Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-56f9d74cfd-h4v4t Total loading time: 0.708 Render date: 2022-06-25T01:22:37.357Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

13 - Latent Justice

Fingerprint Evidence and the Limits of Adversarialism in England, Australia and New Zealand

from Part IV - Expert Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2022

Jordi Ferrer Beltrán
Affiliation:
Universitat de Girona
Carmen Vázquez
Affiliation:
Universitat de Girona
Get access

Summary

This chapter offers a critical review of reported fingerprint cases in three common law jurisdictions covering the period from the beginning of the twentieth century until the time of publication. It considers how the tools of adversarialism were applied to the admissibility and use of fingerprint evidence in criminal proceedings. It provides a detailed survey of the manner in which defence and appellate counsel contested fingerprint evidence, how courts responded to these challenges in trials and appeals and, implicitly, how examiners testified and prosecutors presented this evidence. In order to facilitate the analysis, the chapter draws upon mainstream scientific research and recommendations. This scientific knowledge operates as a standard that can be used to evaluate legal representations and uses of fingerprint evidence, as well as the effectiveness of legal rules, procedures and personnel. The chapter concludes that legal institutions in each one of these jurisdictions were basically inattentive to the epistemological dimensions of latent fingerprint evidence. Adversarial trial safeguards, including appeals, did not bring the lack of testing and systematic over-claiming to the attention of the courts.

Type
Chapter
Information
Evidential Legal Reasoning
Crossing Civil Law and Common Law Traditions
, pp. 248 - 295
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beavan, C. (2001). Fingerprints: The Origins of Crime Detection and the Murder Case that Launched Forensic Science (London: Hyperion).Google Scholar
Campbell, A. (2011). The Fingerprint Inquiry Report (Edinburgh: APS Group).Google Scholar
Cole, S. (2001). Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, S. (2004). Grandfathering Evidence: Fingerprint Admissibility Rulings from Jennings to Llera Plaza and Back Again. American Criminal Law Review, 41 (3), 1189–276.Google Scholar
Cole, S. (2009). Forensics Without Uniqueness, Conclusions Without Individualization: The New Epistemology of Forensic Identification. Law, Probability, and Risk, 8(3), 233–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, S. (2014). Individualization Is Dead, Long Live Individualization! Reforms of Reporting Practices for Fingerprint Analysis in the United States. Law, Probability and Risk, 13(2), 117–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, S. and Roberts, A. (2012). Certainty, Individualisation and the Subjective Nature of Expert Fingerprint Evidence. Criminal Law Review, 12, 824–49.Google Scholar
Devlin, P. (1979). The Judge, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dror, I. et al. (2006). Contextual Information Renders Experts Vulnerable to Making Erroneous Identifications. Forensic Science International, 156, 74–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. and Tadros, V., eds. (2004). The Trial on Trial: Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial, Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Edmond, G. (2015). Forensic Science Evidence and the Conditions for Rational (Jury) Evaluation. Melbourne University Law Review, 39(1), 77127.Google Scholar
Edmond, G. (2019). Latent Science: A History of Australian Fingerprint Evidence in Australia. University of Queensland Law Journal, 38(2), 301–65.Google Scholar
Edmond, G. (2020). Fingerprint Evidence in New Zealand Courts: The Oversight of Overstatement. New Zealand Universities Law Review, 29, 129.Google Scholar
Edmond, G. and Cunliffe, E. (2016). Cinderella Story? The Social Production of a Forensic ‘Science’. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 106(2), 219–73Google Scholar
Edmond, G. and San Roque, M. (2012). The Cool Crucible: Forensic Science and the Frailty of the Criminal Trial. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 24(1), 5168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmond, G. et al. (2014). Evidence-Based Forensic Initiative. How to Cross-Examine Forensic Scientists: A Guide for Lawyer. Australian Bar Review, 39, 174–97.Google Scholar
Edmond, G., Hamer, D. and Cunliffe, E. (2016). A Little Ignorance Is a Dangerous Thing: Engaging with Exogenous Knowledge Not Adduced by the Parties. Griffith Law Review, 25(3), 383413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmond, G., Martire, K. and San Roque, M. (2017). Expert Reports in the Forensic Sciences. UNSW Law Journal, 40(2), 590637.Google Scholar
Edmond, G., Tangen, J., Searston, R. and Dror, I. (2014). Contextual Bias and Cross-Contamination in the Forensic Sciences: The Implications for Investigations, Plea Bargains, Trials and Appeals. Law, Probability & Risk, 14, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmond, G., Carr, S. and Piasecki, E. (2018). Science Friction: Streamlined Forensic Reporting. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 38(4), 764792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmond, G., Cunliffe, E. and Hamer, D. (2020). Fingerprint Comparison and Adversarialism: The Scientific and Historical Evidence. Modern Law Review, 83(6), 1287–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmond, G., Cunliffe, E., Martire, K. and San Roque, M. (2019). Forensic Science Evidence and the Limits of Cross-Examination. Melbourne University Law Review, 42(3), 858920.Google Scholar
Evett, I. and Williams, R. (1996). Review of the Sixteen Points Fingerprint Standard in England and Wales. Journal of Forensic Identification, 46, 49.Google Scholar
Groebner, V. (2007). Who Are You? Identification, Deception and Surveillance in Early Modern Europe (New York: Zone).Google Scholar
Gudjonsson, G. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook (Oxford: Wiley).Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2005). Law’s Knowledge: Science for Justice in Legal Settings. American Journal of Public Health, 95(S1), 4958.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lander, E. (2017). Response to the ANZFSS council statement on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Report. Australian Journal of Forensic Science, 49, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law Commission of England and Wales. (2011). Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales, 34 Law Commission Report No 325 (HMSO, London).Google Scholar
Leo, R. and Drizin, S. (2004). The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA World. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891.Google Scholar
Lynch, M., Cole, S., McNally, R. and Jordan, K. (2008). Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Evidence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 23741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morling, T. (1987). Report of the Commissioner the Hon Mr Justice TR Morling: Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Chamberlain Convictions (Canberra: Government Printer).Google Scholar
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2012). Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice Through a Systems Approach (US Department of Commerce).Google Scholar
National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (National Academies Press), 142–3 (NRC Report).Google Scholar
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods (Report, 20 September 2016).Google Scholar
Roberts, R., Wilmore, C. and Davis, G. (1993). The Role of Forensic Science Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. Royal Commission on Criminal Justice Research Study No 11 (London: HMSO).Google Scholar
Runciman, V. (1993). Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (London: HMSO).Google Scholar
Saks, M. and Faigman, D. (2008). Failed Forensics: How Forensic Science Lost Its Way and How It Might Yet Find It. Annual Review of Law & Social Science, 4, 149–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saks, M. and Koehler, J. (2005). The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science. Science, 309, 892–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sengoopta, C. (2003). Imprint of the Raj: How Fingerprinting Was Born in Colonial India (London: PanMacMillan).Google Scholar
Tangen, J., Thompson, M. and McCarthy, D. (2011). Identifying Fingerprint Expertise. Psychological Science, 22, 995–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, W. (2005). Analyzing the Relevance and Admissibility of Bullet-Lead Evidence: Did the NRC Report Miss the Target? Jurimetrics Journal, 46(1), 6589.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. et al. (2017). Forensic Science Assessments: A Quality and Gap Analysis – Latent Fingerprint Examination (AAAS) (AAAS Report).Google Scholar
Torpey, J. and Caplan, J. (eds). (2001). Documenting Individual Identity: The Development of State Practices in the Modern World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Ulery, B. et al. (2011). Accuracy and Reliability of Forensic Latent Fingerprint Decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 773–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulery, B. et al. (2012). Repeatability and Reproducibility of Decisions by Latent Fingerprint Examiners. PloS One, 7, e32800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulery, B. et al. (2014). Measuring What Latent Fingerprint Examiners Consider Sufficient Information for Individualization Determinations. Plos One, 9, e110179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Department of Justice. (2006). A Review of the FBI’s Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case (US Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Oversight and Review Division).Google Scholar
Walker, C. and Starmer, K. (eds.). (1999). Miscarriages of Justice: A Review of Justice in Error (London: Blackstone).Google Scholar
White, D. et al. (2014). Passport Officers’ Errors in Face Matching. PLoS ONE, 9(8), 16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×