ROCHESTER, NY – Fingerprint evidence has proven to be an incredibly reliable type of forensic evidence and a symbol of not only crime solving, but individuality, according to a Duke University School of Law report published by the Social Science Research Network (SSRN).
The report concluded there has, through different court rulings over the decades, been an evolution of judicial effort to “better educate jurors regarding the strengths and limitations of fingerprint evidence.”
Early DNA testing was termed “DNA fingerprinting” and decades into the digital era of DNA evidence fingerprint comparisons are still conducted by crime labs around the country, wrote Duke’s Brandon L. Garrett, adding fingerprint evidence has been admitted in criminal courtrooms in the US for more than 140 years.
However, the author said some have questioned whether this will change following the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals in 1993, which required judges to examine the reliability of expert evidence more carefully.
According to the SSRN report, no researchers had studied the reliability of the methods used by fingerprint examiners and errors that occurred, and, following the Daubert ruling, some judges were faced with lengthy hearings, but all favored admissibility.
Garrett wrote Judge Louis Pollak in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania excluded fingerprint expert testimony yet held hearings and reversed the ruling—noting, although judges ruled aggressive claims of a zero-error rate would not be permitted, all federal circuits who addressed the concern affirmed admissibility.
In Garrett’s report, he reviewed all state and federal cases that discussed the admissibility of fingerprint experts in written opinions, totaling over 315 cases since 1993. Only one US court has excluded fingerprint evidence as an unreliable method generally.
A range of courts have, however, excluded particular examiners based on how they have applied the method and based on their qualifications, said Garrett, noting judges also “excluded proffered defense experts, intending to describe limitations of fingerprint methods,” and have limited testimony of prosecution fingerprint experts and focused on the language used to characterize conclusions.
In 2023, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702, was revised, writes Duke’s Garrett, for the first time since 2020, and “that amendment focused on the need to carefully vet the reliability of experts and the opinions that they reach.”
Both changes were particularly important for forensic evidence and have great relevance for the future of testimony by fingerprint examiners, according to Garrett, suggesting judges will likely continue to more carefully scrutinize the reliability of methods, their application, and the testimony that fingerprint examiners in court offer.
