Under the microscope: legal challenges to fingerprints and DNA as methods of forensic identification1

This article is an expanded version of an article first published in Crime and Justice International Vol 20, No 81, pp 39–40, July/August 2004.

Abstract

Suspects in legal cases can be identified by an ever‐growing list of novel methods. The most common techniques currently used include latent print and DNA analysis. Although standard fingerprinting entered the courtroom over a century ago, the admissibility of fingerprint evidence has undergone a period of intense scrutiny in the USA in recent years. In contrast, most challenges to DNA analysis as a science came during its inception in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Current challenges to fingerprint evidence attempt to discredit the science behind the theory whereas challenges to DNA evidence often bring into question the competency of the analyst. In either case, the lessons learned in various court systems give guidance for those implementing the newer emerging biometric identification technologies such as facial recognition systems, retinal scans and the like. The first section of this article deals with fingerprint analysis and recent challenges to fingerprint admissibility in US courts. The second section discusses the evolution of DNA analysis and relevant cases. The final section gives recommendations for emerging biometric technologies to follow to satisfy the standards set forth by the courts.

Notes

Correspondence: Jeff Wise, 17406 Anvil Circle, Houston, Texas 77090, USA. E‐mail: [email protected].

This article is an expanded version of an article first published in Crime and Justice International Vol 20, No 81, pp 39–40, July/August 2004.

Ray Wickenheiser ‘Trace DNA: a review, discussion of theory, and application of the transfer of trace quantities of DNA through skin contact’ Journal of Forensic Science Vol 47, No 3, pp 442–450, 2002.

Richard Saferstein Criminalistics 7th edn, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001, p 3.

For an in depth look at the historical development of latent print analysis see Colin Beavan Fingerprints Hyperion, New York, 2001.

Frye v U.S., 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir., 1923)

Daubert v Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

U.S. v Mitchell, Cr. No. 96‐407 (1999).

U.S. v Llera Plaza, Cr. No. 98‐362‐10,11,12 (13 March 2002).

Regina v Buckley, 143 SJ LB 159 (30 April 1999).

For a running tally of the challenges to latent print admissibility see http://www.onin.com/fp/ index.htm. Visited 31 August 2004.

Matt Ridley Genome Harper Collins, New York, 1999, pp 132–133.

See U.S. Department of Justice Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories 2001, p 7.

B Budowle, G Carmody, R Chakraborty and K Monson, ‘Source attribution of a forensic DNA profile’, US Department of Justice, Forensic Science Communications, Vol 2, No 3, July 2000, http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2000/source.htm

A Isenberg and J Moore, ‘Mitochondrial DNA analysis at the FBI laboratory’, US Department of Justice, Forensic Science Communications, Vol 1, No 2, July 1999, http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july1999/dnalist.htm

Ibid.

P Gill, P Ivanov, C Kimpton, R Piercy, N Benson, G Tully, I Evett, E Hagelberg and K Sullivan ‘Identification of the remains of the Romanov family by DNA analysis’ Nature Genetics Vol 6, pp 130–135, 1994.

U.S. v Bonds, 12 F.3d. 540 (CA6, 1993).

Ibid at 551.

At the time of the District Court hearing (1990), the Frye standard of ‘general acceptance’ was the appropriate case precedent. Once the case reached the 6th Court of Appeals (1993) the Daubert standard was the proper standard for admissibility.

U.S. v Bonds at 559.

People v Castro, 545 N.Y.S.2d. 985 (N.Y.Sup., 1989).

Ibid at 987.

State v Traylor, 656 N.W.2d. 885 (Minn., 2003).

Ibid at 895.

Ibid at 896.

U.S. v Coleman, 202 F.Supp.2d. 962 (E.D.Mo., 2002).

Ibid at 970.

For a description of the LCN DNA methods used by the Forensic Science Service and success stories see http://www.forensic.gov.uk/forensic_t/inside/news/docs/DNA_LCN.doc. Visited 31 August 2004.

B Budowle, D Hobson, J Smerick, A L Smith ‘Low copy number—consideration and caution’ Laboratory Division, FBI, Washington, D.C., 2001.

C Murray, A Lowe, P Richardson, R Wivell, P Gill, G Tully, J Whitaker ‘Use of low copy number (LCN) DNA in forensic inference, Forensic Science Service’ Presentation at the 12th International Symposium on Human Identification, 2001.

R van Oorschot and M Jones ‘DNA fingerprints from fingerprints’ Nature Vol 387, 1997, p 767.

L Roewer, P Knijff and M Kayser ‘Y chromosome STR analysis in forensic practice’ Presentation at the 2nd European Symposium on Human Identification, 1998.

W Coleman and G Tsongalis Molecular Diagnostics for the Clinical Laboratorian Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, 1997, p 146.

http://www.biometrics.org/html/introduction.html. Visited 31 August 2004.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jeff Wise

Correspondence: Jeff Wise, 17406 Anvil Circle, Houston, Texas 77090, USA. E‐mail: [email protected].