably€alike€is€so€small€that€itÐ R+¢&+ Ðasymptotes€with€zero€.€.€.€.€The€scientific€conclusion,Ð 8,ˆ', Ðhowever,€must€be€based€on€tested€probability€models.€€Ð ° ÐThese€simply€do€not€exist€for€fingerprint€patternÐ –æ Ðcomparisons.Ð|Ì` x` x ÐÌÓÓDavid€Stoney,€òòFingerprint€Identification,€in€Modern€Scientific€Evidence:€The€Law€andÐ H˜ ÐScience€of€Expert€Testimonyóó€ðð€21„2.3.1,€at€72€(David€L.€Ô_ÔFaigmanÔ_Ô€et€al.€Ô_ÔedsÔ_Ô.,€WestÐ  d Ð1997).€€Ð à 0 Ðà  àThe€lack€of€testing€in€the€fingerprint€field€also€is€reflected€in€an€official€report€thatÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€International€Association€for€Identification€(ð ðÔ_ÔIAIÔ_Ôðð)€issued€in€1973.€€€The€Ô_ÔIAIÔ_Ô€had€threeÐ xÈ  Ðyears€earlier€formed€a€ð ðStandardization€Committeeðð€for€the€purpose€of€determining€ð ðtheÐ D”  Ðminimum€number€of€friction€ridge€characteristics€which€must€be€present€in€twoÐ ` Ðimpressions€in€order€to€establish€positive€identification.ðð€€International€Association€forÐ Ü, ÐIdentification,€Ô_ÔIAIÔ_Ô€Standardization€Committee€Report€1€(1973).€€€After€three€years€ofÐ ¨ø Ðexamining€the€issue,€however,€the€Committee€was€unable€to€provide€a€minimumÐ tÄ Ðnumber.€€Instead,€the€Ô_ÔIAIÔ_Ô€issued€a€Report€declaring€that€ð ðno€valid€basis€exists€forÐ @ Ðrequiring€a€predetermined€minimum€number€of€friction€ridge€characteristics€which€mustÐ  \ Ðbe€present€in€two€impressions€in€order€to€establish€positive€identification.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€2.€€€OfÐ Ø( Ðcourse,€the€reason€that€the€Ô_ÔIAIÔ_Ô€did€not€have€a€ð ðvalidðð€basis€to€set€a€minimum€numberÐ ¤ô Ðwas€that€no€scientific€testing€as€to€this€issue€had€ever€been€performed.€€€òòSeeóó€Stoney,Ð p!À  Ðòòsupraóó,€€(ð ðIndeed,€the€absence€of€valid€scientific€criteria€for€establishing€a€minimumÐ <#Œ" Ðnumber€of€minutiae€has€been€the€main€reason€that€professionals€have€avoidedÐ %X $ Ðaccepting€one.ðð).€€òòThe€Ô_ÔIAIÔ_Ô€effectively€conceded€as€much€when€it€strongly€recommendedÐ Ô&$"& Ðin€the€Report€that€ð ða€federally€funded€in€depth€study€should€be€conducted,€in€order€toÐ  (ð#( Ðestablish€comprehensive€statistics€concerning€the€frequency,€type€and€location€of€ridgeÐ l*¼%* Ðcharacteristics€in€a€significantly€large€database€of€fingerprint€impressions.ðð€€To€date,Ð 8,ˆ', Ðhowever,€no€such€research€has€been€conducted.óóÐ ° Ðà  àDavid€Ô_ÔAshbaughÔ_Ô,€a€government€expert€on€fingerprints€in€his€new€(unpublished)Ð |Ì Ðbook€on€the€subject€of€fingerprints,€Ô_ÔAshbaughÔ_Ô,€òòBasic€and€Advanced€Ô_ÔRidgeologyÔ_Ôóó,Ð H˜ Ðòòóóacknowledges€that€there€is€currently€no€basis€to€provide€opinions€of€probability€withÐ  d Ðrespect€to€fingerprints.€€òòId.óó€at€100€(ð ðExtensive€study€is€necessary€before€this€type€ofÐ à 0 Ðprobability€opinion€could€be€expressed€with€some€degree€of€confidence€and€consistencyÐ ¬ ü  Ð.€.€.€.ðð).Ð xÈ  Ðà  àThere€is€a€lack€of€testing€in€the€area€of€fingerprint€examination€that€is€devastatingÐ D”  Ðto€a€claim€that€this€is€scientifically€based€process.€The€lack€of€testing,€moreover,Ð ` Ðdeprives€latent€fingerprint€comparisons€from€having€true€evidentiary€significance.€Ð Ü, ÐòòBecause€of€€the€lack€of€testing,€a€latent€fingerprint€examiner€can,€at€best,€correctlyÐ ¨ø Ðdetermine€that€a€certain€number€of€ridge€characteristics€are€in€common€in€the€two€printsÐ tÄ Ðunder€comparison;€the€examiner,€however,€has€no€basis€to€opine€what€the€probability€is,Ð @ Ðgiven€the€existence€of€these€matching€characteristics,€that€the€two€prints€were€actuallyÐ  \ Ðmade€by€the€same€finger.€€€óóInstead,€as€discussed€further€below,€the€latent€printÐ Ø( Ðexaminer€can€provide€only€a€subjective€opinion€that€there€is€a€sufficient€basis€to€make€aÐ ¤ô Ðpositive€identification.€€The€€necessity€of€€being€able€to€provide€statistically€soundÐ p!À  Ðprobabilities€has€been€recognized€in€the€analogous€area€of€DNA.€€€òòSeeóó€òòPeople€v.Ð <#Œ" ÐWallaceóó,€14€Cal.€App.€4th€651,€661€n.3€€(1993)€(stating€that€without€valid€statistics€DNAÐ %X $ Ðevidence€is€ð ðmeaninglessðð);€òò€People€v.€Barneyóó,€8€Cal.€App.€4th€798,€802€(1992)€(ð ðTheÐ Ô&$"& Ðstatistical€calculation€step€is€the€pivotal€element€of€DNA€analysis,€for€the€evidenceÐ  (ð#( Ðmeans€nothing€without€a€determination€of€the€statistical€significance€of€a€match€of€DNAÐ l*¼%* Ðpatterns.ðð);€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔAxellÔ_Ôóó,€235€Cal.€App.€3d€836,€866€(1991)€(ð ðWe€find€that€.€.€.€aÐ 8,ˆ', Ðmatch€between€two€DNA€samples€means€little€without€data€on€probability.€.€.ðð).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ° ÐÓÓà  àB.à0 ` àòòThe€use€of€fingerprint€evidence€is€premised,€in€part,€as€previouslyÐ |Ì Ðdiscussed,€on€the€allegation€that€no€two€persons€can€have€the€sameÐ b² Ðfingerprint€on€the€number€of€characteristics€considered€conclusive€by€anÐ H˜ Ðexpert,Ð. ~` (#` (# Ðà0  àóóÐ (#(# ÐÓ2•Óà  àThe€first€major€premise€of€the€governmentððs€fingerprint€identification€evidence€„„Ð ú J Ðthat€it€is€impossible€for€fingerprints€from€two€or€more€people€to€have€as€many€as€sevenÐ Æ   Ðor€nine€basic€ridge€characteristics€in€common€„„€has€not€only€not€been€scientificallyÐ ’â  Ðtested,€it€has€been€proven€false€by€anecdotal€evidence.€€€As€noted€above,€there€areÐ ^®  Ðtextbook€references€to€prints€that€were€taken€from€two€different€people€that€have€tenÐ *z  Ðridge€characteristics€in€common.€€€Likewise,€there€is€a€journal€article€by€two€IsraeliÐ öF Ðfingerprint€examiners€discussing€their€discovery€of€prints€that€have€seven€points€ofÐ Â Ðsimilarity.€€The€authors€of€this€journal€article,€entitled€ð ðWhat€Is€The€Minimum€StandardÐ ŽÞ ÐOf€Characteristics€For€Fingerprint€Identification,ðð€recognized€the€significance€of€theirÐ Zª Ðfinding€both€with€respect€to€the€possibility€of€erroneous€identifications€and€the€need€for€aÐ &v Ðminimum€identification€standard:€€Ð òB ÐÓÓà0  àà0` (#(#àThere€is€no€doubt€that€this€finding€demands€from€us€exceptional€cautionÐ ¾ Ðwhen€determining€a€positive€identification€which€is€based€on€such€a€smallÐ ¤ô Ðnumber€of€characteristics.€€In€addition,€this€type€of€phenomenon€must€beÐ Š Ú Ðtaken€into€consideration€when€determining€criteria€for€the€identification€ofÐ p!À  Ðfingerprints.ÐV"¦!` (#` (# ÐÌÓI›Ó€€à  à€€€€€€€Ð "$r# Ðà  àUnfortunately,€however,€findings€such€as€this€one€have€not€been€taken€intoÐ î%>!% Ðconsideration€in€determining€criteria€for€the€identification€of€fingerprints.€€As€discussedÐ º' #' Ðfurther€below,€there€is€currently€no€minimum€standard€for€latent€fingerprintÐ †)Ö$) Ðidentifications€in€this€country,€and,€many€examiners€will€make€identifications€on€as€fewÐ ° Ðas€seven€points€of€comparison.€(Please€see€the€testimony€of€the€FBI€agent€in€theÐ |Ì ÐWilliams€case€supra.)€€€The€potential€for€error€is€thus€significant,€especially€given€thatÐ H˜ Ðdistortion€can€cause€ridge€characteristics€from€two€different€prints€to€appear€the€same,Ð  d Ðwhen€in€reality€they€are€not.€€òòSeeóó€òòsupraóó,€at€p.5.€€€Indeed,€the€governmentððs€own€expert,Ð à 0 Ðin€the€Williams€case,€Pat€Wertheim,€recognized€in€his€response€to€the€above€quotedÐ ¬ ü  Ðjournal€article,€ð ðmany€people€may€make€an€erroneous€identification€in€a€case€such€asÐ xÈ  Ðthe€one€[the€authors]€present.ðð€€Pat€A.€Wertheim,€òòLetter€to€the€Editoróó,€23€FingerprintÐ D”  ÐÔ_ÔWhorldÔ_Ô€63€(April€1997).Ð ` ÐÓÓà  àÓY¢ÓIn€the€Mitchell€case€discussed€above€one€test€the€government€conducted€was€toÐ Ü, Ðsend€the€two€latent€prints€at€issue€in€that€case,€along€with€Mr.€Mitchellððs€inked€prints,€toÐ ¨ø Ð53€different€law€enforcement€agencies.€€€The€government€requested€that€the€agenciesÐ tÄ Ðselect€ð ðcourt€qualifiedðð€examiners€to€compare€the€prints€and€to€determine€whether€anyÐ @ Ðidentifications€could€be€made.€€This€experiment€is,€in€fact,€relevant€to€the€secondÐ  \ Ðfundamental€premise€at€issue€in€this€case€„„€whether€latent€print€examiners€can€reliablyÐ Ø( Ðmake€identifications€from€small€latent€print€fragments€„„€as€it€indicates€whether€differentÐ ¤ô Ðexaminers€can,€at€least,€be€expected€to€reach€the€same€conclusions€when€they€areÐ p!À  Ðpresented€with€the€same€data.Ð <#Œ" Ðà  àThe€results€of€this€test,€however,€constitute€an€unmitigated€disaster€for€anyoneÐ %X $ Ðseeking€to€introduce€fingerprint€evidence.€Of€the€35€agencies€that€responded€to€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðgovernmentððs€request,€eight€(23%)€reported€that€no€identification€could€be€made€withÐ  (ð#( Ðrespect€to€one€of€the€two€Ô_ÔlatentsÔ_Ô€and€six€(17%)€reported€that€no€identification€could€beÐ l*¼%* Ðmade€as€to€the€other.€€€The€test€thus€dramatically€reveals€€how€subjective€latent€printÐ 8,ˆ', Ðcomparisons€actually€are€and€how€unreliable€their€results€can€be.Ð ° Ðà  àIn€the€Mitchell€case€the€government€can€hardly€contend€that€the€participatingÐ |Ì Ðagencies€did€not€appreciate€the€extreme€importance€of€the€comparisons€that€they€wereÐ H˜ Ðbeing€asked€to€perform.€€The€governmentððs€cover€letter€to€the€agencies€provided:Ð  d ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€FBI€needs€your€immediate€help!€€The€FBI€laboratory€isÐ à 0 Ðpreparing€for€a€Ô_ÔDaubertÔ_Ô€hearing€on€the€scientific€basis€forÐ Æ   Ðfingerprints€as€a€means€of€identification.€€€The€LaboratoryððsÐ ¬ ü  ÐForensic€Analysis€Section€Latent€Print€Unit,€is€coordinatingÐ ’â  Ðthis€matter€and€supporting€the€Assistant€United€StatesÐ xÈ  ÐAttorney€in€collecting€data€needed€to€establish€this€scientificÐ ^®  Ðbasis€and€its€universal€acceptance.ÐD” ` x` x Ðà@[[(ìà***€ˆÐ *z  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àòòThe€time€sensitive€nature€of€these€requests€cannot€beÐ ` Ðexpressed€strongly€enough,€nor€can€the€importance€of€yourÐ öF Ðcooperation.€€€The€potential€impact€of€the€Federal€court€notÐ Ü, Ðbeing€convinced€of€the€scientific€basis€for€fingerprintsÐ Â Ðproviding€individuality€has€far„reaching€and€potentiallyÐ ¨ø Ðnegative€ramifications€to€everyone€in€law€enforcement.€€€TheÐ ŽÞ ÐFBI€wishes€to€present€the€strongest€data€available€in€anÐ tÄ Ðeffort€to€insure€success€in€this€legal€mater€and€yourÐ Zª Ðcooperation€is€a€key€component€in€achieving€this€result.Ð @ Ðóó(Emphasis€added)€€Ð&v` x` x ÐÓê©ÓÌà  àThe€government€also€cannot€attribute€the€results€of€this€test€to€the€fact€that€theÐ Ø( Ðfingerprint€comparisons€were€performed€by€inexperienced€examiners.€€òòConsistent€withÐ ¤ô Ðthe€urgency€of€the€governmentððs€cover€letter,€each€of€the€state€law€enforcementÐ p!À  Ðagencies€that€did€not€find€a€sufficient€basis€to€make€an€identification€selected€extremelyÐ <#Œ" Ðexperienced€examiners€to€make€the€comparisons.€€óó€€The€range€of€experience€for€thisÐ %X $ Ðgroup€of€examiners€is€between€10€and€30€years,€with€the€average€amount€of€experienceÐ Ô&$"& Ðbeing€20€years.€€In€addition,€virtually€all€of€these€examiners€are€board€certified€membersÐ  (ð#( Ðof€the€Ô_ÔIAIÔ_Ô,€the€highest€distinction€that€a€latent€print€examiner€can€achieve.€€òòId.óó€€Ð l*¼%* ÐAccordingly,€that€this€particular€group€of€examiners€did€not€find€a€sufficient€basis€toÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÔ_Ômake€an€identification€on€either€one€or€both€of€the€latent€prints€at€issue€in€this€case€isÐ ° Ðdevastating€to€the€governmentððs€claim€of€scientific€reliability.€€€Ð |Ì Ðà  àApparently€recognizing€how€disastrous€the€results€of€this€test€were€to€theÐ H˜ Ðproponents€of€fingerprint€evidence,€the€government€has€taken€the€remarkable€step€ofÐ  d Ðattempting€to€eradicate€the€test€results.€€€The€government€asked€each€of€the€agenciesÐ à 0 Ðthat€did€not€make€an€identification€to€retake€the€test,€but€this€time€the€government€hasÐ ¬ ü  Ðprovided€the€agencies€with€the€answers€that€the€government€believes€to€be€correct.€Ð xÈ  ÐAlong€with€a€new€response€form,€the€government€has€sent€each€of€these€agenciesÐ D”  Ðenlargements€of€the€prints€at€issue€displaying€what€the€government€apparently€believesÐ ` Ðare€the€common€characteristics.€€€The€governmentððs€cover€letter€to€the€state€agenciesÐ Ü, Ðprovides€in€pertinent€part:Ð ¨ø ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àSurvey€B€results€indicate€that€your€agency€responded€withÐ tÄ Ðthe€answer€ð ðNoðð€with€respect€to€one€or€both€of€the€latentÐ Zª Ðprints.€€For€your€convenience,€I€have€included€with€this€letterÐ @ Ðanother€set€of€the€original€photographs€submitted€to€you€withÐ &v Ðanother€blank€survey€form€and€a€set€of€enlargedÐ  \ Ðphotographs€of€each€latent€print€and€an€enlargement€ofÐ òB Ðareas€from€two€of€the€fingerprints€contained€on€theÐ Ø( Ðfingerprint€card.€€These€enlargements€are€contained€within€aÐ ¾ Ðclear€plastic€sleeve€that€is€marked€with€red€dots€depictingÐ ¤ô Ðspecific€fingerprint€characteristics.Њ Ú` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àPlease€test€your€prior€conclusions€against€these€enlargedÐ V"¦! Ðphotographs€with€the€marked€characteristics.€€PleaseÐ <#Œ" Ðindicate€the€results€on€the€enclosed€survey€form€and€returnÐ "$r# Ðto€me€by€June€11,€1999.€€You€only€need€to€complete€theÐ %X $ Ðbottom€portion,€the€third€part,€of€the€survey€form.€€AnyÐ î%>!% Ðwritten€narrative€description€or€response€should€be€attachedÐ Ô&$"& Ðto€the€survey€form.к' #'` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI€anticipate€that€this€data€must€be€made€available€to€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðdefense€counsel€and€the€court€prior€to€the€Ô_ÔDaubertÔ_Ô€HearingÐ l*¼%* Ðproceedings.€€Therefore,€please€insure€that€your€handling€ofÐ R+¢&+ Ðthis€matter€is€done€within€the€June€11,€1999€deadline.€€TheÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÔ_ÔDaubertÔ_Ô€Hearing€is€scheduled€for€July€7,€1999,€and€the€trialÐ ° Ðis€scheduled€for€September€13,€1999.Жæ` x` x ÐÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÓÓAll€of€the€state€agencies€at€issue,€with€the€exception€of€one,€Missouri,€haveÐ H˜ Ðresponded€to€the€governmentððs€tactics€by€recanting€and€by€filling€out€the€new€responseÐ  d Ðforms€so€as€to€indicate€that€positive€identifications€have€now€been€made.€What€furtherÐ à 0 Ðproof€of€the€subjective€nature€of€fingerprint€identification€can€be€wanted?Ð ¬ ü  Ðà  àThe€government,€in€turn,€has€revised€its€report€of€the€test€in€Mitchell,€so€as€toÐ xÈ  Ðindicate€that,€except€for€Missouri,€only€positive€identifications€were€returned€by€theÐ D”  Ðparticipating€agencies.€The€revised€report€by€the€government€provided€no€indication€thatÐ ` Ðthese€state€agencies€ever€returned€anything€other€than€positive€identifications.€€In€€thisÐ Ü, Ðfashion,€the€government€attempted,€like€a€magician,€to€make€the€original€results€of€itsÐ ¨ø Ðexperiment€vanish€into€thin€air.Ð tÄ Ðà  àAs€a€noted€fingerprint€examiner€has€aptly€recognized,€an€examinerððs€conclusionÐ @ Ðthat€a€latent€print€is€unidentifiable€must€be€considered€ð ðirrevocable,ðð€as€nothing€is€moreÐ  \ Ðð ðpitifulðð€than€an€examinerððs€subsequent€attempt€to€change€that€conclusion:Ð Ø( ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àOf€course,€the€crucial€aspect€is€the€initial€determination€toÐ ¤ô Ðrender€the€Ô_ÔlatentsÔ_Ô€as€unsuitable€for€identification€purposes€.€.Ð Š Ú Ð.€this€must€be€a€ruthless€decision,€and€it€must€be€irrevocable.€Ð p!À  ÐThere€is€no€more€pitiful€sight€in€fingerprint€work€than€to€seeÐ V"¦! Ðan€expert€who€has€decided€that€a€mark€is€useless,€thenÐ <#Œ" Ðseeking€to€resuscitate€the€latent€to€compare€with€a€firmÐ "$r# Ðsuspect.Ð%X $` x` x ÐÌÓÓJohn€Berry,€òòUseless€Informationóó,€8€Fingerprint€Ô_ÔWhorldÔ_Ô€43€(Oct.€1982).Ð Ô&$"& Ðà  àÓÓà0 ` àÐ ` (#` (# Ðà  àC.à0 ` àòòThere€Is€No€Established€Error€Rate€for€Latent€Print€Comparisons,€But€it€IsÐ †)Ö$) ÐClear€That€Errors€Do€OccurÐl*¼%*` (#` (# ÐÌÓëÇÓà  àóóGiven€the€lack€of€empirical€validation€studies€that€have€been€performed,€it€is€notÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÔ_Ôsurprising€that€there€is€no€established€error€rate€for€latent€print€comparisons.€€€TheÐ ° Ðgovernment,€without€the€benefit€of€any€citation,€has€brazenly€submitted€in€the€past,€thatÐ |Ì Ðthe€error€rate€is€ð ðzero.ðð€€€This€claim,€however,€simply€ignores€the€many€documentedÐ H˜ Ðcases€of€erroneous€fingerprint€identifications.€€€One€such€case€is€reported€in€òòState€v.Ð  d ÐCaldwellóó,€322€N.W.2d€574€(Minn.€1982);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€James€E.€Starrs,€òòA€Miscue€inÐ à 0 ÐFingerprint€Identification:€Causes€and€Concernsóó,€12€J.€of€Police€Sci.€&€Admin.€287Ð ¬ ü  Ð(1984).€€The€prosecutionððs€fingerprint€expert€in€òòCaldwellóó,€a€board€certified€member€ofÐ xÈ  Ðthe€IAI,€with€more€than€14€years€of€experience,€testified€that€a€particular€latent€print€atÐ D”  Ðissue€in€the€case€had€been€made€by€the€defendantððs€right€thumb.€€Starrs,€òòsupraóó,€at€288.€Ð ` ЀThe€examiner€based€his€opinion€on€11€points€of€similarity€that€he€had€charted.€€òòId.óó€€AÐ Ü, Ðsecond€fingerprint€expert,€also€a€board€certified€member€of€the€IAI,€confirmed€the€firstÐ ¨ø Ðexaminerððs€finding,€after€being€consulted€by€the€defense.€€€òòId.óó€€€Following€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendantððs€conviction€for€murder,€however,€it€was€definitively€established€that€both€ofÐ @ Ðthese€certified€fingerprint€experts€had€erred.€€€òòCaldwellóó,€322€N.W.€2d€at€585.€€€TheÐ  \ Ðdefendantððs€conviction€was€accordingly€reversed.€€òòId.óó€€Ð Ø( Ðà  àAnother€erroneous€fingerprint€identification€recently€occurred€in€England.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¤ô ÐStephen€Gray,€òòYard€in€Fingerprint€Blunderóó,€Times€(London),€April€1997,€at€6.€(Ex.€27).€Ð p!À  ÐIn€that€case,€two€latent€prints€that€had€been€recovered€from€a€burglary€crime€sceneÐ <#Œ" Ðwere€each€found€to€have€at€least€sixteen€points€in€common€with€two€of€the€defendantððsÐ %X $ Ðinked€prints.€€These€identifications,€pursuant€to€standard€Scotland€Yard€procedures,Ð Ô&$"& Ðhad€been€triple€checked€prior€to€the€defendantððs€arrest.€€After€the€defendant€had€spentÐ  (ð#( Ðseveral€months€in€jail,€however,€the€identifications€were€found€to€be€erroneous.€Ð l*¼%* Ðà  àAccordingly,€it€is€beyond€dispute€that€erroneous€identifications€do€occur.€TheÐ 8,ˆ', Ðgovernmentððs€own€experts€have€acknowledged€as€much.€€€òòSeeóó€David€L.€Grieve,Ð ° ÐòòReflections€on€Quality€Standardsóó,€16€Fingerprint€Whorld€108,€110€(April€1990)€(€ð ðIt€isÐ |Ì Ðtrue€that€some€overly€zealous€North€American€examiners€have€given€testimonyÐ H˜ Ðconcerning€false€identifications€when€they€believed€the€identifications€were€valid.ðð).€Ð  d ÐWhat€remains€unknown,€however,€is€the€rate€at€which€misidentifications€take€place.€€AsÐ à 0 Ðcommentators€have€recognized,€ð ðit€is€difficult€to€glean€information€about€cases€of€errorÐ ¬ ü  Ðbecause€they€rarely€produce€a€public€record,€and€the€relevant€organizations€andÐ xÈ  Ðagencies€tend€not€to€discuss€them€publicly.ðð€€€Simon€A.€Cole,€òòWitnessing€Identification:Ð D”  ÐLatent€Fingerprinting€Evidence€and€Expert€Knowledgeóó,€28€Social€Studies€in€ScienceÐ ` Ð687,€701€(Oct.„Dec.€1998).€€Moreover,€as€discussed€above,€there€have€been€noÐ Ü, Ðcontrolled€studies€conducted€so€as€to€determine€an€error€rate€for€latent€print€examiners.€€Ð ¨ø Ðà  àJust€how€prevalent€the€problem€of€false€identifications€may€actually€be,€however,Ð tÄ Ðcan€be€seen,€at€least€to€some€extent,€from€the€astonishingly€poor€performance€of€latentÐ @ Ðprint€examiners€on€crime€lab€accreditation€proficiency€exams.€€On€these€exams,€latentÐ  \ Ðprint€examiners€are€typically€provided€with€several€latent€prints€along€with€a€number€ofÐ Ø( Ðð ðten€printðð€inked€impressions€to€compare€them€with.€€€Commencing€in€1995,€the€providerÐ ¤ô Ðof€the€test,€Collaborative€Testing€Service,€began€to€include,€as€part€of€the€test,€one€orÐ p!À  Ðtwo€ð ðeliminationðð€latent€prints€made€by€an€individual€whose€inked€impressions€had€notÐ <#Œ" Ðbeen€furnished.Ð %X $ Ðà  àThe€results€of€the€1995€exam€were,€in€the€words€of€the€governmentððs€own€expert,Ð Ô&$"& ÐDavid€Grieve,€both€ð ðalarmingðð€and€€ð ðchilling.ðð€€Grieve,€òòPossession€of€Truthóó,€òòsupraóó,€atÐ  (ð#( Ð524.€€€Of€the€156€examiners€who€participated,€only€68€(44%)€were€able€to€both€correctlyÐ l*¼%* Ðidentify€the€five€latent€print€impressions€that€were€supposed€to€be€identified,€andÐ 8,ˆ', Ðcorrectly€note€the€two€elimination€latent€prints€that€were€not€to€be€identified.€€Even€moreÐ ° Ðsignificantly,€34€of€these€examiners€(22%)€made€erroneous€identifications€on€one€orÐ |Ì Ðmore€of€the€questioned€prints€for€a€total€of€48€misidentifications.€€òòId.óó€€€ErroneousÐ H˜ Ðidentifications€occurred€on€all€seven€latent€prints€that€were€provided,€including€13€errorsÐ  d Ðmade€on€the€five€latent€prints€that€could€be€correctly€identified€to€the€supplied€suspects.€Ð à 0 ÐòòId.óó€€€In€addition,€one€of€the€two€elimination€latents€was€misidentified€29€times.€€òòId.óóÐ ¬ ü  Ðà  àThese€shockingly€poor€results,€moreover,€could€not€be€blamed€on€the€test.€€TheÐ xÈ  Ð1995€proficiency€exam€was€recognized€as€being€ð ða€more€than€satisfactoryÐ D”  Ðrepresentation€of€real€casework€conditions.ðð€€Grieve,€òòPossession€of€Truthóó,€òòsupraóó,€atÐ ` Ð524.€€The€test€was€designed€assembled€and€reviewed€by€representatives€of€theÐ Ü, ÐInternational€Association€of€Identification.€€òòId.óó€€€As€Mr.€Grieve€correctly€observed,€aÐ ¨ø Ðð ðproficiency€test€composed€of€seven€latents€and€four€suspects€was€considered€neitherÐ tÄ Ðoverly€demanding€or€unrealistic.ðð€€òòId.óó€€€Accordingly,€the€dreadful€results€are€a€matter€ofÐ @ Ðsignificant€concern.€€As€Mr.€Grieve€has€written:Ð  \ ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àReaction€to€the€results€of€the€CTS€1995€Latent€PrintÐ Ø( ÐProficiency€Test€within€the€forensic€science€community€hasÐ ¾ Ðranged€from€shock€to€disbelief.€€Errors€of€this€magnitudeÐ ¤ô Ðwithin€a€discipline€singularly€admired€and€respected€for€itsÐ Š Ú Ðtouted€absolute€certainty€as€an€identification€process€haveÐ p!À  Ðproduced€chilling€and€mind„numbing€realities.€€Thirty„fourÐ V"¦! Ðparticipants,€an€incredible€22%€of€those€involved,€substitutedÐ <#Œ" Ðpresumed€but€false€certainty€for€truth.€€By€any€measure,€thisÐ "$r# Ðrepresents€a€profile€of€practice€that€is€unacceptable€and€thusÐ %X $ Ðdemands€positive€action€by€the€entire€community.Ðî%>!%` x` x ÐÌÓÓGrieve,€òòPossession€of€Truthóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€524„25.€Ð º' #' Ðà  àDespite€Mr.€Grieveððs€call€for€ð ðpositive€action,ðð€the€poor€results€have€continuedÐ †)Ö$) Ðunabated€on€the€more€recent€proficiency€exams.€€On€the€1998€test,€for€example,€onlyÐ R+¢&+ Ð58%€of€the€participants€were€able€to€correctly€identify€all€of€the€latents€and€to€recognizeÐ ° Ðthe€two€elimination€latents€as€being€unidentifiable.€€Collaborative€Testing€Services,€Inc.,Ð |Ì ÐReport€No.€9808,€òòForensic€Testing€Program:€Latent€Prints€Examinationóó€2€(1998)€(Ex.Ð H˜ Ð31).€€òòEven€more€disturbing€was€the€fact€that€21€erroneous€identifications€were€made€byÐ  d Ð14€different€participants.óó€€òòId.óó€Ð à 0 Ðà  à€Not€surprisingly,€courts€have,€in€fact,€looked€at€studies€of€examiner€error€rate€inÐ ¬ ü  Ðdetermining€whether€proffered€ð ðscientificðð€evidence€is€reliable.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.,óó€òòUnited€StatesÐ xÈ  Ðv.€Smithóó,€869€F.2d€348,€353„54€(7th€Cir.€1989)€(studies€of€ð ðactual€cases€examined€byÐ D”  Ðtrained€voice€examinersðð€considered€by€court€in€deciding€admissibility).€€The€SeventhÐ ` ÐCircuitððs€decision€in€òòSmithóó€was,€as€noted€above,€cited€with€approval€by€the€SupremeÐ Ü, ÐCourt€in€òòDaubertóó.€€òòSee€Daubertóó,€509€U.S.€at€594,€113€S.€Ct.€at€2797.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€Saks,Ð ¨ø Ðòòsupraóó,€at€1090€(ð ðEven€if€forensic€metaphysicians€were€right,€that€no€two€of€anything€areÐ tÄ Ðalike,€for€fact€finders€in€earthly€cases,€the€problem€is€to€assess€the€risk€of€error€whateverÐ @ Ðits€source,€be€that€in€the€basic€theory€or€in€the€error€rates€associated€with€humanÐ  \ Ðexaminers€or€their€apparatus.ðð).€Ð Ø( Ðà  àIn€sum,€the€governmentððs€claim€of€a€zero€error€rate€is€plainly€at€odds€with€reality.€€Ð ¤ô ÐWhile€no€controlled€studies€have€been€done€to€determine€an€error€rate,€it€would€appearÐ p!À  Ðfrom€the€proficiency€testing€done€in€the€field€that€the€rate€is€in€fact€substantial.€€€In€thisÐ <#Œ" Ðregard,€it€must€be€remembered€that€it€is€the€governmentððs€burden€to€establish€theÐ %X $ Ðscientific€reliability€of€the€expert€evidence€that€it€seeks€to€admit.€€òòKannankeril€v.Ð Ô&$"& ÐTerminex€Intððl,€Inc.óó,€128€F.2d€802,€806€(3d€Cir.€1997)€(proponent€of€expert€testimonyÐ  (ð#( Ðrequired€to€demonstrate€by€preponderance€of€evidence€that€expertððs€opinion€was€basedÐ l*¼%* Ðon€methods€and€procedures€of€science).€€Just€as€a€common€sense€aside,€what€otherÐ 8,ˆ', Ðendeavor€controlled€by€humans€boasts€a€zero€rate€of€error?€Is€there€any€other€disciplineÐ ° Ðthat€claims€to€conduct€its€examinations€with€a€zero€rate€of€error?€The€most€experiencedÐ |Ì Ðlawyer€would€not€claim€it,€nor€the€most€experienced€medical€doctor,€nor€would€the€mostÐ H˜ Ðexperienced€scientist€make€this€claim€of€himself€or€his€procedures.€Ð  d Ðà  àWith€respect€to€the€error€rate€factor,€the€government€plainly€has€not€met€thatÐ à 0 Ðburden€necessary€to€introduce€the€fingerprint€evidence€in€this€case€against€Mr.Ð ¬ ü  ÐMartinez„Cintron.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Starzecpyzelóó,€880€F.€Supp.€1027,€1037Ð xÈ  Ð(S.D.N.Y.€1995)€(ð ðCertainly,€an€unknown€error€rate€does€not€necessarily€imply€a€largeÐ D”  Ðerror€rate[;]€[h]owever,€if€testing€is€possible,€it€must€be€conducted€if€forensic€documentÐ ` Ðexamination€is€to€carry€the€imprimatur€of€ððscience.ðððð).Ð Ü, ÐÓÓD.à0  àòòThere€Are€No€Objective€Standards€to€Govern€Latent€Fingerprint€ComparisonsШø(#(# Ðóó€€Ð ŽÞ ÐÓõÓà  àLatent€fingerprint€examiners€in€the€United€States€are€currently€operating€in€theÐ tÄ Ðabsence€of€any€uniform€objective€standards.€€€The€absence€of€standards€is€most€glaringÐ @ Ðwith€respect€to€the€ultimate€question€of€all€fingerprint€comparisons:€What€constitutes€aÐ  \ Ðsufficient€basis€to€make€a€positive€identification?€€As€discussed€above,€the€officialÐ Ø( Ðposition€of€the€IAI,€since€1973,€is€that€no€minimum€number€of€corresponding€points€ofÐ ¤ô Ðidentification€are€required€for€an€identification.€€Instead,€the€determination€of€whetherÐ p!À  Ðthere€is€a€sufficient€basis€for€an€identification€is€left€entirely€to€the€subjective€judgment€ofÐ <#Œ" Ðthe€particular€examiner.€€Indeed,€an€expert,€utilized€by€the€government,€DavidÐ %X $ ÐAshbaugh,€has€candidly€acknowledged€that€a€fingerprint€examinerððs€opinion€ofÐ Ô&$"& Ðindividuality€is€ð ðvery€subjective.ðð€€Ashbaugh,€òòPremisesóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€511.€€€€Ð  (ð#( Ðà  àWhile€the€official€position€of€the€IAI,€as€supported€by€Mr.€Ashbaugh,€is€that€thereÐ l*¼%* Ðis€no€basis€for€a€minimum€point€requirement,€many€fingerprint€examiners€in€the€UnitedÐ 8,ˆ', ÐStates€continue€to€employ€either€their€own€informal€point€standards€or€those€that€haveÐ ° Ðbeen€set€by€the€agencies€that€they€work€for.€€Simon€Cole,€òòWhat€Counts€For€Identity?Ð |Ì ÐThe€Historical€Origins€Ofóó€òòThe€Methodology€Of€Latent€Fingerprint€Identificationóó,€12€Sci.Ð H˜ ÐIn€Context€1,€3„4€(Spring€1999)€[hereinafter€Cole,€òòWhat€Counts€For€Identity?óó].€Ð  d Ðà  àIn€addition,€while€there€is€no€uniform€identification€standard€in€the€United€States,Ð à 0 Ðð ðmanyðð€other€countries€have,€in€fact,€set€such€standards€based€on€a€minimum€numberÐ ¬ ü  Ðof€points€of€comparison.€€Ashbaugh,€òòBasic€and€Advanced€Ridgeologyóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€98.€€Ð xÈ  ÐEngland,€for€example,€has€a€minimum€standard€of€16€matching€ridge€characteristics,Ð D”  ÐItaly,€17,€and€France€and€Australia,€12.€€Christophe€Champod,€òòNumerical€StandardsÐ ` Ðand€ð ðProbableðð€Identificationsóó,€45€J.€of€Forensic€Identification€136,€138€(1995)€(Ex.€35).€Ð Ü, ÐThe€primary€purpose€of€establishing€such€standards€is€to€try€to€insure€against€erroneousÐ ¨ø Ðidentifications.€€K.€Luff,€The€16„Point€Standard,€16€Fingerprint€Whorld€73€(Jan.€1990).Ð tÄ Ðà  àAs€commentators€have€recognized,€the€question€of€whether€there€should€be€aÐ @ Ðminimum€point€standard€for€latent€print€identifications€has€bitterly€divided€the€fingerprintÐ  \ Ðcommunity.€€òòSeeóó€Cole,€òòWhat€Counts€For€Identityóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€1.€€While€latent€printÐ Ø( Ðexaminers€have€somehow€managed€to€maintain€a€united€front€in€the€courtroom,€theyÐ ¤ô Ðhave€been€at€odds€in€the€technical€literature.€€òòId.óó€at€6.€€Mr.€Ashbaugh,€for€example,€hasÐ p!À  Ðwritten€that€ð ðit€is€unacceptable€to€use€the€simplistic€point€philosophy€in€modern€dayÐ <#Œ" Ðforensic€science.ðð€€Ashbaugh,€òòPremisesóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€513.€€As€Mr.€Ashbaugh€has€correctlyÐ %X $ Ðrecognized,€the€selection€of€any€particular€point€standard€is€based,€not€on€scientificallyÐ Ô&$"& Ðconducted€probability€studies,€but€ð ðthrough€what€can€best€be€described€as€an€ððeducatedÐ  (ð#( Ðconjectureðð.ðð€Sòòeeóó€òòalsoóó€Ashbaugh,€òòPremisesóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€512€€(stating€that€ð ðsuperficial€andÐ l*¼%* Ðunsubstantiated€quips€became€the€methodology€of€the€point€systemðð).€The€problem€forÐ 8,ˆ', Ðthe€government€in€seeking€to€admit€fingerprint€evidence€is€however,€that€while€Mr.Ð ° ÐAshbaugh€is€correct€that€the€point€system,€as€employed€by€fingerprint€examiners€overÐ |Ì Ðthe€past€hundred€years,€is€scientifically€invalid,€neither€Mr.€Ashbaugh,€nor€any€otherÐ H˜ Ðmember€of€the€fingerprinting€community,€has€advanced€a€scientifically€soundÐ  d Ðalternative.€€€Here,€for€example,€is€Mr.€Ashbaughððs€explanation€as€to€how€a€latent€printÐ à 0 Ðexaminer,€in€the€absence€of€a€minimum€point€standard,€is€supposed€to€know€when€aÐ ¬ ü  Ðsufficient€basis€exists€to€make€an€identification:Ð xÈ  ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA€frequently€asked€question€is€how€much€is€enough?€€€TheÐ D”  Ðopinion€of€individualization€or€identification€is€subjective.€€It€isÐ *z  Ðan€opinion€formed€by€the€friction€ridge,€based€on€the€frictionÐ ` Ðridge€formations€found€in€agreement€during€comparison.€Ð öF ÐThe€validity€of€the€opinion€is€coupled€with€an€ability€to€defendÐ Ü, Ðthat€position,€and€both€are€founded€in€oneððs€personalÐ Â Ðknowledge€ability€and€experience€€€€Ð¨ø` x` x ÐÓ®ÓÓÓà@ww)ìà***ˆÐ ŽÞ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àHow€much€is€enough?€Finding€adequate€friction€ridgeÐ tÄ Ðformations€in€sequence,€that€one€knows€are€specific€detailsÐ Zª Ðof€the€friction€skin,€and€òòin€the€opinionóó€of€the€friction€ridgeÐ @ Ðidentification€specialist€there€are€sufficient€uniqueness€withinÐ &v Ðthose€details€to€eliminate€all€other€possible€donors€in€theÐ  \ Ðworld,€is€considered€enough.€€At€that€point€individualizationÐ òB Ðhas€occurred€and€the€print€has€been€identified.€€TheÐ Ø( Ðidentification€was€established€by€the€agreement€of€frictionÐ ¾ Ðridge€formations,€in€sequence,€having€sufficient€uniquenessÐ ¤ô Ðto€individualize.Њ Ú` x` x ÐÌAshbaugh,€òòBasic€and€Advanced€Ridgeologyóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€70.Ð V"¦! ÐÌÓÓà  àThe€utter€meaninglessness€of€this€explanation€speaks€for€itself.€Please€keep€inÐ "$r# Ðmind€that€he€is€an€expert€used€by€the€United€States€government€as€a€proponent€of€theÐ î%>!% Ðaccuracy€of€fingerprint€identification.€€€Ð º' #' Ðà  àMr.€Ashbaughððs€prior€writings€on€this€subject€provide€little€in€the€way€of€additionalÐ †)Ö$) Ðinsight.€€He€has€stated,€for€example,€that€while€ð ðin€some€instances€we€may€form€anÐ R+¢&+ Ðopinion€on€eight€ridge€characteristics€[,]€[i]n€other€instances€we€may€require€twelve€orÐ ° Ðmore€to€form€the€same€opinion.ðð€€David€Ashbaugh,€òòThe€Key€to€Fingerprint€Identificationóó,Ð |Ì Ð10€Fingerprint€Whorld€93,€93€(April€1985).€€Mr.€Ashbaughððs€explanation€for€this€slidingÐ H˜ Ðscale€is€that€some€ridge€characteristics€are€more€unique€than€others.òòóó€€But,€as€discussedÐ  d Ðabove,€no€weighted€measures€of€the€different€characteristics€have€ever€been€adoptedÐ à 0 Ðby€the€fingerprint€community.€€€Accordingly,€as€Mr.€Ashbaugh€has€recognized,€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðparticular€examinerððs€determination€of€whether€eight€or€twelve€matching€characteristicsÐ xÈ  Ðare€sufficient€in€a€particular€case€is€entirely€subjective.€€€Ð D”  Ðà  àThe€lack€of€uniform€standards€for€latent€print€comparisons€extends€well€beyondÐ ` Ðthe€question€of€what€ultimate€standard€should€apply€for€a€positive€identification.€Ð Ü, ÐObjective€standards€are€lacking€throughout€the€entire€comparison€process.€€€Take€forÐ ¨ø Ðexample,€the€simple€issue€of€how€points€of€similarity€should€be€counted.€€WhenÐ tÄ Ðexaminers€find€themselves€struggling€to€reach€a€certain€point€criteria,€they€often€engageÐ @ Ðin€a€practice€known€as€ð ðpushing€the€mark.ðð€€Clegg,€òòsupraóó,€at€99.€€Pursuant€to€thisÐ  \ Ðpractice,€a€single€characteristic,€such€as€a€short€ridge,€is€counted€not€as€one€point,€butÐ Ø( Ðrather€as€two€separate€ridge€endings.€€òòId.óó€€Or,€as€seen€in€this€case,€a€single€enclosure€isÐ ¤ô Ðcounted€as€two€bifurcations.òòóó€€While,€as€discussed€above,€the€IAI€has€declared€thatÐ p!À  Ðpoints€should€not€be€counted€in€this€fashion,€it€is€nevertheless€commonly€done,€as€canÐ <#Œ" Ðbe€seen€by€the€work€of€the€FBI€examiner€in€the€Mitchell€case.€The€obvious€danger€ofÐ %X $ Ðthis€practice,€as€one€examiner€has€candidly€recognized,€is€its€ð ðpotential€to€generateÐ Ô&$"& Ðerror.€.€.€.ðð€Clegg,€òòsupraóó,€at€101.€€Ð  (ð#( Ðà  à€€The€lack€of€objective€standards€in€fingerprint€comparisons€can€also€be€seenÐ l*¼%* Ðwith€respect€to€the€so€called€ð ðone€dissimilarity€rule.ðð€€òòSeeóó€John€I.€Thornton,€òòThe€One„Ð 8,ˆ', ÐDissimilarity€Doctrine€in€Fingerprint€Identificationóó,€306€Intððl€Crim.€Police€Rev.€89€(MarchÐ ° Ð1977).€€Pursuant€to€this€doctrine,€if€€two€fingerprints€contain€a€single€genuineÐ |Ì Ðdissimilarity€then€the€prints€cannot€be€attributed€to€the€same€finger€or€individual.€€€òòId.óó€Ð H˜ ÐThis€doctrine€is€well€recognized€in€the€fingerprint€community€and€has€been€endorsed€inÐ  d Ðthe€writings€of€experts€frequently€used€by€the€United€States€government.€€DavidÐ à 0 ÐAshbaugh,€òòDefined€Pattern,€Overall€Pattern€and€Unique€Patternóó,€42€J.€of€ForensicÐ ¬ ü  ÐIdentification€505,€510€(1992)€[hereinafter€Ashbaugh,€òòDefined€Patternóó].€€The€doctrine,Ð xÈ  Ðhowever,€is€effectively€ignored€in€practice.€€€As€Dr.€Thornton€has€recognized,€once€aÐ D”  Ðfingerprint€examiner€finds€what€he€or€she€believes€are€a€sufficient€number€of€matchingÐ ` Ðcharacteristics€to€make€an€identification,€the€examiner€will€then€explain€away€anyÐ Ü, Ðobserved€dissimilarity€as€a€product€of€distortion€or€artifact:Ð ¨ø ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFaced€with€an€instance€of€many€matching€characteristicsÐ tÄ Ðand€one€point€of€disagreement,€the€tendency€on€the€part€ofÐ Zª Ðthe€examiner€is€to€rationalize€away€the€dissimilarity€on€theÐ @ Ðbasis€of€improper€inking,€uneven€pressure€resulting€in€theÐ &v Ðcompression€of€a€ridge,€a€dirty€finger,€a€disease€state,Ð  \ Ðscarring,€or€super„imposition€of€the€impression.€€How€can€heÐ òB Ðdo€otherwise?€€If€he€admits€that€he€does€not€know€the€causeÐ Ø( Ðof€the€disagreement€then€he€must€immediately€conclude€thatÐ ¾ Ðthe€impressions€are€not€of€the€same€digit€in€order€toÐ ¤ô Ðaccommodate€the€one„dissimilarity€doctrine.€€The€fault€hereÐ Š Ú Ðis€that€the€nature€of€the€impression€may€not€suggest€whichÐ p!À  Ðof€these€factors,€if€any,€is€at€play.€€The€expert€is€then€in€anÐ V"¦! Ðembarrassing€position€of€having€to€speculate€as€to€whatÐ <#Œ" Ðcaused€the€dissimilarity,€and€often€the€speculation€is€withoutÐ "$r# Ðany€particular€foundation.à À àà  àÐ%X $` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€practical€implication€of€this€is€that€the€one„dissimilarityÐ Ô&$"& Ðdoctrine€will€have€to€be€ignored.€€It€is,€in€fact,€ignoredÐ º' #' Ðanyway€by€virtue€of€the€fact€that€fingerprint€examiners€willÐ  (ð#( Ðnot€refrain€from€effecting€an€identification€when€numerousÐ †)Ö$) Ðmatching€characteristics€are€observed€despite€a€point€ofÐ l*¼%* Ðdisagreement.€€Actually,€the€one„dissimilarity€doctrine€hasÐ R+¢&+ Ðbeen€treated€rather€shabbily.€€The€fingerprint€Ô_ÔexaminerÐ 8,ˆ', Ðadheres€to€it€only€until€faced€with€an€aberration,€thenÐ ° Ðdiscards€it€and€conjures€up€some€fanciful€explanation€for€theÐ –æ Ðdissimilarity.€Ð|Ì` x` x ÐÌ€Thornton,€òòsupraóó,€at€91.Ð H˜ ÐÌÓÓà  àThe€absence€of€real€standards€in€the€fingerprint€field€also€can€be€seen€withÐ  d Ðrespect€€to€the€issue€of€verification.€€€Independent€verification€is€considered€an€essentialÐ à 0 Ðpart€of€the€identification€process.€€€But,€in€real€practice,€fingerprint€agencies€sometimesÐ ¬ ü  Ðð ðwaive€the€verification€requirement.ðð€€€William€Leo,€òòIdentification€Standards€„€The€QuestÐ xÈ  Ðfor€Excellenceóó,€€Cal.€Identification€Dig.€(December€1995).€€€Moreover,€as€revealed€byÐ D”  Ðone€of€the€governmentððs€experts€in€the€Williams€case€supra,€some€examiners€will€simplyÐ ` Ðgo€from€one€supervisor€to€another€until€a€desired€verification€is€obtained.€€€Pat€Ð Ü, ÐWertheim,€òòThe€Ability€Equationóó,€46€J.€of€Forensic€Identification€149,€153€(1996).€€€€Mr.Ð ¨ø ÐWertheim€candidly€recounts€in€this€article€his€experience€of€shopping€for€a€supervisorÐ tÄ Ðso€as€to€obtain€the€positive€verification€that€he€believed€was€warranted.€€òòId.óóÐ @ Ðà  àFinally,€the€lack€of€standards€in€the€fingerprint€community€extends€to€the€trainingÐ  \ Ðand€experience€requirements€for€latent€print€examiners.€€To€put€it€simply,€no€suchÐ Ø( Ðrequirements€currently€exist.€€€òòSeeóó€Leo,€òòsupraóó€(recognizing€need€for€ð ðminimum€trainingÐ ¤ô Ðand€experience€standardsðð€for€latent€print€examiners).€€As€one€of€the€governmentððsÐ p!À  Ðexperts€has€recognized,€ð ðpeople€are€being€hired€directly€into€latent€print€units€without€soÐ <#Œ" Ðmuch€as€having€looked€at€a€single€fingerprint€image.ðð€€Wertheim,€òòsupraóó,€at€152.€€€OnceÐ %X $ Ðhired,€the€training€that€examiners€receive€is€typically€minimal.€€€Consider€whatÐ Ô&$"& Ðgovernment€expert€David€Grieve€has€said€on€the€subject€of€training€in€the€Mitchell€case:Ð  (ð#( ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€harsh€reality€is€that€latent€print€training€as€a€structured,Ð l*¼%* Ðorganized€course€of€€study€is€scarce.€€Traditionally,Ð R+¢&+ Ðfingerprint€training€has€centered€around€a€type€ofÐ 8,ˆ', Ðapprenticeship,€tutelage,€or€on„the„job€training,€in€its€bestÐ ° Ðform,€and€essentially€a€type€of€à  àself€study,€in€its€worst.€€Ð –æ ÐMany€training€programs€are€the€ð ðlook€and€à È àà  àlearnððÐ |Ì Ðvariety,€and€aside€from€some€basic€classroom€instruction€inÐ b² Ðpattern€interpretation€and€classification€methods,€are€oftenÐ H˜ Ðimpromptu€sessions€dictated€more€by€the€schedule€andÐ . ~ Ðduties€of€the€trainer€than€the€needs€of€the€student.€€SuchÐ  d Ðapprenticeship€is€most€often€expressed€in€terms€of€duration,Ð ú J Ðnot€in€specific€goals€and€objectives,€and€often€end€with€aÐ à 0 Ðsubjective€assessment€that€the€trainer€is€ready.ÐÆ  ` x` x ÐÌÓ.ÓDavid€L.€Grieve,€òòThe€Identification€Process:€The€Quest€For€Qualityóó,€40€J.€of€ForensicÐ ’â  ÐIdentification€109,€110„111€(1990).Ð ^®  Ðà  àAs€Mr.€Grieve€has€recognized,€the€direct€result€of€this€poor€training€is€deficientÐ *z  Ðexaminers.€€ð ðThe€quality€of€work€produced€is€directly€proportional€to€the€quality€ofÐ öF Ðtraining€received.ðð€€òòId.óó€€òòSee€alsoóó€David€L.€Grieve,€òòThe€Identification€Process:€TraditionsÐ Â Ðin€Trainingóó,€40€J.€of€Forensic€Identification€195,€196€(1990)€(that€there€are€ð ðexaminersÐ ŽÞ Ðperforming€identification€functions€who€are€not€qualified€and€proficient€.€.€.€unfortunatelyÐ Zª Ðhas€been€too€well€establishedðð);€Robert€D.€Olsen,€òòCult€of€the€Mediocreóó,€8€FingerprintÐ &v ÐÔ_ÔWhorldÔ_Ô€51€(Oct.€1982)€(ð ðThere€is€a€definite€need€for€us€to€strengthen€our€professionalÐ òB Ðstandards€and€rise€above€the€cult€of€the€mediocre.ðð).€€Ð ¾ Ðà  àMoreover,€the€lack€of€training€and€standards€has€not€only€resulted€in€a€plethoraÐ Š Ú Ðof€deficient€examiners,€but€dishonest€ones€as€well.€€Another€expert€used€by€the€UnitedÐ V"¦! ÐStates€government€is,€Pat€Wertheim.€He€estimates€that€there€have€been€ð ðhundreds€orÐ "$r# Ðeven€thousandsðð€of€cases€of€forged€and€fabricated€latent€prints.€€Pat€Wertheim,Ð î%>!% ÐòòDetection€of€Forged€and€Fabricated€Latent€Printsóó,€44€J.€of€Forensic€Identification€653,Ð º' #' Ð675€(1994)€(ð ðA€disturbing€percentage€of€experienced€examiners€polled€by€the€authorÐ †)Ö$) Ðdescribed€personal€exposure€to€at€least€one€of€these€cases€during€their€careers.ðð).Ð R+¢&+ ÐÔ_Ôà  àIn€sum,€latent€print€examiners€operate€without€the€benefit€of€any€objectiveÐ ° Ðstandards€to€guide€them€in€their€comparisons.€€There€also€are€no€objective€standards€orÐ |Ì Ðminimum€qualifications€with€respect€to€their€hiring€and€training.€€Accordingly,€anotherÐ H˜ Ðindicium€of€good€science€is€critically€lacking€in€this€case.Ð  d ÐÓÓà  àE.à0 ` àòòThere€Is€No€General€Consensus€That€Fingerprint€Examiners€Can€ReliablyÐ à 0 ÐMake€Identifications€on€the€Basis€of€Limited€Matching€RidgeÐ Æ   ÐCharacteristicsЬ ü ` (#` (# ÐÌÓP;Óà  àóó€The€relevant€question,€pertaining€to€fingerprint€identification€is€not€whether€entireÐ xÈ  Ðfingerprints€are€unique€and€permanent,€but€whether€there€is€a€general€consensus€thatÐ D”  Ðfingerprint€examiners€can€make€reliable€identifications€on€the€basis€of€only€a€limitedÐ ` Ðnumber€of€basic€ridge€characteristics.€€The€answer€to€that€question€is€plainly€no.€€€AsÐ Ü, Ðdiscussed€above,€many€countries€require€that€there€be€at€least€12€„€17€matching€ridgeÐ ¨ø Ðcharacteristics€before€fingerprint€evidence€is€deemed€sufficiently€reliable€so€as€toÐ tÄ Ðwarrant€its€admission€at€a€criminal€trial.€€Ð @ Ðà  àMoreover,€in€this€country,€no€relevant€scientific€community,€beyond€fingerprintÐ  \ Ðexaminers€themselves,€generally€accept€that€latent€fingerprint€identifications€areÐ Ø( Ðreliable.€€As€courts€have€recognized,€in€defining€a€relevant€scientific€community,€it€isÐ ¤ô Ðnecessary€to€look€beyond€the€practitioners€of€the€technique€that€is€under€assessment.€Ð p!À  ÐòòWilliamson€v.€Reynoldsóó,€904€F.Supp.€1529,€1558€(E.D.€Okl.€1995)€(ð ðNot€even€theÐ <#Œ" Ðððgeneral€acceptanceðð€standard€is€met,€since€any€ððgeneral€acceptanceðð€seems€to€beÐ %X $ Ðamong€hair€experts€who€are€generally€technicians€testifying€for€the€prosecution,€notÐ Ô&$"& Ðscientists€who€can€objectively€evaluate€such€evidence.ðð);€òòUnited€States€v.€Starzecpyzelóó,Ð  (ð#( Ð880€F.€Supp.€1027,€1038€(S.D.N.Y.€1995)€(ð ð[Forensic€Document€Examiners]€certainlyÐ l*¼%* Ðfind€general€acceptance€within€their€own€community,€but€this€community€is€devoid€ofÐ 8,ˆ', Ðfinancially€disinterested€parties,€such€as€academics.ðð).€€Contrary€to€the€governmentððsÐ ° Ðgeneral€acceptance€argument,€mainstream€scientists€have€essentially€ignored€theÐ |Ì Ðquestion€of€whether€individuals€can€be€reliably€identified€through€latent€fingerprintÐ H˜ Ðimpressions.€€Saks,€òòsupraóó,€at€1081.€€And€as€discussed€above,€the€forensic€scienceÐ  d Ðexperts€that€have€examined€the€issue,€have€found€the€fingerprint€field€to€be€scientificallyÐ à 0 Ðdeficient.€€òòSeeóó€Saks,€òòsupraóó,€at€1106€(ð ðA€vote€to€admit€fingerprints€is€a€rejection€ofÐ ¬ ü  Ðconventional€science€as€a€criterion€for€admission.ðð);€David€L.€Faigman€et€al.,€òòModernÐ xÈ  ÐScientific€Evidence:€The€Law€and€Science€of€Expert€Testimonyóó€ðð21„1.0,€at€55€(WestÐ D”  Ð1997)€(ð ð[B]y€conventional€scientific€standards,€any€serious€search€for€evidence€of€theÐ ` Ðvalidity€of€fingerprint€identification€is€likely€to€be€disappointing.ðð);€Stoney,€òòFingerprintÐ Ü, ÐIdentificationóó,€òòsupraóó,€ðð21„2.3.1,€at€72€(ð ð[T]here€is€no€justification€[for€fingerprintÐ ¨ø Ðidentifications]€based€on€conventional€science:€no€theoretical€model,€statistics€or€anÐ tÄ Ðempirical€validation€process.ðð).€€Accordingly,€the€factor€of€general€acceptance€also€cutsÐ @ Ðin€favor€of€the€defendantððs€motion€to€exclude€the€governmentððs€fingerprint€evidence.Ð  \ Ðà  àF.à0 ` àòòThe€Fingerprint€Literature€Confirms€the€Scientific€Bankruptcy€of€the€FieldóóÐØ(` (#` (# Ðà  àThe€fundamental€premises€underlying€latent€print€identifications€have€not€beenÐ ¤ô Ðcritically€examined€in€the€technical€literature€of€the€fingerprint€community.€€€As€a€UnitedÐ p!À  ÐStates€government€expert,€David€Ashbaugh,€has€stated€ð ðit€is€difficult€to€comprehendÐ <#Œ" Ðthat€a€complete€scientific€review€of€friction€ridge€identification€has€not€taken€place€atÐ %X $ Ðsometime€during€the€last€one€hundred€years[;]€[a]€situation€seems€to€have€developedÐ Ô&$"& Ðwhere€this€science€grew€through€default.ðð€€Ð  (ð#( Ðà  à€As€Mr.€Ashbaugh€has€correctly€recognized€that€there€is€a€ð ðlack€of€publishedÐ l*¼%* Ðmaterial€about€the€identification€process.ðð€€Ashbaugh,€òòDefined€Pattern,óó€òòsupraóó,€at€508.€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÓÓà  àÓiMÓIn€sum,€the€literature€of€latent€fingerprint€examiners€ð ðfails€to€meet€theÐ ° Ðexpectations€of€the€òòDaubertóó€Court€„„€that€a€competitive,€unbiased€community€ofÐ |Ì Ðpractitioners€and€academics€would€generate€increasingly€valid€science.ðð€€€òòUnited€StatesÐ H˜ Ðv.€Starzecpyzelóó,€880€F.€Supp.€1027,€1037€(S.D.N.Y.€1995).€€€€Ð  d ÐÓÓà  àG.à0 ` àòòLatent€Fingerprint€Identifications€Are€Analogous€to€Other€Techniques€ThatÐ à 0 ÐCourts€Have€Found€Scientifically€UnreliableÐÆ  ` (#` (# ÐóóÌÓ.OÓà  àLatent€fingerprint€comparisons€are€analogous€to€two€other€long€standing€forensicÐ ’â  Ðidentification€techniques€that,€in€the€wake€of€òòDaubertóó,€have€been€found€scientificallyÐ ^®  Ðdeficient;€these€techniques€are€hair€comparisons€and€handwriting€analysis.€€òòSeeóóÐ *z  ÐòòWilliamson€v.€Reynoldsóó,€940€F.Supp.€1529,€1554„59€(E.D.€Okla.€1995);€òòUnited€States€v.Ð öF ÐStarzecpyzelóó,€880€F.€Supp.€1027,€1028„50€(S.D.N.Y.€1995).€Ð  Ðà  à€Like€latent€fingerprint€identifications,€the€fundamental€premises€of€handwritingÐ ŽÞ Ðanalysis€are€that€no€two€people€write€alike€and€that€forensic€document€examiners€canÐ Zª Ðreliably€determine€authorship€of€a€particular€document€by€comparing€the€document€withÐ &v Ðknown€samples.€€€òòStarzecpyzelóó,€880€F.€Supp.€at€1031.€€As€with€fingerprints,€however,Ð òB Ðthese€premises€have€not€been€tested.€€€òòId.óó€at€1037.€€€Nor€has€an€error€rate€for€forensicÐ ¾ Ðdocument€examiners€been€established.€€òòId.óó€€€As€the€court€in€òòStarzecpyzelóó€recognized,Ð Š Ú Ðwhile€ð ðan€unknown€rate€does€not€necessarily€imply€a€large€error€rate€.€.€.€.€if€testing€isÐ V"¦! Ðpossible,€it€must€be€conducted€if€forensic€document€examination€is€to€carry€theÐ "$r# Ðimprimatur€of€ððscience.ðððð€òòId.óó€€€The€parallel€between€the€handwriting€and€fingerprint€fieldsÐ î%>!% Ðextends€to€the€issue€of€objective€standards.€€€As€in€the€fingerprint€field,€forensicÐ º' #' Ðdocument€examiners€do€not€have€any€numerical€standards€to€govern€their€analysis.€€€òòId.óóÐ †)Ö$) Ðat€1032.€€€And,€like€the€fingerprint€community,€forensic€document€examiners€have€Ô_ÔnotÐ R+¢&+ Ðsubjected€themselves€to€ð ðcritical€self„examinationðð€in€their€literature.€€€òòId.óó€at€1037.€€€ForÐ ° Ðthese€various€reasons,€the€district€court€in€òòÔ_ÔStarzecpyzelÔ_Ôóó€concluded€that€ð ðforensicÐ |Ì Ðdocument€examination€.€.€.€cannot€after€òòÔ_ÔDaubertÔ_Ôóó,€be€regarded€as€ððscientific€.€.€.Ð H˜ Ðknowledge.ðððð€òòIdóó.Ð  d Ðà  àHair€analysis€also€is€analogous€to€latent€fingerprint€comparisons.€€€Like€latentÐ à 0 Ðprint€examiners,€hair€analysts€look€for€a€number€of€matching€characteristics€in€doingÐ ¬ ü  Ðhair€comparisons.€òòWilliamson€v.€Reynoldsóó,€904€F.€Supp.€at€1553€(ð ðÔ_ÔHettÔ_Ô€testified€thatÐ xÈ  Ðthere€are€approximately€25€characteristics€used€in€hair€comparisons.ðð).€€Hair€analystsÐ D”  Ðthen€state€whether€the€hair€found€at€the€crime€scene€is€consistent€microscopically€withÐ ` Ðthe€hair€of€the€defendant.€€òòId.óó€€As€with€fingerprints,€there€has€been€a€ð ðscarcity€ofÐ Ü, Ðscientific€studies€regarding€the€reliability€of€hair€comparison€testing.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€1556.€€€And,Ð ¨ø Ðlike€fingerprints,€ð ðthere€is€no€research€to€indicate€with€any€certainty€the€probabilities€thatÐ tÄ Ðtwo€different€hair€samples€are€from€the€same€individual.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€1558.€€Accordingly,€asÐ @ Ðwith€fingerprints,€the€ð ðevaluation€of€hair€evidence€remains€subjective,€the€weight€theÐ  \ Ðexaminer€gives€to€the€presence€or€absence€of€a€particular€characteristic€depends€uponÐ Ø( Ðthe€examinerððs€subjective€opinion.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€1556.€€Given€these€various€considerations,Ð ¤ô Ðthe€district€court€in€òòWilliamsonóó€concluded€that€ð ðexpert€hair€comparison€testimony€[doesÐ p!À  Ðnot]€meet€any€of€the€requirements€of€òòÔ_ÔDaubertÔ_Ôóóðð€and€that€the€state€trial€court€thus€erred€inÐ <#Œ" Ðadmitting€it.€€òòId.óó€at€1558.€€€€€Ð %X $ ÐÓÓà  àH.à0 ` àòòLatent€Fingerprint€Comparisons€Have€Not€Been€Put€to€Any€Non„JudicialÐ Ô&$"& ÐApplicationsк' #'` (#` (# ÐóóÌÓú_Óà  àThere€have€been€no€non„judicial€applications€of€latent€fingerprint€comparisons.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐAs€government€expert€David€Ô_ÔAshbaughÔ_Ô€has€recognized,€the€use€of€fingerprints€hasÐ R+¢&+ Ðbeen€ð ðunder€the€control€of€the€police€community€rather€than€the€scientific€communityððÐ ° Ðand€latent€prints€are€used€by€law€enforcement€solely€as€a€ð ðtool€for€solving€crime.ðð€Ð |Ì ÐÔ_ÔAshbaughÔ_Ô,€òòBasic€and€Advanced€Ô_ÔRidgeologyÔ_Ôóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€3.€€Thus,€this€factor€also€favorsÐ H˜ ÐMr.€Ô_ÔððsÔ_Ô€motion€to€preclude.Ð  d Ðà  àIn€sum,€having€considered€the€various€indicators€of€scientific€reliability€set€forthÐ à 0 Ðby€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòÔ_ÔDaubertÔ_Ôóó€and€the€Third€Circuit€in€òòDowningóó,€it€is€clear€that€latentÐ ¬ ü  Ðfingerprint€comparisons€do€not€constitute€scientifically€reliable€evidence.€€Indeed,€theÐ xÈ  Ðpicture€that€has€emerged€from€this€analysis€is€a€disturbing€one.€€It€is€a€picture€of€poorlyÐ D”  Ðtrained€law€enforcement€fingerprint€examiners€making€extremely€subjectiveÐ ` Ðdeterminations€in€the€absence€of€any€uniform€standards€and€in€the€absence€of€anyÐ Ü, Ðtesting€to€validate€the€fundamental€premises€upon€which€the€technique€rests.€€It€shouldÐ ¨ø Ðtherefore€hardly€be€surprising€that€forensic€science€commentators€have€concluded€thatÐ tÄ Ða€ð ðvote€for€science€is€a€vote€to€exclude€fingerprint€expert€opinions.ðð€€Saks,€òòsupraóó,€atÐ @ Ð1106€.Ð  \ ÐÓÓ4.à0  àòòA€€Federal€Court€Has€Rejected€Fingerprint€Identification€Evidence€Because€of€itsÐ Ø( ÐScientific€Unreliabilityóóо(#(# ÐÓºgÓÓÓÌÓÓà  àIn€the€only€known€instance€in€which€a€federal€trial€court€€has€performed€the€typeÐ Š Ú Ðof€analysis€that€is€now€mandated€by€òòÔ_ÔDaubertÔ_Ôóó,€the€district€court€excluded€theÐ V"¦! Ðgovernmentððs€fingerprint€identification€evidence,€finding€that€there€was€no€scientificÐ "$r# Ðbasis€for€the€latent€print€examinerððs€opinion€of€identification.€€òòUnited€States€v.€ParksóóÐ î%>!% Ð(C.D.€Cal.€1991)€(No.€CR„91„358„Ô_ÔJSLÔ_Ô).€The€district€court€in€òòParksóó€reached€thisÐ º' #' Ðdetermination€after€hearing€from€three€different€fingerprint€experts€produced€by€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðgovernment€in€an€effort€to€have€the€evidence€admitted.€€€The€testimony€of€these€threeÐ R+¢&+ ÐÔ_Ôexperts,€however,€confirms€virtually€every€argument€that€has€been€advanced€above.Ð ° Ðà  àThe€first€fingerprint€expert€to€testify€in€òòParksóó€was€a€Los€Angeles€PoliceÐ |Ì ÐDepartment€latent€fingerprint€examiner,€Diana€Castro.€€Ms.€Castro€testified€that€sheÐ H˜ Ðidentified€€three€different€fingerprints€at€the€crime€scene€as€having€between€10€and€12Ð  d Ðpoints€of€similarity€with€the€known€prints€of€the€defendant.€€€€What€particularlyÐ à 0 Ðconcerned€the€court€about€these€identifications€was€Ms.€Castroððs€testimony€that€herÐ ¬ ü  Ðminimum€standard€for€an€identification€is€only€eight€points€of€similarity.€€Ms.€CastroÐ xÈ  Ðacknowledged€that€her€standard€is€on€the€ð ðlow€sideðð€and€that€other€examiners€requireÐ D”  Ðten€or€twelve€points€or€even€more.€€Ms.€Castro€further€acknowledged€that€there€hasÐ ` Ðnever€been€any€empirical€studies€done€to€determine€if€two€people€might€have€the€sameÐ Ü, Ðfingerprints.€€Ð ¨ø Ðà  àThe€district€court€in€òòParksóó€found€Ms.€Castroððs€testimony€disturbing€because€allÐ tÄ Ðthe€latent€print€examiners€that€had€€previously€testified€before€the€court€had€testified€toÐ @ Ðhigher€minimum€€point€€thresholds.€€In€this€regard,€the€court€stated:Ð  \ ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThis€business€of€having€a€sliding€scale€ð!ð€and€this€is€a€veryÐ Ø( Ðhigh€risk€business,€because€Iððve€had€a€lot€of€fingerprintingÐ ¾ Ðtestimony,€and€itððs€been€from€the€same€group€of€people€byÐ ¤ô Ðand€large,€and€my€impression,€correct€me€if€you€can€ð!ð€that€itÐ Š Ú Ðslides€up€and€down,€that€if€you€have€only€10€points,€youððreÐ p!À  Ðcomfortable€with€8,€if€you€have€12,€youððre€comfortable€withÐ V"¦! Ð10,€if€you€have€50,€youððre€comfortable€with€20.Ð<#Œ"` x` x ÐÓqÓÓÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à***Ð "$r# Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIððve€had€them€say€that€when€they€had€20€and€25,€and€say,€ð ðIÐ %X $ Ðwouldnððt€be€comfortable€with€less€than€10,ðð€and€theyððveÐ î%>!% Ðthrown€out€some€that€were€less€than€10.€€Whether€they€wereÐ Ô&$"& Ðless€than€8,€I€donððt€know.€€Ðº' #'` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àSuddenly€I€find€that€you€come€ð!ð€being€I€think€probablyÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€most€junior€thatððs€ever€testified€before€me€that€Iððve€everÐ †)Ö$) Ðpermitted€to€testify€as€an€expert€ð!ð€you€are€comfortable€withÐ l*¼%* Ðfewer€than€anybody€that€has€ever€testified€before€me€before.€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÐ8,ˆ',` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àAnd€as€it€happens,€you€also€have€fewer€than€anybodyÐ ° Ðthatððs€ever€testified€before€me;€that€makes€me€veryÐ –æ Ðuncomfortable.Ð|Ì` x` x ÐÌÓtÓà  àThe€district€court€then€questioned€the€government€as€to€what€the€fingerprintÐ H˜ Ðtreatises€state€with€respect€to€a€minimum€point€standard.€The€court€was€incredulousÐ  d Ðover€€Ms.€Castroððs€testimony€that€no€studies€had€been€performed.€€If€there€are€noÐ à 0 Ðstudies€the€court€stated,€ð ðthen€this€is€not€a€science€and€there€are€no€experts€in€it.ðð€€Ð ¬ ü  Ðà  àIn€response€to€the€courtððs€concerns,€the€government€called€Ms.€CastroððsÐ xÈ  Ðsupervisor,€Darnell€Carter,€to€testify€regarding€the€ð ðstandard€in€the€industry.ðð€€Mr.Ð D”  ÐCarterððs€testimony,€however,€only€succeeded€in€further€revealing€the€unreliability€of€theÐ ` Ðevidence.€€€Mr.€Carter€disclosed€to€the€court€that€while€the€Los€Angeles€PoliceÐ Ü, ÐDepartment€has€a€10€point€standard,€which€can€slide€down€to€8€with€a€supervisorððsÐ ¨ø Ðapproval,€the€Los€Angeles€Sheriffððs€Department€employs€a€12€or€15€point€rule€and€thatÐ tÄ Ðð ðif€there€was€a€survey€taken,€you€would€probably€get€a€different€number€from€everyÐ @ Ðdepartment€that€has€a€fingerprint€section€as€to€their€lowest€€number€for€a€comparison.ðð€Ð  \ ÐMr.€Carter€further€revealed,€in€a€response€to€a€direct€question€from€the€court,€that€thereÐ Ø( Ðis€no€ð ðliteratureðð€regarding€this€issue€and€that€he€is€unaware€why€there€is€no€uniformÐ ¤ô Ðrule.€€Ð p!À  Ðà  àAfter€hearing€Mr.€Carterððs€testimony,€the€district€court€was€only€more€convincedÐ <#Œ" Ðthat€the€fingerprint€evidence€should€be€excluded.€€To€try€to€ð ðresuscitateðð€the€evidence,Ð %X $ Ðthe€government€called€yet€a€third€fingerprint€expert,€Steven€Kasarsky,€a€board€certifiedÐ Ô&$"& Ðmember€of€the€IAI€and€an€employee€of€the€United€States€Postal€Inspection€Service.€TheÐ  (ð#( Ðcourt€specifically€questioned€Mr.€Kasarsky€as€to€where€the€ð ðscienceðð€is€to€supportÐ l*¼%* Ðfingerprint€identifications.€€Mr.€Kasarsky,€however,€could€not€provide€a€satisfactoryÐ 8,ˆ', Ðresponse.€Ð ° Ðà  àLike€Mr.€Carter€and€Ms.€Castro,€Mr.€Kasarsky€testified€that€ð ðeveryone€in€our€fieldÐ |Ì Ðbasically€has€independent€standards.ðð€Mr.€Kasarsky€also€acknowledged€thatÐ H˜ Ðmisidentifications€in€the€field€had€occurred,€and,€in€response€to€a€question€from€theÐ  d Ðcourt,€he€admitted€that€no€published€studies€regarding€false€identification€had€ever€beenÐ à 0 Ðdone.òò€€€€Mr.€Kasarsky€further€admitted€that€he€knew€of€instances€where€prints€from€twoÐ ¬ ü  Ðdifferent€people€have€had€ten€matching€characteristics€and€that€he€personally€comparedÐ xÈ  Ðprints€from€different€individuals€possessing€six€points€of€similarity.óó€€Ð D”  Ðà  àWhile€Mr.€Kasarsky€testified€that€he€was€able€to€observe€a€dissimilarity€betweenÐ ` Ðthese€prints€which€convinced€him€that€they€had€been€made€by€two€different€people,€heÐ Ü, Ðadmitted€that€on€other€occasions€a€dissimilarity€might€go€unseen€given€the€partial€natureÐ ¨ø Ðof€most€latent€prints.€€€€Accordingly,€Mr.€Kasarsky€conceded€that€latent€print€examinersÐ tÄ Ðare€in€ð ðdangerous€territoryðð€when€making€identifications€on€the€basis€of€only€eight€pointsÐ @ Ðof€similarity:Ð  \ ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€Court:€Unless€you€have€a€very€clear€full€print,€you€canððtÐ Ø( Ðrule€out€a€dissimilarity€someplace€on€it€that€you€didnððt€have,Ð ¾ Ðand€if€you€have€only€five€or€six,€or€seven€or€eight,€youððre€inÐ ¤ô Ðdangerous€territory.Њ Ú` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€Witness:€Yes,€Your€Honor,€because€if€you€canððt€see€theÐ p!À  Ðarea€that€might€have€the€dissimilarity,€one€can€only€òòguessóó.ÐV"¦!` x` x ÐÌÓh†Ó(emphasis€added).Ð "$r# Ðà  àAfter€hearing€Mr.€Kasarskyððs€testimony,€the€district€court€ruled€that€he€would€notÐ î%>!% Ðadmit€the€governmentððs€fingerprint€evidence.€€€Here€is€some€of€what€the€district€courtÐ º' #' Ðhad€to€say€regarding€the€scientific€bankruptcy€of€the€field:Ð †)Ö$) ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àYou€donððt€have€any€standards.€€As€far€as€I€can€tell,€you€haveÐ R+¢&+ Ðno€standard.€€Itððs€just€an€ipse€dixit.€€ð ðThis€is€unique,€this€Ô_ÔisÐ 8,ˆ', Ðvery€unusual?ðð€ð ðHow€do€you€know€itððs€unusual?ðð€Because€IÐ ° Ðnever€saw€it€before.ðð€€Where€is€the€standard,€where€is€theÐ –æ Ðstudy,€where€is€the€statistical€base€that€been€studied?€€Ð|Ì` x` x Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à****Ð b² ÐÓŠÓÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àI€have€discovered€.€.€.€that€there€are€very€limitedÐ H˜ Ðobjective€standards,€and€that€the€training€in€this€area,€if€itÐ . ~ Ðexists,€other€than€ð ðIððve€done€this€for€a€long€time€and€IððmÐ  d Ðteaching€you€what€I€know,ðð€is€almost€nonexistent.Ðú J` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àPeople€that€have€done€it€teach€each€other.€€So€far€asÐ à 0 ÐIððve€heard€from€you,€and€so€far€Iððve€heard€from€anybody,Ð Æ   Ðthose€kinds€of€studies€that€would€turn€this€into€a€bona€fideÐ ¬ ü  Ðscience€simply€havenððt€been€done.Ð’â ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€information€is€there,€it€could€be€done,€but€it€hasnððtÐ xÈ  Ðbeen€done.€€There€has€been€no€study€about€how€farÐ ^®  Ðqualified€experts€with€existing€prints€could€look€at€them€andÐ D”  Ðmake€a€mistake€on€which€kinds€of€things.€€Thatððs€somethingÐ *z  Ðthat€can€be€done.€€Those€prints€exist.€€It€wouldnððt€be€hard€forÐ ` Ðthose€studies€to€be€made.ÐöF` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThis€thing€could€be€turned€into€a€science,€but€it€isnððtÐ Ü, Ðnow,€not€from€what€youððve€said,€and€not€from€what€she€said,Ð Â Ðand€not€from€what€her€supervisor€said.Шø` x` x Ðà@PP(ìà****ˆÐ ŽÞ ÐÓ~ŒÓÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð à€€à ¸ àNow€I€have€heard€a€lot€of€conversation€about€what€itÐ tÄ Ðtakes€to€become€an€expert€in€this€field,€and€I€will€say,€basedÐ Zª Ðon€what€Iððve€heard€today,€the€expertise€is€as€fragile€as€anyÐ @ Ðgroup€that€Iððve€ever€€heard€€hold€themselves€out€as€experts.Ð&v` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à€€à ¸ àThe€basis€for€calling€themselves€experts€seems€to€meÐ  \ Ðto€be€very€fragile.€€The€basic€premise€that€they€donððt€needÐ òB Ðexpertise,€that€fingerprints€donððt€change,€doctors€told€themÐ Ø( Ðthat.о` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à€€à ¸ àThe€other€premise€that€they€are€unique€is,€I€think,€aÐ ¤ô Ðmatter€of€genetics,€and€also€a€matter€not€of€fingerprintÐ Š Ú Ðspecialists.€€Those€are€givens€in€the€expertise.Ðp!À ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à€€à ¸ àThe€expertise€that€they€have€said€that€they€possess,Ð V"¦! Ðto€say€this€is€unique,€I€canððt€find,€as€I€said,€a€common€threadÐ <#Œ" Ðof€analysis.€€It€may€be€there,€but€I€havenððt€heard€it.Óª’ÓÐ"$r#` x` x Ðà  àòòUnites€States€v.€Parksóó€thus€stands€as€a€compelling€precedent€for€the€instantÐ î%>!% Ðmotion.€€€Having€conducted€a€searching€inquiry€for€the€ð ðscienceðð€of€fingerprints,€theÐ º' #' Ðdistrict€court€in€òòParksóó€properly€determined€that€no€such€science€exists€and€that€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðgovernmentððs€fingerprint€evidence€did€not€possess€sufficient€reliability€to€warrantÐ R+¢&+ Ðadmission.€€Mr.€Defendant€respectfully€submits€that€this€Court€should€reach€the€sameÐ ° Ðdetermination€here.Ð |Ì ÐòòÓÓóó5.à0  àòòThe€Governmentððs€Fingerprint€Identification€Evidence€Should€Also€Be€ExcludedÐ H˜ ÐUnder€Fed.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€403.Ð. ~(#(# ÐóóÌÓšÓà  àIn€addition€to€the€fact€that€the€governmentððs€fingerprint€identification€evidenceÐ ú J Ðdoes€not€possess€sufficient€scientific€reliability€so€as€to€warrant€admission€underÐ Æ   ÐFederal€Rule€of€Evidence€702,€the€evidence€is€also€properly€Ô_ÔexcludableÔ_Ô€pursuant€toÐ ’â  ÐFederal€Rule€of€Evidence€403.€€Rule€403€provides€for€the€exclusion€of€relevant€evidenceÐ ^®  Ðð ðif€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,Ð *z  Ðconfusion€of€the€issues€or€misleading€the€jury.€.€.€.ðð€€Ð öF Ðà  àAs€federal€courts€have€recognized,€Rule€403€plays€an€important€role€with€respectÐ Â Ðto€expert€witness€testimony,€because€when€it€comes€to€experts,€especially€ð ðscientificÐ ŽÞ Ðexperts,ðð€jurors€may€be€awed€by€an€ð ðððaura€of€special€reliability€and€trustworthinessððÐ Zª Ðwhich€may€cause€undue€prejudice,€confuse€the€issues€or€mislead€the€jury.ðð€€òòWilliamsonÐ &v Ðv.€Reynoldsóó,€904€F.€Supp.€at€1557€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.€Ô_ÔAmaralÔ_Ôóó,€488€F.2d€1148,Ð òB Ð1152€(9th€Cir.€1973).€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔDaubertÔ_Ôóó,€509€U.S.€at€595,€113€S.€Ct.€at€2798€(ð ð[Ô_ÔE]xpertÔ_ÔÐ ¾ Ðevidence€can€be€both€powerful€and€quite€misleading€because€of€the€difficulty€ofÐ Š Ú Ðevaluating€it.ðð);€òòUnited€States€v.€Ô_ÔStarzecpyzelÔ_Ôóó,€880€F.€Supp.€at€1048€(ð ðWith€regard€toÐ V"¦! Ðscientific€experts,€a€major€rationale€for€òòFryeóó,€and€now€òòÔ_ÔDaubertÔ_Ôóó,€is€that€scientificÐ "$r# Ðtestimony€may€carry€an€ððaura€of€infallibility.ðððð€(quoting€1€Charles€T.€McCormick€et€al.,Ð î%>!% ÐòòMcCormick€on€Evidenceóó€ðð€203,€at€608„09€(3d€ed.€1984));€òòsee€alsoóó€John€W.€Strong,Ð º' #' ÐòòLanguage€and€Logic€in€Expert€Testimony:€Limiting€Expert€Testimony€by€Restrictions€ofÐ †)Ö$) ÐFunction,€Reliability€and€Formóó,€71€Or.€L.€Rev.€349,€361€(1992)€(ð ðThere€is€virtualÐ R+¢&+ ÐÔ_Ôunanimity€among€courts€and€commentators€that€evidence€perceived€by€jurors€to€beÐ ° Ðððscientificðð€in€nature€will€have€particularly€persuasive€effect.ðð).€€€€€Ð |Ì Ðà  àThe€risk€of€undue€prejudice€and€confusion€is€especially€great€when€it€comes€toÐ H˜ Ðlatent€fingerprint€identifications.€€€With€fingerprint€evidence€having€been€uncriticallyÐ  d Ðaccepted€by€the€American€legal€system€for€the€past€80€yearsòòóó,€the€general€public€hasÐ à 0 Ðcome€to€firmly€€believe€that€fingerprint€identifications€are€scientifically€based€and€thatÐ ¬ ü  Ðthey€are€invariably€accurate.€€€In€a€study€that€was€recently€conducted€concerning€jurorsððÐ xÈ  Ðattitudes€toward€fingerprint€evidence,€93%€of€the€978€jurors€questioned€expressed€theÐ D”  Ðview€that€fingerprint€identification€is€a€science,€and€85%€ranked€fingerprints€as€the€mostÐ ` Ðreliable€means€of€identifying€a€person.€€Charles€Illsley,€òòJuries€Fingerprints€and€theÐ Ü, ÐExpert€Fingerprint€Witnessóó€16,€presented€at€The€International€Symposium€on€LatentÐ ¨ø ÐPrints€(FBI€Academy,€Quantico,€VA,€July,€1987).€€As€demonstrated€above,€however,Ð tÄ Ðthese€commonly€held€views€are€completely€unwarranted.€€Latent€fingerprintÐ @ Ðidentifications€are€not€scientifically€supported€and€there€are€substantial€questionsÐ  \ Ðregarding€their€reliability.€€€Thus,€while€the€probative€value€of€the€governmentððsÐ Ø( Ðfingerprint€evidence€is,€in€reality,€low,€the€danger€of€undue€prejudice€is€extremely€high,Ð ¤ô Ðsince€there€is€a€substantial€danger€that€the€jury€will€give€the€evidence€considerably€moreÐ p!À  Ðweight€than€it€deserves.€€The€governmentððs€fingerprint€evidence,€therefore,€is€properlyÐ <#Œ" Ðexcludable€not€only€under€Federal€Rule€of€Evidence€702,€but€under€Rule€403€as€well.€€Ð %X $ ÐòòSeeóó€òòWilliamson€v.€Reynoldsóó,€904€F.€Supp.€at€1558€(finding€that€the€probative€value€ofÐ Ô&$"& Ðhair€comparison€evidence€was€substantially€outweighed€by€its€prejudicial€effect).€€€€€€€Ð  (ð#( ÐÓÓà0  àòòÐ (#(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àÌÓá¬Óà  àÔ_ÔóóÐ 8,ˆ', Ðà@LL%ìàòòò òCONCLUSIONó óóóˆÐ ° Ðà  àFor€all€of€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€governmentððs€fingerprint€identificationÐ ˆØ Ðevidence€should€be€precluded.€€Ð T¤ Ðà  àWhat€is€basically€and€unbelievably€evident€is€that€there€is€no€scientific€basis€forÐ  p Ðsaying€that€2,3,10€or€20€similar€characteristics€found€in€prints,€conclusively€prove€thatÐ ì < Ðthey€came€from€the€same€individual.€There€is€simply€no€statistical€basis€that€exists,€thatÐ ¸   Ðallows€an€examiner€to€determine€that€a€set€of€prints€come€from€a€particular€person,Ð „Ô  Ðmuch€less€that€they€came€from€the€person€to€the€exclusion€of€everyone€else.€Ð P   Ðà  àTherefore,€lacking€this€data€and€the€ability€to€make€statistically€meaningfulÐ l Ðpredictions,€the€fingerprint€expert€during€trial,€sidesteps€the€issue€by€saying,€without€anyÐ è8 Ðbasis€in€statistics€or€fact,€that€the€prints€came€from€the€defendant€and€from€no€one€elseÐ ´ Ðin€the€entire€world.€A€statement€that€the€expert€simply€cannot€defend€on€a€scientificÐ €Ð Ðbasis.€€The€basis€of€a€trial€in€the€American€system€of€justice€is€fundamental€fairness,Ð Lœ Ðthis€evidence,€in€this€trial,€does€not€meet€that€criteria.Ð h Ðà  àThe€defendant€would€respectfully€request€this€Court€to€exclude€the€fingerprintÐ ä4 Ðidentification€in€this€case€from€evidence€during€the€trial.Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àRespectfully€submitted,Ð |!Ì  ÐÌÓÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ %d $ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAssistant€Federal€DefenderÐ à&0"& ÐÌÔ#†$¼=»X$X¤p9c#ÔÔ#†¼c&»»$¼=÷b#Ô